CAR_Public/150213.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, February 13, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 32


                             Headlines

#1A LIFESAFER: Faces "Wagstaff" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
#1A LIFESAFER: Faces "Wagstaff" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
A+ AUTO INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AGAPE SENIOR: Patients' Suit Remanded to So. Carolina State Court
ALY CENTRIFUGE: Faces "Mallett" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

AMURA JAPANESE: "Gore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
AOL INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Derby" Suit Claims
APPLE INC: Falsely Marketed Devices Storage Capacity, Suit Says
ARNOLD LEE: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile, "Brodsky" Suit Says
ARYTZA LIMITED: Recalls Cucina Grande Deli Pizza Meat Trio

AUDIO VISUAL SERVICES: Trial Court Ruling in Suit v. PSAV Flipped
AVA RESTAURANT: Faces "Cazares" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BALTIMORE CONVENTION: Lewis Gets Partial OK to Amend Complaint
BANK OF AMERICA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
BANKERS LIFE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Agents' Commissions

BARCLAY REX: Faces "Santiago" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BEACHBODY FITNESS: "Michael" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
BEAUVAIS LTEE: Recalls Granny Smith Apples and Gala Apples
BIRCHBOX INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Renewal Offers
BLACKBERRY CORPORATION: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Smartphones

BNR CONCRETE: "Rosa" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
C&J ENERGY: Del. Supreme Court Flips Injunction Order
CACTUS DRILLING: Faces "Perry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CANDA SIX: Recalls Te Chang Food Bean Curd Products
CHINA NATIONAL: Faces "Amorin" Suit Over Defective Drywalls

COSTY'S ENERGY: Faces "Hickle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DALCOM MODERN: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
DEFENDER SECURITY: Party's Inactivity Caused Dismissal of Suit
DORAKU LINCOLN: "Petrov" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
EFT HOLDINGS: Faces "Wang" Suit Over Investment Scam

EMC MORTGAGE: N.D. Ill. Judge Allows Complaint to be Amended
ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Gag Order
EVERYDAY SUPERFOODS: Recalls Omega Mango Yogurt Topping
FIRST PREMIER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
FLORIDA TURNPIKE: "Mererro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

FORD: Recalls Escape and MKC Models Due to Inoperative Fuel Pump
GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga.
GATEWAY FUNDING: Faces "Rocha" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
GOLD BUYER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Penalties
GOLDEN HOMES: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

GRACO CHILDREN'S: Fails to Sink "Long" Complaint
GUARANTEED INVESTMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HENRY FORD: Mich. App. Flips Cert. Ruling, Remands Patient Suit
HILLSIDE TIRE: Faces "Cepeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HOLLISTER BISTRO'S: "Reitenga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

IKEA CANADA: Recalls VYSSA Crib Mattresses
INTEGRITY FACILITY: Faces "Ellison" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
J3 OIL: "Mena" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
JBI INC: Final Approval Hearing Set for April 27
KTM: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models

LAND O' LAKES: Court Narrows Discovery Bid in FLSA Suit
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Farias" Suit Over Financial Reports
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Grayson" Suit Over Financial Reports
LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Trax" Suit Over Automatic Renewal Offers
LOVE 466 AVENUE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

MAVIMA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Valencia" Suit Says
MEADOWBROOK MEAT: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MEDICAL MUTUAL: Faces "Tremmel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MERSCORP INC: Dismissal of Plymouth County Suit Affirmed
MHI HOTELS: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

MIDWOOD LUMBER: Faces "Vivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MOISHE'S MINI: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MON PETIT: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MOTOR COACH: Recalls J Series Model
NATIONAL CASH: "Spangler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Judge Compels Arbitration in "Schriever" Suit
NEWMAR: Recalls Essex Diesel Pusher Motorhome Model
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Summary Judgment Bid Okayed in "Nelson"
PGA TOUR: Doesn't Pay Caddies Endorsement Services, Suit Says
PIERCE: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models

PRIME TIME: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RETROFITNESS LL: Ardino et al. Suit Goes Back to State Court
ROBERTA MOORE: Faces "Tzintzun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ROCHDALE VILLAGE: Faces "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
SAN BERNARDINO: Appellate Court Keeps Ruling in "Williams" Case

SANOFI: Faces "de Brabander" Over Misleading Financial Reports
SCIFUNERAL SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
SCOTIAN GOLD: Recalls Scotian Gold Apple Slices
SHELBY HEALTHCARE: Tenn. High Court Rules on Bid to Quash Liens
SIX AMIGOS: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Soria-Ramirez" Suit Says

SNC-LAVALIN ENGINEERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SOUTHERN WRECKER: "O'Neil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SUPERIOR RECHARGE: Mere Filing of Suit Does Not Waive Arbitration
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Herring" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TELESTONE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports

THRIFTY FOODS: Recalls Veggie Quiche Due to Undeclared Soy
TULSA INSPECTION: "Fenley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Secure Business Licenses
UNCLE T FOOD: Recalls Wei Hsin and Yu Hsiang Bean Curd Products
UNITED STATES: Court Dismissed Suit for Lack of Jurisdiction

VENAXIS INC: Sued in D. Colo. Over Misleading Financial Reports
ZA RESTAURANT: "Shahin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 47,507 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Verdict in Pa. Suit v. Crane Co. Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briefing in NY Suit v. Crane Co. Concludes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Accepts Appeal in "Suttner" v. Crane Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in Pa. Suits Appeals

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 66 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $431-Mil. Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $392MM Fibro Defense Receivable
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Has 5,700 Fibro Claims at Dec. 26
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 117 Fibro Cases as of Nov. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Negotiations Ongoing in AMEC-Aerojet Dispute
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Pays $900,000 to Settle "Paulus" Claim
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Hellam" Suit is Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in Pa. Suit Remains Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Peraica" Suit Heard

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "Holdsworth" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 21 Hercules Claims at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Has $324-Mil. Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Has $77MM Receivables
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $398MM Settlement with Insurers

ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 9 Fibro Claims for $800,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Records $8.2MM Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utah High Ct. Affirms Wrongful Death Suit Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Inmate's Suit Allowed to Proceed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Priest" Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit Partially Junked as to JR Clarkson
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ark. Court Recommends Dismissal of "Miller" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Junk Inmate's Suit Partially Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doctrine of Claim Preclusion Bars Widow's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Bid to Dismiss "Proctor" Suit Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transpo Co.'s Suit Over Fibro Leaks Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Court Agrees to Transfer "Trezza" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PepsiAmericas Can't Pursue Claims Against FMC
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Res Judicata Bars Damages Suit vs. Railway Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Gets Summary Judgment in "Lett" Suit


                            *********


#1A LIFESAFER: Faces "Wagstaff" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Wagstaff, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and as a proxy of the State of California on behalf of
aggrieved employees v. #1A Lifesafer Of California, Inc.,
Lifesafer Of Northern California, and #1A Lifesafer, Inc., Case
No. 5:15-cv-00484 (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the manufacture, installation, and
distribution of automobile ignition interlock devices, which
prevent an individual who is intoxicated from operating a motor
vehicle.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Geoffrey Konecky, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
      180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
      E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com


#1A LIFESAFER: Faces "Wagstaff" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Wagstaff, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and as a proxy of the State of California on behalf of
aggrieved employees v. #1A Lifesafer Of California, Inc.,
Lifesafer Of Northern California, and #1A Lifesafer, Inc., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00484 (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the manufacture, installation, and
distribution of automobile ignition interlock devices, which
prevent an individual who is intoxicated from operating a motor
vehicle.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Robert L. Hyde, Esq.
       Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
       Sara F. Khosroabadi, Esq
       HYDE & SWIGART
       2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
       San Diego, CA 92108
       Telephone: (619) 233-7770
       Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
       E-mail: bob@westcoastlitigation.com
               josh@westcoastlitigation.com
               sara@westcoastlitigation.com

          - and -

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


A+ AUTO INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Garcia and George Perez, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. A+ Auto, Inc., a for profit Florida
corporation d/b/a/ A Luxury Autos, and Yaacov Nahom, Case No.
1:15-cv-20414 (S.D. Fla., February 3, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

A+ Auto, Inc. is a Florida corporation that owns and operates an
automobile dealership company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Sanchez, Esq.
      ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
      6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
      Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 665-9211
      Facsimile: (305) 328-4842
      E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com


AGAPE SENIOR: Patients' Suit Remanded to So. Carolina State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson remands to the Court of Common
Pleas for Richland County, South Carolina that case captioned The
Estate of Dora Elizabeth B. Hanna, by and through her Personal
Representative, King C. Hanna, Jr. and on behalf of a Class of
Individuals Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Agape Senior, LLC;
Agape Harbison, Inc.; Agape Lexington, Inc.; Agape Assisted
Living, Inc.; Agape at Kathwood, Inc.; Carolina Community Hospice,
Inc.; Agape Senior Primary Care, Inc.; Agape Management Services,
Inc.; Agape West Columbia; Agape Senior Conway; Scott Middleton
and his agents, assigns and representatives; Jackson and Coker
Locum Tenens, LLC d/b/a Jackson Coker, Defendants/Third-Party
Plaintiffs, v. Ernest Addo, Third-Party Defendant, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 3:12-CV-02872-JFA, (D. S.C.).

This case arises out of purported medical treatment rendered to
patients of Agape1 by Ernest Addo ("Addo"), an unlicensed
physician who assumed the identity of Arthur Kennedy, a duly
licensed South Carolina physician. Specifically, this action was
initiated to pursue the claims of all patients who received care
from Addo during the time he was associated with Agape. The
original complaint was filed in state court in Richland County,
South Carolina and alleged causes of action for negligent referral
against Jackson & Coker and negligent hiring, negligence per se,
unjust enrichment, negligent retention, negligent supervision,
negligent entrustment, vicarious liability, and strict tort
liability (declaratory judgment) against Agape. On October 4,
2012, this case was removed by the Agape defendants from state
court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), codified
in relevant part at 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Shortly after
removal and as a result of the parties' request, the Court stayed
this case for an extended period of time while the underlying
declaratory judgment action was litigated to determine contested
insurance coverage issues. The stay was eventually lifted on
November 5, 2014. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs dismissed defendant
Jackson & Coker and filed a Motion to Remand.

According to Magistrate Judge Anderson, the local defendants in
this case are related to one another. All of the Agape defendants
constitute the entities of Agape and its owner and Chief Executive
Officer, Scott Middleton. Plaintiffs allege that the Agape
entities are subsidiary, sister, and affiliated corporations of
Agape Senior, LLC. As such, all of the local defendants are
related to one another, and comprise the vast majority of all
defendants in this case.

"The Court finds there is ample evidence to suggest that Agape's
conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted in this
case. Therefore, the "significant basis" prong is satisfied, and
the Court finds that this case constitutes a local controversy
under CAFA," Magistrate Judge Anderson added.  "[T]he Court hereby
grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand. In light of the Court's
remand of this case, it elects to defer to the state court any
ruling on Defendants' Motion to Realign Ernest Addo and
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint."

A copy of the January 20, 2015 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/ydJp9Q from Leagle.com.

Dora Elizabeth B Hanna, Plaintiff, represented by George M Hearn,
Jr. -- hbmlaw@sccoast.net -- Hearn and Hearn and:

   Edwin Grey Wicker, Esq.
   Law Office of Michael E Spears,
   122 S. Liberty Street
   Spartanburg, SC 29304
   Telephone: (864) 583-3535

            - and -

   Michael Eugene Spears, Esq.
   Michael E Spears, P.A.
   P.O. Box 5806
   Spartanburg, SC 29304
   Telephone: (864) 583-3535

Agape Senior LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua D Shaw --
jshaw@turnerpadget.com -- Turner Padget Graham and Laney & R
Gerald Chambers -- gchambers@turnerpadget.com -- Turner Padget
Graham and Laney.

Scott Middleton, Defendant, represented by Joshua D Shaw, Turner
Padget Graham and Laney, R Gerald Chambers, Turner Padget Graham
and Laney & Shaun Christian Blake, Rogers Lewis Jackson Mann and
Quinn.

Agape Harbison Inc, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Schwartz
Corn -- elizabeth.corn@hoodlaw.com -- Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon
Gresh -- jgresh@hbss.net -- Hall Booth Smith and Slover.

Agape Lexington Inc, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Schwartz
Corn, Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and
Slover.

Agape Assisted Living Inc, Defendant, represented by Jack Gordon
Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover.

Agape at Kathwood Inc, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Schwartz Corn, Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith
and Slover.

Carolinas Community Hospice Inc, Defendant, represented by Jack
Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover.

Agape Senior Primary Care Inc, Defendant, represented by Joshua D
Shaw, Turner Padget Graham and Laney.

Agape Management Service Inc, Defendant, represented by Jack
Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover.

Agape West Columbia, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Schwartz
Corn, Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and
Slover.

Agape Senior Conway, Defendant, represented by Jack Gordon Gresh,
Hall Booth Smith and Slover.

Agape Senior West Columbia, Interested Party, represented by Jack
Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover.

Agape Senior Kathwood, Interested Party, represented by Jack
Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover.

Agape Senior Harbison, Interested Party, represented by Jack
Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover.

Agape Senior Lexington, Interested Party, represented by Jack
Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover.

Agape West Columbia, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Schwartz Corn, Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall
Booth Smith and Slover.

Carolinas Community Hospice Inc, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented
by Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover.

Agape Senior Conway, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Jack
Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover.

Agape at Kathwood Inc, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Schwartz Corn, Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall
Booth Smith and Slover.

Agape Harbison Inc, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth
Schwartz Corn, Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith
and Slover.

Agape Management Service Inc, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by
Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover.

Agape Lexington Inc, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth Schwartz Corn, Hood Law Firm & Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall
Booth Smith and Slover.

Agape Assisted Living Inc, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by
Jack Gordon Gresh, Hall Booth Smith and Slover.

Scott Middleton, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D
Shaw, Turner Padget Graham and Laney, R Gerald Chambers, Turner
Padget Graham and Laney & Shaun Christian Blake, Rogers Lewis
Jackson Mann and Quinn.

Agape Senior Primary Care Inc, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented
by Joshua D Shaw, Turner Padget Graham and Laney.

Agape Senior LLC, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Joshua D
Shaw, Turner Padget Graham and Laney & R Gerald Chambers, Turner
Padget Graham and Laney.

Scott Middleton, Counter Claimant, represented by Joshua D Shaw,
Turner Padget Graham and Laney, R Gerald Chambers, Turner Padget
Graham and Laney & Shaun Christian Blake, Rogers Lewis Jackson
Mann and Quinn.

Agape Senior Primary Care Inc, Counter Claimant, represented by
Joshua D Shaw, Turner Padget Graham and Laney.

Agape Senior LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Joshua D Shaw,
Turner Padget Graham and Laney & R Gerald Chambers, Turner Padget
Graham and Laney.

Dora Elizabeth B Hanna, Defendant, represented by Edwin Grey
Wicker, Law Office of Michael E Spears, George M Hearn, Jr, Hearn
and Hearn & Michael Eugene Spears, Michael E Spears.


ALY CENTRIFUGE: Faces "Mallett" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mallett, et al. v. Aly Centrifuge, Inc. a/k/a Aly Energy
Services, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00085 (W.D. Tex., February 3,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per work
week.

Aly Centrifuge, Inc. is a Delaware corporation company doing
business in Texas that provides services in the oil and gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Adam Poncio, Esq.
       PONCIO LAW OFFICES PC
       5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 109
       San Antonio, TX 78229-3550
       Telephone: (210) 212-7979
       Facsimile: (210) 212-5880
       E-mail: salaw@msn.com


AMURA JAPANESE: "Gore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Gore, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Amura Japanese Restaurant, Inc., a Florida
for-profit corporation and Scarlet Chung, Case No. 6:15-cv-00153
(M.D. Fla., February 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages compensation, unpaid overtime compensation, reimbursement
for tips illegally taken, liquidated damages, and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 54 West
Church Street, Orlando, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Brock, Esq.
      ROBERT W. BROCK, II PA
      Suite 223, 17 East Flager Street
      Miami, Fl 33131
      E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com


AOL INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, "Derby" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Derby, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. AOL, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 5:15-cv-00452 (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of transmitting unauthorized spam text
message to the cellular telephones of individual throughout the
nation.

AOL, Inc. is a mobile social networking and internet company with
its principal place of business in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Suzanne L. Havens Beckman, Esq.
      PARISI & HAVENS LLP
      212 Marine Street
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (818) 990-1299
      Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
      E-mail: shavens@parisihavens.com


APPLE INC: Falsely Marketed Devices Storage Capacity, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Neocleous and Shaefer Wiese, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-
00501 (N.D. Cal., February 3, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
unlawful practice of misrepresenting and omitting crucial material
facts relating to the usable storage capacity on 8 and 16 Gigabyte
iPhones, iPads and iPods and failing to disclose that as much as
23.1% of the Devices' advertised storage capacity will be
inaccessible to the consumer due to mandatory preinstalled iOS 8
software.

Apple Inc. is a multinational corporation headquartered in
Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer
electronics, computer software, online services, and personal
computers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Mcshane, Esq.
      Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      221 Main Street, Suite 1460
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 568-2555
      Facsimile: (415) 576-1776
      E-mail: mmchane@audetlaw.com
              jmann@audetlaw.com

          - and -

      Clayton Halunen, Esq.
      Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
      HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
      80 South Eighth Street, Suite #1650
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 605-4098
      Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
      E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com
              wolchansky@halunenlaw.com

         - and -

      Charles J. Laduca, Esq.
      Matthew E. Miller, Esq.
      William H. Anderson, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
      507 C St., N.E.
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
              mmiller@cuneolaw.com
              wanderson@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Robert Shelquist, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      Suite 2200, 100 Washington Avenue South
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq.
      BARON & HERSKOWITZ
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 670-0101
      Facsimile: (305) 670-2393
      E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com


ARNOLD LEE: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile, "Brodsky" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Brodsky, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Arnold Lee and John Does 1-
10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01046 (N.D. Ill., February 2, 2015), seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles.

Arnold Lee is a California resident.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (8470 368-1501
      E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
              rkelly@andersonwanca.com


ARYTZA LIMITED: Recalls Cucina Grande Deli Pizza Meat Trio
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 9, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification:    Class 2
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Arytza Limited
Distribution:             National
Extent of the product
distribution:             Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional, Retail
CFIA reference number:    9572

Affected products: 1.33 kg. Cucina Grande Deli Pizza - Meat Trio
with all codes where mustard is not declared on the label


AUDIO VISUAL SERVICES: Trial Court Ruling in Suit v. PSAV Flipped
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Juan Solares seeks to represent a class of employees who
are or were employed by Audio Visual Services Group, Inc., doing
business as PSAV Presentation Services (PSAV), which provides
audio-visual services to hotels within the Century Corridor
Property Business Improvement District (Century Corridor PBID)
adjacent to the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). They
allege that PSAV collects from customers a separately designated
"service charge," "delivery charge," facility charge," "gratuity,"
"administrative fee," or other such charge that "customers might
reasonably believe . . . were for the class member/employees'
services." PSAV allegedly fails to pay the separately-designated
charges it collects to its employees in violation of the Hotel
Service Charge Reform Ordinance (Ordinance) in the Los Angeles
Municipal Code.  The failure of PSAV to pay these service charges
to its employees is the basis for Solares's unfair competition law
claim (UCL).

Before the Court of Appeals of California, Second District,
Division Three is the issue of whether audio-visual workers are
within the class of hotel workers entitled to be paid service
charges pursuant to the Ordinance. The Ordinance was intended to
benefit hotel workers who earn low hourly wages and traditionally
relied on gratuities. These hotel workers saw a decrease in
gratuities because hotel customers assumed the service charge
would be paid to the service worker who actually performed the
services. Thus, the Ordinance applies only to those hotel workers
who would have received a gratuity for their services but for the
imposition of a service charge that hotel customers believed was
in lieu of a gratuity. Because the class action complaint does not
allege that Solares and the class he seeks to represent are within
the class of hotel workers who traditionally relied on gratuities,
and no proposed amendment could cure this defect, the complaint
fails to state a UCL claim based upon a violation of the
Ordinance. Accordingly, says the Appeals Court, it grants PSAV's
petition for writ of mandate and directs the trial court to
reverse its order, which overruled PSAV's demurrer to the UCL
cause of action.

"Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent
superior court to vacate its order of April 17, 2014, overruling
PSAV's demurrer to the UCL cause of action alleged in Solares's
class action complaint, and to enter a new and different order
sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. PSAV is awarded
costs on appeal," the Appeals Court held in its January 21, 2015
opinion, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/OBwZ1A from
Leagle.com.

The case is AUDIO VISUAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., Petitioner, v. THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; JUAN SOLARES,
Real Party in Interest, NO. B256266.

Schiffer & Buus and Eric M. Schiffer -- eschiffer@schifferbuus.com
-- for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick, Randy Renick --
rrr@hadsellstormer.com -- Cornelia Dai; Davis, Cowell & Bowe,
Elizabeth Ann Lawrence -- eal@dcbsf.com -- and Paul L. More --
pmore@dcbsf.com -- for Real Party in Interest.


AVA RESTAURANT: Faces "Cazares" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Cazares and Erick Perez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Ava Restaurant Corp. d/b/a
Buccaneer Diner and Costas Alexiou, jointly and severally, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00477 (E.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a diner restaurant located on
Astoria Boulevard in Queens County, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com


BALTIMORE CONVENTION: Lewis Gets Partial OK to Amend Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Current and former employees of the Baltimore Convention Center
instituted a putative class action and collective action in July
2012 against the Convention Center and Peggy Daidakis, the
Director of the Convention Center. Plaintiffs alleged that the
defendants wrongfully withheld wages and overtime compensation
from plaintiffs, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq. (Count I); the Maryland
Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), Md. Code (2006 Repl. Vol, 2012 Supp.),
Lab. & Empl. Article Sections 3-401 et seq. (Count II); and the
Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"), id. Sections
3-501 et seq. (Count III). Id. at 2-3. In addition, they
complained that defendants withheld compensation and suspended
employees without cause, in breach of the Baltimore Municipal
Employees contract of employment with the City of Baltimore, dated
July 1, 2008 ("2008 Contract") (Count IV).

On June 12, 2014, plaintiffs filed their "Motion for Leave to
Amend Complaint", pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, along with a
proposed "First Amended Complaint", and a redlined version,
showing changes between the original and the proposed amended
complaints. The proposed amendments do two things: First, they
seek to update "the original Complaint to reflect the current
status of the claims and allegations and to implement the court's
order." Second, they add two new claims, one for "breach of the
negotiated agreement" ("Count V"), and one for breach of the duty
of fair representation ("Count VI").  Defendants filed a response
in opposition arguing that plaintiffs should not be permitted to
add Counts V and VI because the amendments would be futile. The
defendants state: "Even if there were statutory authority to
consider Plaintiffs' claims in this case [against the Union, in
Count VI], the proposed amendment should be denied as futile
because it fails to plead facts supporting the claim that the
Union violated its duty of fair representation."

"I will grant the Motion in part and deny it in part," ruled
District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander in a memorandum dated
January 20, 2015. "I will grant plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint that includes changes reflecting the current
status of the claims, following my Order of December 10, 2012, and
any new facts. But, I will deny leave to amend the complaint to
include Counts V and VI, because the addition of either count
would be futile. And, because I will deny leave to add Count VI, I
will also deny leave to add the Union as a defendant."

A copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/IJ7vKn
from Leagle.com.

The case is ANTHONY LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE BALTIMORE
CONVENTION CENTER, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. ELH-12-
2008, (D. Md.)

Anthony Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell --
scott@conwellusa.com -- Conwell Law LLC & Susan C Trimble --
Trimblelaw@comcast.net -- Law Office of Susan C Trimble LLC.

William Weeks, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC & Susan C Trimble, Law Office of Susan C Trimble LLC.

Gregory Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC & Susan C Trimble, Law Office of Susan C Trimble LLC.

Darrell Lilly, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC & Susan C Trimble, Law Office of Susan C Trimble LLC.

Louis Pilsch, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC & Susan C Trimble, Law Office of Susan C Trimble LLC.

Leonard Ward, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC & Susan C Trimble, Law Office of Susan C Trimble LLC.

Michael Ward, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC & Susan C Trimble, Law Office of Susan C Trimble
LLC.

Gratten Branch, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC & Susan C Trimble, Law Office of Susan C Trimble LLC.

Gregory Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Sheila Exum, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Abel Stukes, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Wanda Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Antonio Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC.

Tina Porter-Hill, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC.

Steven Dunlap, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Christopher Inman, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC.

Jean Glasgow, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Clayton D. Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC.

Rodney Abshire, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Chaniece Mobley, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC.

Gilbert Watsen, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Robert Bullock, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Anthony Warren, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Sommerville Lamont, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC.

Margaret Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC.

Yvonne Hughley, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Theodora Harrod, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC.

John R. McCormick, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC.

Tyrene Cash, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Robert Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Charles Dickerson, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC.

Levern Perrin, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Margaret Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC.

Sherry Lawrence, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell,
Conwell Law LLC.

Haywood Bell, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Lamuel Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

Earl Dorsey, Plaintiff, represented by Scott A Conwell, Conwell
Law LLC.

The Baltimore City Convention Center, Defendant, represented by
Eric Hemmendinger -- eh@shawe.com -- Shawe and Rosenthal LLP &
Gary Gilkey, Baltimore City Law Department.

Peggy Daidakis, Defendant, represented by Gary Gilkey, Baltimore
City Law Department.


BANK OF AMERICA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Rodriguez, and other similarly situated individuals v. Bank
of America Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-20408 (S.D. Fla.,
February 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Bank of America Corporation

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq.
      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, 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: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
              agp@rgpattorneys.com


BANKERS LIFE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Agents' Commissions
----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly R. Graham, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bankers Life And Casualty Company, an
Illinois corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00944 (N.D. Ill., January
29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
agents their properly earned commissions under their contractual
commission arrangements, specifically by forcing agents to share
or kickback a certain portion of their earned commissions to
various licensed financial advisors the Defendant employs or
contracts in order to maximize sales and commissions to the
benefit of the company.

Bankers Life And Casualty Company is one of the largest insurance
and financial services companies in the United States, having
numerous offices nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      Bradley A. Tobin, Esq.
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      501 N. Reo Street
      Tampa, FL 33609
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com
              btobin@ffmlawgroup.com


BARCLAY REX: Faces "Santiago" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Santiago, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees v. Barclay Rex Pipe Shop, Inc., Barclay Rex
Enterprises Inc. and Vincent Nastri, Jr., Case No. 1:15-cv-00762
(S.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate tobacco stores and lounges in the
Borough of Manhattan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
      GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C.
      150 East 58th Street, 27th fl.
      New York, NY 10170
      Telephone: (212) 300-5358
      Facsimile: (888) 265-7054
      E-mail: rgarbarini@garbarinilaw.com


BEACHBODY FITNESS: "Michael" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Michael Stinnett, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Beachbody Fitness & Bootcamps, LLC d/b/a
I.S.I. Elite Training and Adam M. Rice, Case No. 4:15-cv-00432
(D.S.C., January 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and for other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a fitness center in Horry County,
South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Henrietta U. Golding, Esq.
      James Keith Gilliam, Esq.
      MCNAIR LAW FIRM
      PO Box 336
      Myrtle Beach, SC 29578
      Telephone: (843) 444-1107
      Facsimile: (843) 444-4729
      E-mail: hgolding@mcnair.net
              jgilliam@mcnair.net


BEAUVAIS LTEE: Recalls Granny Smith Apples and Gala Apples
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 8, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Beauvais Ltee., Coosemans Montreal Inc.,
                          Courchesne Larose
Distribution:             Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia,
                          Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9575

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

Industry is recalling Granny Smith apples and Gala apples exported
by Bidart Bros. in the United States (US) from the marketplace due
to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.  Identified
importers of the recalled products include Beauvais Ltee.,
Courchesne Larose and Coosemans Montreal Inc.  Consumers should
not consume and retailers, restaurants and institutions should not
sell or use the recalled products described.

Check to see if you have recalled products.  Recalled products
should be thrown out or returned to the location where they were
purchased.  If you are unsure as to whether products are included
in this recall, contact the location where they were purchased.

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

PHAC is monitoring the US outbreak investigation.  For more
information see the Public Health Notice issued by PHAC dated
Dec. 28, 2014.

The recall was triggered by a recall initiated by the US producer
which may be related to a foodborne illness outbreak.  The CFIA is
working with its federal partners, the Public Health Agency of
Canada (PHAC) and Health Canada, and the United States Food and
Drug Administration and 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.


BIRCHBOX INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Renewal Offers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Lapuebla, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Birchbox, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00214 (S.D.
Cal., January 30, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
making automatic renewal offers continuous service offers without
first obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent to an agreement
containing the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous service
offer terms.

Birchbox, Inc. is a New York City-based online monthly
subscription service that sends its subscribers a box of four to
five carefully selected samples of makeup, or other beauty related
products on a monthly basis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      Sara Khosroabadi, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
              sara@westcoastlitigation.com


BLACKBERRY CORPORATION: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Smartphones
---------------------------------------------------------------
Russ Semeran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Blackberry Corporation, a Delaware corporation and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-00750 (D.N.J.,
February 2, 2015), arises out of the design and manufacturing
defects of Blackberry Smart Cellular Telephones. Specifically, the
contact application randomly merges contacts store in the phone
thereby rending users unable to make calls by retrieving their
contacts through the device, the photo application fails to permit
the user to manage the size and resolution of photographs for the
purposes of emailing, and fail to support widely utilized
applications such as Yahoo Calendar.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Harrison, Esq.
      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      110 Series Highway 35, 2nd Floor
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (888) 239-4410
      Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
      E-mail: josephharrisonesq@gmail.com
              nycotlaw@gmail.com

          - and -

      Marcus Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 991-8080
      Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
      E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
              kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com


BNR CONCRETE: "Rosa" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Rosa, Oscar Rosas, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216 (b) v. BNR Concrete Polishing, LLC, and David Beck,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00335 (N.D. Tex., February 3, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants is a Texas corporation that provides home
construction, retail & commercial projects services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      Joshua Aaron Petersen, Esq.
      Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com
              rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net


C&J ENERGY: Del. Supreme Court Flips Injunction Order
-----------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Leo E. Strine Jr. of the Supreme Court of Delaware
reversed the decision of the Court of Chancery in the appealed
case C&J ENERGY SERVICES, INC., JOSHUA E. COMSTOCK, RANDALL C.
McMULLEN, DARREN M. FRIEDMAN, ADRIANNA MA, MICHAEL ROEMER, C.
JAMES STEWART, III, H.H. "TRIPP" WOMMACK, III, NABORS INDUSTRIES
LTD., and NABORS RED LION LIMITED, Defendants Below, Appellants,
v. CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES' AND SANITATION EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT TRUST, on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, NO. 655/657 2014
(Del.)

C&J Energy Services, a Delaware corporation founded in 1997, is an
oilfield services provider. The company went public in 2011 and
currently has a market capitalization of over $730 million.

Nabors Industries Ltd., which has a total market capitalization of
over $3 billion, is a Bermuda exempt company that also provides
oilfield services. Nabors has two primary divisions, completions
and productions services division and a drilling and rig services
division.

The City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation Employees'
Retirement Trust is a stockholder of C&J Energy Services, Inc.

C&J and Nabors made a transaction that will make C&J acquire a
subsidiary of Nabors, which is domiciled in Bermuda, but Nabors
will retain a majority of the equity in the surviving company. To
obtain more favorable tax rates, the surviving entity, C&J Energy
Services, Ltd. (New C&J), will be based in Bermuda, and thus
subject to lower corporate tax rates than C&J currently pays.
To temper Nabors' majority voting control of the surviving
company, C&J negotiated for certain protections, including a bye-
law guaranteeing that all stockholders would share pro rata in any
future sale of New C&J, which can only be repealed by a unanimous
stockholder vote. C&J also bargained for a fiduciary out if a
superior proposal was to emerge during a lengthy passive market
check, an unusual request for the buyer in a change of control
transaction. And during that market check, a potential competing
bidder faced only modest deal protection barriers.

The City of Miami brought a class action on behalf of itself and
other stockholders in C&J to enjoin a merger between C&J and a
division of Nabors Industries Ltd. The plaintiffs argue that C&J's
board entered into a change of control transaction without
recognizing that it was doing so. With the mindset that it was
acquiring an asset, the board never conducted an active market
check to see if there were other buyers for C&J. the plaintiffs
argue that the board failed to fulfill its fiduciary duties under
Revlon in approving a transaction where Nabors would end up with
majority voting control of C&J. Rather than engage in an active
market check, the board signed up its favorite deal with the
inadequate protections of a passive market check and certain bye-
law provisions, which the plaintiffs characterize as protections
for Comstock and his managers, not for C&J stockholders. Plaintiff
seeks the court for injunction.

The Court of Chancery imposed a mandatory injunction. The court
order provides that C&J is ordered to solicit alternative
proposals to purchase the Company. Hence the appeal.

Chief Justice Strine reversed the judgment of the Court of
Chancery, observing that the Court of Chancery did not find that
the plaintiffs' duty of loyalty claims had any merit based on the
record, and could not even find a reasonable probability of
success as to any care-based breach of fiduciary duty claim.

A copy of Chief Justice Strine's decision dated December 19, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/owL4Dafrom Leagle.com

Stephen C. Norman, Esquire, Michael A. Pittenger, Esquire, Jaclyn
C. Levy, Esquire, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington,
Delaware; Michael C. Holmes, Esquire (argued), Elizabeth C.
Brandon, Esquire, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, Texas, Attorneys
for Appellants C&J Energy Services, Inc., Joshua E. Comstock,
Randall C. McMullen, Darren M. Friedman, Adrianna Ma, Michael
Roemer, C. James Stewart, III, and H.H. "Tripp" Wommack, III

William M. Lafferty, Esquire, Leslie A. Polizoti, Esquire, Eric S.
Klinger-Wilensky, Esquire, Lindsay M. Kwoka, Esquire, Morris,
Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Alan J. Stone,
Esquire(argued), Hailey DeKraker Esquire, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley &
McCloy LLP, New York, New York, for Appellants Nabors Industries
Ltd. and Nabors Red Lion Limited

Stuart M. Grant, Esquire, James J. Sabella, Esquire, Mary S.
Thomas, Esquire, Jonathan M. Kass, Esquire, Grant & Eisenhofer
P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Mark Lebovitch, Esquire, Jeroen van
Kwawegen, Esquire(argued), Abe Alexander, Esquire, Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, New York, Attorneys for
Appellee City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation
Employees' Retirement Trust

The Justices of the Supreme Court sitting en banc consists of
Chief Justice Leo E. Strine, Jr. and Justices Randy J. Holland,
Henry duPont Ridgely, Karen L. Valihura and Vaughn.


CACTUS DRILLING: Faces "Perry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian C. Peery, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cactus Drilling Company, L.L.C., Case No. 6:15-cv-
00094 (E.D. Tex., February 2, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 per work week.

Cactus Drilling Company, L.L.C. is an Oklahoma corporation doing
business as land drilling contractor in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com


CANDA SIX: Recalls Te Chang Food Bean Curd Products
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 8, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Chemical
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Canda Six Fortune Enterprise Co. Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba,
                          Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec,
                          Saskatchewan
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9562


CHINA NATIONAL: Faces "Amorin" Suit Over Defective Drywalls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo and Carmen Amorin, et al. v. China National Building
Materials Import and Export Corporation, a People's Republic of
China corporation, and CNBM Forest Products (Canada) Ltd., a
Canadian corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00184 (D. Ore., February 2,
2015), arises out of the defective drywalls manufactures by the
Defendants that caused structural mechanical and plumbing systems
damages and damaged other appliances in the home.

China National Building Materials Import and Export Corporation is
a Chinese corporation that is in the business of purchasing and
shipping logs from the United States and Canada to customers in
China.

CNBM Forest Products Ltd. is a Canadian corporation that is in
States and Canada to customers in China.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel H. Skerritt, Esq.
      TONKON TORP LLP
      1600 Pioneer Tower
      888 SW Fifth Avenue
      Portland, OR 97204-2099
      Telephone: (503) 802-2024
      Facsimile: (503) 972-3724
      E-mail: dan.skerritt@tonkon.com

         - and -

      Russ M. Herman, Esq.
      HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
      820 O'Keefe Avenue
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 581-4892
      Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
      E-mail: Ldavis@hhkc.com

         - and -

      Arnold Levin, Esq.
      LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
      E-mail: Alevin@lfsblaw.com


COSTY'S ENERGY: Faces "Hickle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Hickle and Reyes Lagunas, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Costy's Energy Services, LLC, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00130 (W.D. Pa., February 2, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Costy's Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield services company with
headquarter located at 2395 S. Main Street, Mansfield, PA 16933.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


DALCOM MODERN: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diego Tolguarcas, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Dalcom Modern, Inc. d/b/a Sushidamo, Kiwon Chong and
Jane Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-00758 (S.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per work week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 330 W.58th
Street, New York, New York 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEFENDER SECURITY: Party's Inactivity Caused Dismissal of Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Elaine B. Brown of the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed
the trial court's dismissal of the appealed case KEISHA HOLLIS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Appellant-
Plaintiff, v. DEFENDER SECURITY COMPANY d/b/a DEFENDER DIRECT,
Appellee-Defendant, NO 49A04-1404-PL-156 (Ind. Ct. App.)

In September 2009, Keisha and Robert Hollis filed a complaint
against Defender with Ronald Weldy as their counsel. On October
14, 2009, the Hollises filed a motion for class certification. On
November 23, 2009, Defender filed a motion to dismiss Robert's
claims, and on February 16, 2010, the court granted Defender's
motion.  From 2010 through 2014 the plaintiff Keisha had only
filed several motions for extension to extend deadlines and their
counsel Ronald Weldy was subjected to disciplinary action by the
Indiana Supreme Court and another lawyer in the name of Matthew
Derringer filed an appearance for Keisha Hollis in 2013.

On October 23, 2013, Defender filed a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Trial Rule 41(E). Defender alleged that the only activity in
the case since the court's September 27, 2012 order "has been the
non-substantive action of the Plaintiff's filing an appearance of
additional counsel, Matthew Derringer, on July 17, 2013. Defender
alleged that Keisha no longer lived in Indiana and had lost
interest in the action, some of the witnesses had left Defender's
employ, and the passage of time for witness testimony was
prejudicial to Defender.

On January 30, 2014, the court entered an order of dismissal
pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 41(E). On March 3, 2014, Keisha filed
a verified motion to reinstate and motion to correct error and
alleged that the motion was made pursuant to Ind. Trial Rules 59
and 60. On March 10, 2014, the court entered an order denying
Keisha's motion to reinstate and motion to correct errors.

Judge Brown affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Keisha's
complaint.

A copy of Judge Brown's unpublished memorandum decision dated
December 19, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/KCYkYefrom
Leagle.com.

Attorney for Appellant:

     Ronald E. Weldy, Esq.
     WELDY & ASSOCIATES
     8383 Craig Street, Suite 330
     Indianapolis, IN 46250
     Telephone: 317-842-6600
     Facsimile: 317-842-6933

DAVID E. WRIGHT -- DWright@kgrlaw.com -- KEVIN D. KOONS --
KKoons@kgrlaw.com -- at Kroger, Gardis & Regas, LLP

The Court of Appeals panel consists of Judges Elaine B. Brown, L.
Mark Bailey and Margret G. Robb.


DORAKU LINCOLN: "Petrov" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plamen Petrov, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Doraku Lincoln Road LLC, a Florida for-profit
corporation, Kevin Aoki, and Aaron Hyatt, Case No. 1:15-cv-20398
(S.D. Fla., February 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation,
reimbursement for tips illegally taken, liquidated damages, and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Doraku Restaurant located in Miami
Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert William Brock II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
      17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 358-6800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
      E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com


EFT HOLDINGS: Faces "Wang" Suit Over Investment Scam
----------------------------------------------------
Yunxia Wang, Fengqin Xu, and Qun Xu, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v, EFT Holdings, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00727 (C.D. Cal., January 30, 2015), arises out
of the chain investment scam that the Defendants promised
participants that they could earn substantial returns through
retail product sales, recruiting new participants into the chain,
and owning part of the business, when in fact, the products were
defective, the chain structure was illegal, and the alleged
ownership was illusory.

EFT Holdings, Inc. is an e-Commerce, publicly traded Nevada
corporation with its principal place of business at 17800
Castleton Street, Suite 300, City of Industry, California 91748
that engages in the merchandising and sale of EFT-brand products
over the internet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Suzelle M. Smith, Esq.
      Don Howarth, Esq.
      Padraic Glaspy, Esq.
      Jessica C. Walsh, Esq.
      HOWARTH & SMITH
      523 West Sixth Street, Suite 728
      Los Angeles, CA 90014
      Telephone: (213) 955-9400
      Facsimile: (213) 622-0791
      E-mail: SSmith@howarth-smith.com
              DHowarth@howarth-smith.com
              PGlaspy@howarth-smith.com
              JWalsh@howarth-smith.com

         - and -

      Stephen Tuggy, Esq.
      LOCKE LORD LLP
      300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2600
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 485-1500
      Facsimile: (213) 485-1200
      E-mail: STuggy@lockelord.com


EMC MORTGAGE: N.D. Ill. Judge Allows Complaint to be Amended
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Andrea R. Wood of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division ruled on plaintiff's motion in the case
KIM PARKER, Plaintiff, v. EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION and JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A. Defendants, No. 11-CV-05682 (N.D. Il.)

Kim Parker originally filed a suit in the Circuit Court of Cook
County in 2009. In 2011, she filed an amended complaint styled as
class action against EMC Mortgage Corporation, which serviced her
home mortgage loans, and EMC's parent company, JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A.  The amended complaint alleges violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815
ILCS 505/2 (ICFA); two claims based on breach of contract/breach
of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, one of which was based
on a third-party beneficiary theory; a claim for promissory
estoppel; and a claim for unjust enrichment.

Defendants removed the case to the federal District Court pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d) and the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005. Subsequently, defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. The court entered an order granting defendants' motion
in part and denying it in part. The Court later denied class
certification, and the case continued as a single-plaintiff
action.

After the parties had completed fact discovery, defendants filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment citing several admissions by Parker at
her deposition that defendants claim establish that she never
received any oral representation that she would get a permanent
loan modification. Defendants argue in their Motion for Summary
Judgment that crucial elements of proof regarding Parker's three
remaining claims are absent, and therefore they are entitled to
summary judgment in their favor.

In lieu of responding to defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment,
Parker filed her Motion under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 56(d), along with
the required affidavit representing that she could not respond to
the motion absent additional discovery. Parker filed the Motion to
Amend one week after filing her Rule 56(d) Motion.

Judge Wood granted the motion to amend. Parker's Rule 56(d) Motion
is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants were directed to
produce documents Bates-labeled JPMC0000598-0069951 in a format
that is reasonably usable, consistent with Rule 34(a)(1)(A).
Defendants also shall tender to Parker a stipulation regarding the
authenticity of the documents they have produced over the course
of this litigation within 30 days of the entry of the Order. In
light of the anticipated filing of the Second Amended and
Supplemental Complaint and the additional discovery permitted by
this ruling, defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied
without prejudice.

A copy of Judge Wood's memorandum opinion and order dated December
18, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/3lozfkfrom Leagle.com

Kim Parker, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Al Hofeld, III, Esq.
     Hanan Erikat Van Dril, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF AL HOFELD, JR., LLC
     1525 E. 53rd Street, Suite 832
     Chicago, IL 60615
     Telephone: 773-241-5844
     Facsimile: 773-241-5845

EMC Mortgage LLC and JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Defendants,
represented by:

     Mark Bruce Blocker, Esq.
     Kevin M Fee, Jr, Esq.
     SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
     One South Dearborn
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: 312-853-7000
     Facsimile: 312-853-7036
     Email: mblocker@sidley.com
            kfee@sidley.com

          - and -

     Michael Ryan Kemock, Esq.
     PIERCE AND ASSOCIATES, PC
     1 N. Dearborn St., Suite 1300
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: 312-346-9088
     Facsimile: 312-551-4400


ESSEX SUPERIOR COURT: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Gag Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William J. Martini of the District of New Jersey
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion in the case
PAUL NICHOLS, Plaintiff, v. NANCY SIVILLI (in her official
capacity), and ESSEX COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Defendants, CIV. NO.
2:14-3821 (WJM) (D.N.J.)

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Declaratory Judgment
Act, Paul Nichols brings a First Amendment challenge to a gag
order issued by Essex County Superior Court Judge Nancy Sivilli.
He also seeks an injunction that would prohibit the enforcement of
the Gag Order.

Judge Sivilli issued a Gag Order in the case of Myranova v.
Malhan, a divorce and custody suit pending in the family division
of the Essex County Superior Court.  Nichols is a reporter for
Bergen County Dispatch, who wishes to interview Malhan about his
experiences in family court, which according to Nichols, are a
matter of public interest. Nichols contends that that he is unable
to interview Malhan because the Gag Order restricts Malhan from
saying anything that relates to his divorce proceedings.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P
12(b)(6). Defendants first argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction
to hear Nichols' suit against Judge Sivilli because Nichols has
failed to satisfy Article III's "case or controversy" requirement.
Defendants also contend that Nichols' suit against the Essex
County Superior Court is barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

Judge Martini granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Martini's opinion dated December 19, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/8Nj9hRfrom Leagle.com

PAUL NICHOLS, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Paul Alexander Clark
     CLARK LEGAL SERVICES
     8375 S. Willow Street, Suite 200
     Lone Tree, CO 80124
     Telephone: 720-358-4768

STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Defendant, represented by DANIEL JAMES KELLY,
STATE OF NEW JERSEY

MICHELLE M. SMITH, (in her official capacity as Clerk Superior
Court of New Jersey), Defendant, represented by DANIEL JAMES
KELLY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY

SALLYANNE FLORIA, (in her official capacity as Presiding Judge
Chancery Div., Family Part, Essex County), Defendant, represented
by DANIEL JAMES KELLY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Nancy Sivilli, Defendant, represented by ERIC SCOTT PASTERNACK,
STATE OF NEW JERSEY


EVERYDAY SUPERFOODS: Recalls Omega Mango Yogurt Topping
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 8, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Extraneous Material
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Everyday Superfoods Inc.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9568

Affected products: 140 g. Omega Mango Yogurt Topping - Mangoes and
Cranberries


FIRST PREMIER: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Flagg, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated
v. First Premier Bank, a South Dakota State-Chartered Bank, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00324 (N.D. Ga., January 30, 2015), alleges that the
Defendant participates in a scheme to allow illegal online payday
lenders access to the nation's secure electronic payment transfer
network known as the ACH Network or Automated Clearing House to
collect unlawful debts.

First Premier Bank is a South Dakota state-chartered bank with
main offices at 601 South Minnesota Avenue, Sioux Falls, South
Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve Six, Esq.
      Darren Kaplan, Esq.
      J. Austin Moore, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7100
      E-mail: six@stuevesiegel.com
              kaplan@stuevesiegel.com
              moore@stuevesiegel.com

          - and -

      Jefferey M. Ostrow, Esq.
      Jason H. Alperstein,Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, PA
      200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
      E-mail: ostrow@KOlawyers.com
              alperstein@KOlawyers.com


FLORIDA TURNPIKE: "Mererro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Marerro, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. Florida Turnpike Services LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-20375
(S.D. Fla., January 30, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Florida Turnpike Services LLC owns and operates a fuel and
convenience store in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David L. Markel, Esq.
      THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
      777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 500
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 458-1282
      Facsimile: (800) 407-1718
      E-mail: david.markel@markel-law.com


FORD: Recalls Escape and MKC Models Due to Inoperative Fuel Pump
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 9, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              SUV
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Fuel Supply
Units affected:           3074
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015008
TC ID number:             2015008
Manufacturer recall
number:                   14S30

On certain vehicles, improper nickel plating of certain fuel pump
internal components could contaminate the pump, potentially
resulting in an inoperative fuel pump.  This could result in a no-
start condition, or an engine stall without warning and without
the ability to restart the vehicle, which could increase the risk
of a crash.

Dealers will replace the Fuel Delivery Module (FDM).

Affected products:

   Maker       Model          Model year(s) affected
   -----       -----          ----------------------
   FORD        ESCAPE         2014
   LINCOLN     MKC            2015


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Transferred to N.D. Ga.
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert C. Jones transferred to the Northern
District of Georgia IN RE GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, DAVID L.HASBROUCK, derivatively on behalf of GALECTIN
THERAPEUTICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. PETER G. TRABER, JAMES C. CZIRR,
JACK W. CALLICUTT, GILBERT F. AMELIO, KEVIN D. FREEMAN, ARTHUR R.
GREENBERG, ROD D. MARTIN, JOHN F. MAULDIN, STEVEN PRELACK, HERMAN
PAUL PRESSLER, III, and DR. MARC RUBIN, Defendants. And GALECTIN
THERAPEUTICS, INC., Nominal Defendant, CASE NOS. 3:14-CV-00399-
RCJ-WGC, 3:14-CV-00402-RCJ-WGC, (D. Nev.).

This case arises from Galectin Therapeutics, Inc.'s alleged
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This case is the
consolidation of multiple suits brought by Galectin shareholders
claiming that Galectin engaged in securities fraud. The Class
Action Defendants and the Derivative Action Defendants filed
motions to transfer the case to the Northern District of Georgia.

"[T]he Court determines, in its discretion, that transferring the
Derivative Action would also best serve the convenience of the
parties, the convenience of the witnesses, and the interest of
justice," wrote Judge Jones in his amended order dated January 21,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/r4Q5cK from
Leagle.com.  "[T]he Clerk shall transfer the consolidated cases
numbers 3:14-CV-00402-RCJ-WGC and 3:14-CV-00399-RCJ-WGC to the
Northern District of Georgia and to close the cases
administratively in this District."

Marissa Ballesteros, Plaintiff, represented by Darren J. Robbins,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David C. Walton, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Debra Wyman, Robbins Gellar Rudman & Dowd LLP,
David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. & William M. O'Mara, The
O'Mara Law Firm, PC.

Bradford C. Gelzayd, Plaintiff, represented by Casey Sadler,
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, David C OMara, The OMara Law Firm,
P.C. & Robert V. Prongay, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP.

Jesus Garcia Gombau, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R.
Muehlbauer, Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog & Robert A
Riether, Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog, P.C.

David L Hasbrouck, Plaintiff, represented by Frank J. Johnson,
Johnson & Weaver, LLP, Nathan Hamler & Patrick R. Leverty, Leverty
& Associates Chtd.

Sui Yip, Plaintiff, represented by Brett D. Stecker, The Weiser
Law Firm, P.C., Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, The Weiser Law Firm, P.C.,
John P. Aldrich, Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd., Robert B. Weiser, The
Weiser Law Firm, P.C. & Patrick R. Leverty, Leverty & Associates
Chtd.

Michael Canton, Plaintiff, represented by Curtis B. Coulter, Law
Offices of Curtis B. Coulter PC.

Deannamarie B Fonseca, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R.
Muehlbauer, Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog.

Jose Garcia, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew R. Muehlbauer,
Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog.

Michele Minnick, Plaintiff, represented by David C OMara, The
OMara Law Firm, P.C.

Dale Szymanski, Plaintiff, represented by David C OMara, The OMara
Law Firm, P.C.

Glenn Pratt, Plaintiff, represented by Glenn Pratt PRO SE.
Isreal Avecedo, Movant, represented by Erik D. Buzzard, Palumbo
Bergstrom LLP.

Glyn Hotz, Movant, represented by Kirk B. Lenhard, Brownstein
Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, Naumon A Amjed, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP & Ryan Thomas Degnan, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP.

Rene Castillo, Movant, represented by Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC & Mark D Wray, Law Offices of Mark Wray.

Leong J. Trung, individually and jointly with her husband Dr. John
Tung, Movant, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Robert Burke, Movant, represented by Barry L. Breslow, Robison
Belaustegui Sharp & Low, Peter Borkon, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Reed R Kathrein, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Keegan G.
Low, Robison Belaustegui Sharp & Low.

Galectin Therapeutics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael R.
Smith, King & Spalding LLP, Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell &
Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell.

James C. Czirr, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith, King &
Spalding LLP, Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A.
Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell.

Peter G. Traber, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith, King
& Spalding LLP, Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A.
Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell.

Jack W. Callicutt, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith,
King & Spalding LLP, Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin
A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell.

Gilbert F. Amelio, Defendant, represented by Jason D Woodbury,
Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell.

Kevin D Freeman, Defendant, represented by Jason D Woodbury,
Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell.

Arthur R. Greenberg, Defendant, represented by Jason D Woodbury,
Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell.

Rod D Martin, Defendant, represented by Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer
Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell.

John F Mauldin, Defendant, represented by Jason D Woodbury,
Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell.

Steven Prelack, Defendant, represented by Jason D Woodbury,
Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell.

Marc Rubin, Defendant, represented by Jason D Woodbury, Kaempfer
Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell.

Herman Paul Pressler, III, Defendant, represented by Jason D
Woodbury, Kaempfer Crowell & Severin A. Carlson, Kaempfer Crowell.


GATEWAY FUNDING: Faces "Rocha" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Rocha and Ralph Jeter, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage
Services, L.P., Case No. 2:15-cv-00482 (E.D. Pa., February 2,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Gateway Funding Diversified Mortgage Services, L.P. is a national
mortgage bank that provides mortgage banking services to consumers
in Pennsylvania, Utah, New Jersey, and other states across the
country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Cohen, Esq.
      KOLMAN ELY PC
      414 Hulmeville Ave
      Penndel, PA 19047
      Telephone: (215) 750-3134
      E-mail: dcohenlaw@comcast.net

         - and -

      Erik H. Langeland, Esq.
      733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 354-6270
      E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com

         - and -

      Jon A. Tostrud, Esq.
      TOSTRUD LAW GROPUP, PC
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2125
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 278-2600
      E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com


GOLD BUYER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Penalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosie Vaughan, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Gold Buyer of Orange Park, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation,
Saqib Siddiq, individually, and Rohan P. Shan, individually, Case
No. 3:15-cv-00104 (M.D. Fla., January 30, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Gold Buyer of Orange Park, Inc. is a Florida Profit Corporation
that buys and sells gold items.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eddie Easa Farah, Esq.
      FARAH & FARAH, PA
      3rd Floor, 10 W Adams St
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Telephone: (904) 807-3180
      Facsimile: (904) 358-5300
      E-mail: efarah@farahandfarah.com


GOLDEN HOMES: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kiana Rodgers, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Golden Homes Services, LLC, a Georgia Company, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00336 (N.D. Ga., February 2, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Golden Homes Services, LLC is a staffing company that places its
employees at its client's assisted living facilities in the state
of Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kimberly N. Martin, Esq.
      Thomas F. Martin, Esq.
      MARTIN & MARTIN, LLP
      P.O. Box 1070
      Tucker, GA 30085-1070
      Telephone: (770) 313-5538
      Facsimile: (770) 837-2678
      E-mail: Kimberlymartinlaw@gmail.com
              tfmartinlaw@msn.com


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Fails to Sink "Long" Complaint
------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato denied defendant's motion to dismiss
in the case SETH LONG, Plaintiff, v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS
INC., et al., Defendants, Case NO. 13-CV-01257-JD (N.D. Cal.)

Graco Children's Products Inc. sold and distributed car seats for
infants and children, which are equipped with QT and QT3 buckles.
Seth Long contends that the harness buckles were unduly difficult
and at times impossible to unlatch, but that Graco concealed the
problem and affirmatively advertised the car seats as having a
harness that helps you get baby in and out.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued
a Recall Request Letter to Graco asking that it recall all model
year 2009-2013 car seats equipped with the defective buckles.

Long alleges claims under the California Consumers Legal Remedies
Act and Unfair Competition Law, and for breach of implied warranty
under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and the federal
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. The putative class consists of
"California residents who purchased a Graco car seat in
California, from January 1, 2009, to the present, that was
equipped" with the QT or QT3 buckles.

Defendants Graco and Newell Rubbermaid Inc. move to dismiss on
jurisdiction grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1). The defendants also seek to strike plaintiff's class
allegations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) on the grounds that the
putative class is not ascertainable and that the class action is
not a superior form of adjudication in light of Graco's recall.

Judge Donato denied the defendants' motion to dismiss without
prejudice and deferred the motion to strike.  The motion to
dismiss is denied without prejudice, and the motion to strike is
deferred pending class certification proceedings.

A copy of Judge Donato's order dated December 17, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/96cXVUfrom Lealgle.com.

Seth Long, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan L. Lurie --
Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert Kenneth Friedl --
Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Cody Robert Padgett --
Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Tarek H. Zohdy --
Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Lawyers, APC; Mark
Samuel Greenstone -- mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- at  Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP

Graco Children's Products Inc., Defendant, represented by Rocky N.
Unruh -- runruh@schiffhardin.com -- Heidi Dalenberg --
hdalenberg@schiffhardin.com -- Joseph J. Krasovec, III --
jkrasovec@schiffhardin.com -- Yakov Paul Wiegmann --
ywiegmann@schiffhardin.com -- at Schiff Hardin LLP; John Alexander
Vogt -- javogt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day

Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rocky N. Unruh
-- runruh@schiffhardin.com -- Heidi Dalenberg --
hdalenberg@schiffhardin.com -- Joseph J. Krasovec, III --
jkrasovec@schiffhardin.com -- Yakov Paul Wiegmann --
ywiegmann@schiffhardin.com -- at Schiff Hardin LLP
Graco Children's Products Inc., plaintiff, represented by Rocky N.
Unruh -- runruh@schiffhardin.com -- Heidi Dalenberg --
hdalenberg@schiffhardin.com -- Joseph J. Krasovec, III --
jkrasovec@schiffhardin.com -- Yakov Paul Wiegmann --
ywiegmann@schiffhardin.com -- at Schiff Hardin LLP; John Alexander
Vogt -- javogt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day

Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., plaintiff, represented by Rocky N. Unruh
-- runruh@schiffhardin.com -- Heidi Dalenberg --
hdalenberg@schiffhardin.com -- Joseph J. Krasovec, III --
jkrasovec@schiffhardin.com -- Yakov Paul Wiegmann --
ywiegmann@schiffhardin.com -- at Schiff Hardin LLP

AmSafe Commercial Products, Inc., AmSafe Partners, Inc., AmSafe,
Inc., defendants, represented by Nathaniel Peardon Garrett --
ngarrett@jonesday.com -- Ann Theresa Rossum --
atrossum@jonesday.com -- Richard Joseph Bedell --
rjbedell@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day


GUARANTEED INVESTMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Galina Pikh and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Guaranteed Investment, L.L.C., Mikhail Zelner, Case No.
1:15-cv-20400 (S.D. Fla., February 2, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a financial investment company in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, PC
      300 71st Stree, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


HENRY FORD: Mich. App. Flips Cert. Ruling, Remands Patient Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Michigan reversed the grant of
certification and remanded the case of JANE DOE and ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. HENRY FORD HEALTH
SYSTEM Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, and PERRY JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATES
INC, Defendant/Cross-Defendant-Appellant, and C TECH LLC, Cross-
Defendant. JANE DOE and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-
Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEMS,
Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee, and PERRY
JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATES INC, Defendant/Cross-Defendant, and C TECH
LLC, Cross-Defendant, NOS. 317973, 317975 ( Mich. App.)

Perry Johnson provides transcription services for Henry Ford
Health Systems involving patient records. Vingspan, a
subcontractor of Perry Johnson made a configuration change to
their server which left certain patient records unprotected.
Googlebot, Google's automated web crawler, indexed the
information, thereby making it possible to find patient
information through Google's search engine.

After Henry Ford learned of the problem, all information was
removed from access on the Internet, the affected patients were
notified, and steps were taken to more adequately protect patient
information.

Following Henry Ford's notification to the patients, plaintiff
filed a lawsuit and sought class certification. Her suit includes,
negligence, invasion of privacy in the form of public disclosure
of private facts, and breach of contract under the theory that she
was a third party beneficiary of Henry Health's agreement with
Perry Johnson. Plaintiff's complaint sought all damages suffered
by her and those similarly situated. The class consisted of 320
individuals who had doctor's visits at Henry Ford between June 3,
and July 18, 2008.

Over objections from Perry Johnson and Henry Ford, the trial court
granted class certification, but the trial court later reduced
that number to the 159 members. Both Perry Johnson and Henry Ford
moved for summary disposition, and the trial court denied those
motions. Henry Ford and Perry Johnson both appealed as on leave
granted from the denial of their respective motions for summary
disposition. Also, plaintiff filed a cross-appeal, contesting the
trial court's reduction of the class from 320 individuals to 159.

The Court of Appeals of Michigan reversed the grant of class
certification and remanded the case for entry of summary
disposition in favor of Henry Ford and Perry Johnson.

A copy of the Michigan Court of Appeals opinion dated December 18,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/CMNgRmfrom Leagle.com

The Michigan Court of Appeals panel consists of Presiding Judge
Christopher M. Murray and Judges Henry William Saad and Joel P.
Hoekstra.


HILLSIDE TIRE: Faces "Cepeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin L. Cepeda v. Hillside Tire Shop, Inc., and Gennadiy Barayev,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00530 (E.D.N.Y., February 3, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 per work week.

The Defendants own and operate a tire business located at 132-06
Hillside Avenue, Richmond Hill, New York 11418.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


HOLLISTER BISTRO'S: "Reitenga" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Reitenga, for himself and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Hollister Bistro's LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, Steven J. Hollister, and Denise Hollister, Case No. 2:15-
cv-00058 (M.D. Fla., February 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, overtime compensation, damages, penalties and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Lee County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angeli Murthy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com


IKEA CANADA: Recalls VYSSA Crib Mattresses
------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 13, 2015
Posting date:             January 13, 2015
Type of communication:    Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory:              Children's Products
Source of recall:         Health Canada
Issue:                    Product Safety
Audience:                 General Public
Identification number:    RA-43355

Affected products: IKEA VYSSA crib mattresses

The recall involves IKEA VYSSA crib mattresses with date stamp
"May 4, 2014" or earlier.

IKEA VYSSA crib mattresses include these models:

VACKERT
VINKA
SPELEVINK
SLOA
SLUMMER

The product name and date stamp are found on a label sewn onto the
mattress.

IKEA VYSSA crib mattresses are designed to be used with IKEA cribs
to ensure a snug fit and safe sleeping environment for your baby.
A gap between the mattress and the side or end of the crib that is
greater than 3 cm poses an entrapment hazard for an infant.

Health Canada has received one consumer incident report related to
this advisory for a VYSSA crib mattress.

IKEA Canada has received 10 reports in Canada of a potential gap
created between the VYSSA mattress and the end of the crib, posing
a safety hazard for infants.  No injuries have been reported to
Health Canada nor IKEA Canada related to this advisory.

Approximately 63,800 VYSSA crib mattresses have been sold at IKEA
stores across Canada and online at www.ikea.ca.

The VYSSA crib mattresses have been manufactured in Mexico and
sold since 2010 in Canada.

Companies:

   Manufacturer     IKEA Canada Limited Partnership
                    Burlington
                    Ontario
                    Canada

Consumers should check the gap between the IKEA VYSSA crib
mattress and the side and end of the crib. If the gap is greater
than 3 cm, consumers should immediately stop using the affected
product and return it to any IKEA store for an exchange or a full
refund.

For more information, consumers may contact IKEA Canada by
telephone toll-free at 1-800-661-9807 or visit IKEA's website.


INTEGRITY FACILITY: Faces "Ellison" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lynell Ellison, and all others similarly situated v. Integrity
Facility Solutions, Inc., Schindler Development Systems, Inc.,
d/b/a Janitorial Concepts and Dan Schindler, Case No. 3:15-cv-
00312 (N.D. Tex., January 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants provide janitorial services to building facilities
within the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William E. Reid, Esq.
      REID & DENNIS PC
      15660 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1400
      Dallas, TX 75248
      Telephone: (972) 991-2626
      Facsimile: (972) 991-2678
      E-mail: wreid@reiddennis.com


J3 OIL: "Mena" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Mena on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. J3
Oil & Gas, Inc., and Distribution Solutions, LLC, Case No. 5:15-
cv-00083 (W.D. Tex., February 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory
relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs under the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide drilling services of oil well sites in
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas H. Padgett Jr., Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (800) 634-8042
      Facsimile: (800) 867-4455
      E-mail: tpadgettlaw@gmail.com


JBI INC: Final Approval Hearing Set for April 27
------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Robert C. Jones of District of Nevada
approves the preliminary settlement of the parties in the case
HOWARD L. HOWELL, Lead Plaintiff, ELLISA PANCOE, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. JBI,
INC., f/k/a 310 HOLDINGS, INC., JOHN BORDYNUIK, and RONALD
BALDWIN, JR., Defendants, Case No. 3:11-CV-00545-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev.)

The parties have made an application, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(e), for an order preliminary approving the
settlement of case, in which the court finds the settlement to be
the result of an arms-length negotiation and is sufficiently fair,
reasonable and adequate to the class members.

The settlement hearing shall be held on April 27, 2015 at 10:00
a.m. to determine whether the proposed settlement of the
litigation on the 10:00 a.m. terms and conditions provided for in
the stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to the class and
should be approved by the Court; whether a judgment as provided in
the stipulation should be entered herein; whether the proposed
plan of allocation should be approved; whether to certify the
settlement class; whether to approve the plaintiffs' application
for their reasonable costs and expenses, including lost wages
directly relating to their representation of the class; and to
determine the amount of fees that should be awarded to lead
counsel.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court preliminarily certifies, solely for the purposes of
effectuating the settlement, a Settlement Class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired JBI's
securities between August 28, 2009 and January 4, 2012, inclusive,
and who were damaged thereby. Excluded from the class are
defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, at all
relevant times, members of their immediate families, any entity in
which any defendant has or had a legal controlling interest, and
the legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns of any
defendant. There has been no prior notice to class members of the
certification of the class in the litigation or prior opportunity
for any person or entity to request to be excluded from the Class.

The Court approves, as to form and content, the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys' Fees, and
Settlement Fairness Hearing the Proof of Claim and Release form,
and Summary Notice  The Court further finds that the mailing,
posting, and publishing of the Notice, Proof of Claim, and
Summary, meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 and due process, is the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to
all Persons entitled thereto.

The Court appoints Gilardi & Co. LLC -- Claims Administrator -- to
supervise and administer the notice procedure as well as the
processing of claims.

Nominees who purchased or acquired JBI, Inc. securities between
August 28,2009 and January 4, 2012, inclusive, shall send the
Notice and the Proof of Claim to all beneficial owners of such
JBI, Inc. securities within twenty (20) days after receipt
thereof, or send a list of the names and addresses of such
beneficial owners to the Claims Administrator within twenty (20)
days of receipt thereof, in which event the Claims Administrator
shall promptly mail the Notice and the Proof of Claim to such
beneficial owners. Class Counsel shall, if requested, reimburse
banks, brokerage houses or other nominees solely for their
reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing the Notice
to beneficial owners who are Class Members out of the Settlement
Fund, which expenses would not have been incurred except for the
sending of such Notice, subject to further order of this Court
with respect to any dispute concerning such compensation.

Any Person falling within the definition of the Class may, upon
request, be excluded from the Class. Any such Person must submit
to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion ("Request for
Exclusion"), postmarked no later than 21 days prior to the
Settlement Hearing. A Request for Exclusion must state (a) the
name, address, and telephone number of the Person requesting
exclusion; (b) each of the Person's purchases and sales of JBI,
Inc. securities made during the Class Period, including the dates
of purchase or sale, the number of shares purchased and/or sold,
and the price paid or received per share for each such purchase or
sale; and (c) that the Person wishes to be excluded from the
Class. All Persons who submit valid and timely Requests for
Exclusion in the manner set forth in this paragraph shall have no
rights under the Settlement, shall not share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, and shall not be bound by the
Settlement or the Judgment entered in this Litigation.

Class Members (other than those Persons or entities who shall
validly request exclusion from the Class) who wish to participate
in the Settlement shall complete and submit a Proof of Claim form
in accordance with the instructions contained therein. Unless the
Court orders otherwise, all Proof of Claim forms must be
postmarked within 120 calendar days after the date of this
Preliminary Approval Order. Any Class Member who does not timely
submit a Proof of Claim shall be barred from sharing in the
distribution of the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund, unless
otherwise ordered by the Court.

Any Member of the Class may appear and show cause, if he, she or
it has any reason why the proposed Settlement of the Litigation
should or should not be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate,
why a Judgment should or should not be entered thereon, why the
Plan of Allocation should or should not be approved, or why
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should or should not
be awarded to Plaintiffs or Class Counsel; provided, however, that
no Class Member or any other Person shall be heard or entitled to
contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the proposed
Settlement, or, if approved, the Judgment to be entered thereon
approving the same, or the order approving the Plan of Allocation,
or the attorneys' fees and expenses to be awarded to Plaintiffs or
Class Counsel, unless that Person has filed said objections,
papers and briefs with the Clerk of the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada, no later than twenty-one (21)
days prior to the Settlement Hearing and delivered copies of any
such papers to counsel identified in the Notice, such that they
are received on or before such date. Any Member of the Class who
does not make his, her or its objection in the manner provided
shall be deemed to have waived such objection and shall forever be
foreclosed from making any such objection, unless otherwise
ordered by the Court. Class Members objection to the Settlement
must follow the requirements in the Notice.

All papers in support of the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of expenses, and the
application for attorneys' fees and expenses, shall be filed and
served not later than 35 days prior to the Settlement Hearing. Any
papers in further support of the Settlement, the Plan of
Allocation, Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of expenses,
and the application for attorneys' fees, shall be filed and served
no later than 10 days prior to the Settlement Hearing.

Pending the Settlement Hearing, the Court stays all proceedings in
the Litigation, other than proceedings necessary to carry out or
enforce the terms and conditions of the Stipulation.

A copy of Judge Jones's order dated December 18, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/HPcrYpfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     David C OMara, Esq.
     THE OMARA LAW FIRM, P.C.
     311 E. Liberty St.
     Reno, NV 89501
     Telephone: 775-323-1321
     Facsimile: 755-323-4082

         - and -

     Ex Kano S. Sams, II, Esq.
     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
     Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
     GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: 310-201-9510
     E-mail: esams@glancylaw.com
             lglancy@glancylaw.com
             mgoldberg@glancylaw.com

Tim Amos, Movant, represented by Laurence M Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Patrick R.
Leverty -- pat@levertylaw.com -- at Leverty & Associates Chtd

JBI, Inc., John Bordynuik and Ronald Baldwin, Jr., Defendants,
represented by Richard G. Campbell, Jr. --
rcampbell@armstrongteasdale.com -- Bret F Meich --
bmeich@armstrongteasdale.com  -- at Armstrong Teasdale LLP;
Katherine W. Wittenberg -- katherine.wittenberg@FaegreBD.com --
Michael R. MacPhail -- michael.macphail@FaegreBD.com -- at Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP


KTM: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 12, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorcycle
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Suspension
Units affected:           691
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015011
TC ID number:             2015011

On certain motorcycles, inner front fork components may not have
been tightened properly.  This could allow the inner front fork to
become loose and cause the suspension to stick.  Should the
suspension become stuck, this could affect the vehicle handling
and lead to a crash causing property damage and/or personal
injury.

Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, tighten the loose
components.

Affected products: 2015 KTM 250 SX-F


LAND O' LAKES: Court Narrows Discovery Bid in FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder of the Eastern District of
California ruled on the parties' motions in the case ARTURO
SALGADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. LAND O' LAKES, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION; KOZY SHACK ENTERPRISES, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION,
Defendants, CASE No. 1:13-CV-0798-LJO-SMS (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Arturo Salgado brings a putative class action against
defendant Land O'Lakes, Inc. (LOL) and Kozy Shack Enterprises,
Inc. (KS) for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and California state wage
and hour laws. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that in violation
of various California Labor Codes, Defendants failed to pay
minimum wages in violation of Section 1197, failed to pay wages
owed in violation of Sections 201, 203, 216, 218.5 and 227.3,
failed to provide meal and rest breaks in violation of Sections
226.7(b) and 512(a), failed to provide accurate wage statements in
violation of Section 226(a),  failed to timely pay wages upon
termination in violation of Section 201-02, failed to pay accrued
vacation pay upon termination in violation of Section 227.3,
failed to pay overtime compensation in violation of Sections 510
and 1194, engaged in unfair competition in violation of California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.; and
conversion.

Salgado filed a motion to compel further production of documents
and dissemination of a class notice. Particularly plaintiff seeks
production of documents relating to wage statement, payroll and
time-keeping records, as well as contact information for putative
class members at LOL facilities state-wide. Defendants object to
the scope of plaintiff's discovery requests as overly broad and
unduly burdensome. Defendants object to the wage statement,
payroll, and time document requests on the grounds that plaintiff
seeks records protected by individual privacy rights regarding
wages and employment issues and lastly, defendants vigorously
oppose providing the requested information, emphasizing the
invasive nature of the financial information requested.
Defendants' filed a motion for protective order.

Magistrate Judge Snyder granted in part and denied in part
plaintiff's motion to compel. To the extent plaintiff request
information relative to putative class members from all LOL
facilities in California, the motion is denied. Precertification
discovery shall be limited to records pertaining to putative class
members, which the court defines as those individuals formerly or
currently employed during the class period at the Turlock-Teg
Facility. Magistrate Judge Snyder compels defendants to produce;
(1) Wage statements for a random sample of 20% of the putative
class members, for the period July-August 2012; (2) Time-keeping
documents for a random sample of 20% of the putative class
members, for the duration of the class period; (3) A list of
names, addresses, and contact information of all putative class
members formerly or presently employed at the Turlock-Teg Facility
during the class period.

Parties' counsel shall meet and confer regarding the terms of a
proposed order as outlined at length in section IV(2). On or
before 15 days from the date of the Order, the parties shall file
a joint motion for protective order for the Court's review setting
forth, at a minimum, the terms to govern the use of the to-be-
disclosed names, addresses, telephone numbers, contact
information, and documents, such terms to be drafted to protect
the privacy interests of the third parties. The parties shall
ensure that the proposed protective order contains the language
required by Local Rules. Plaintiff's request for a Belaire notice
is dismissed as moot. Seeking to compel production of payroll
records, the motion is denied without prejudice.

The Court has limited precertification discovery to the Turlock-
Teg Facility, and defendants' motion for a protective order
relative to state-wide discovery is dismissed as moot.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Snyder's order dated December 17, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/pQpK1ifrom Leagle.com.

Arturo Salgado, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Gundzik --
agundzik@gghslaw.com -- Rebecca Gilbert Gundzik --
rgundzik@gghslaw.com -- at Gartenberg Gelfand Hayton LLP; Neal J.
Fialko -- at Law Office of Neal J. Fialkow, Inc.

Land O' Lakes, Inc. and Kozy Shack Enterprises, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Emilie Consuelo Woodhead -- ewoodhead@winston.com
-- Emily C. Schuman -- eschuman@winston.com -- Joan Tucker Fife
-- jfife@winston.com -- at Winston and Strawn


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Farias" Suit Over Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Farias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc., John Barbour, and Raymond
L. Arthur, Case No. 3:15-cv-00478 (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. is a developer of educational
entertainment for children. The Company's product portfolio
consists of multimedia learning platforms and related content, and
learning toys.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
              info@glancylaw.com


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Grayson" Suit Over Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bette R. Grayson, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Leapfrog Enterprises Inc., John Barbour, and Raymond
L. Arthur, Case No. 3:15-cv-00453 (N.D. Cal., February 2, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. is a developer of educational
entertainment for children. The Company's product portfolio
consists of multimedia learning platforms and related content, and
learning toys.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
              info@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
      Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
      Roy Herrera Jr., Esq.
      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 59-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 86-2093
      E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com
              RFinkel@wolfpopper.com
              rherrera@wolfpopper.com
              fqian@wolfpopper.com


LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Trax" Suit Over Automatic Renewal Offers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Trax, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LifeLock, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00220 (S.D. Cal.,
February 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
making automatic renewal offers and continuous service offers
without first obtaining the consumer's affirmative consent to the
agreement containing the automatic renewal offer terms or
continuous service offer terms.

LifeLock, Inc. owns and operates a company that offers what it
claims is comprehensive identity theft protection to help
safeguard the finances, credit and good name of consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Robert L. Hyde, Esq.
       Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
       Sara F. Khosroabadi, Esq
       HYDE & SWIGART
       2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
       San Diego, CA 92108
       Telephone: (619) 233-7770
       Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
       E-mail: bob@westcoastlitigation.com
               josh@westcoastlitigation.com
               sara@westcoastlitigation.com

          - and -

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


LOVE 466 AVENUE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kal1sha Thomas, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated v. Love 466 Avenue of The Americas, Inc. d/b/a Ricky's
NYC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00674 (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate 29 stores all under the name of
Ricky's NYC, primarily selling beauty supplies, but also carrying
Halloween costumes and adult-themed sex products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth J. Chen, Esq.
      Jeanne-Marie Bates Christensen, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue, 5th fl.
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      E-mail: echen@wigdorlaw.com
              jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com


MAVIMA RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Valencia" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emilio Vidal Valencia, individually, on behalf of all others
similarly situated and as class representative v. Mavima
Restaurant, Inc. d/b/a Brio Restaurant, Massimo Scoditti Sr.,
Massimo Carbone, and Massimo Scoditti Jr., Case No. 1:15-cv-00701
(S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess
of 40 per workweek

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 786
Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10065.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric Peter Dawson, Esq.
      ROSS & ASMAR LLC
      499 Seventh Avenue, 23rd Floor, South Tower
      New York, NY 10018
      Telephone: (516) 524-7239
      Facsimile: (212) 736-2873
      E-mail: edawson@rossasmar.com

         - and -

      Steven Benjamin Ross, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN B. ROSS
      270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1203
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 736-4201
      Facsimile: (212) 736-2873
      E-mail: steven@rossasmar.com


MEADOWBROOK MEAT: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Covarrubias, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Meadowbrook Meat Company Inc., A
North Carolina Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00198 (C.D. Cal.,
February 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Meadowbrook Meat Company Inc. is a North Carolina Corporation
manufactures and distributes frozen or cooled food products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Tracy, Esq.,
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 260-9171
      Facsimile: (866) 365-3051
      E-mail: MTRACY@MICHAELTRACYLAW.COM

         - and -

      Jose R. Garay, Esq.
      JOSE GARAY, APLC
      9861 Irvine Center Drive
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 208-3400
      Facsimile: (949) 713-0432
      E-mail: jgaray@garaylaw.com


MEDICAL MUTUAL: Faces "Tremmel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Tremmel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Medical Mutual of Ohio, Case No. 1:15-cv-00212 (N.D.
Ohio, January 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Medical Mutual of Ohio owns and operates a number of call centers
in Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sonia M. Whitehouse, Esq.
      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      LAZZARO LAW FIRM
      920 Rockefeller Bldg.
      614 Superior Avenue, W
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: sonia@lazzarolawfirm.com
              anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com


MERSCORP INC: Dismissal of Plymouth County Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Bobby E. Shepherd of the United States Court of
Appeals, Eight Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the state court
dismissing the case Plymouth County, Iowa, Darin J. Raymond, by
and through agent of, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Merscorp, Inc.;
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Bank of America
N.A.; BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP; CitiMortgage, Inc.; EverHome
Mortgage Company, Defendants-Appellees. GMAC-Residential Funding
Corporation, Defendant, HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; JPMorgan Chase Bank;
Chase Home Finance LLC; EMC Mortgage Corporation; SunTrust
Mortgage, Inc.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,
Inc.; WMC Mortgage Corporation; John Doe, Defendants 1-100,
Defendants-Appellees, Corinthian Mortgage Corporation, Defendant,
NO. 13-2334 (8th Cir.)

Plymouth County initiated a class action complaint in state court
against the Lenders/defendants alleging that they intentionally
failed to record mortgage assignments in the county recorder's
office and failed to pay the accompanying recording fees in
violation of Iowa law. The County brought claims for unjust
enrichment and civil conspiracy and sought declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief, and to pierce the corporate veil. After
removing to federal court, the lenders/defendants filed a motion
to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The
lenders/defendants also challenged Plymouth County's standing to
bring the suit.

The district court granted the lenders'/defendants' motion to
dismiss, finding that a determination of whether Iowa's Recording
Act imposed a mandatory recording requirement resolved all of the
claims. The district court found that the Iowa Recording Act does
not impose a duty to record mortgages and assignments in the
county where the property is located. Because the district court
determined that Iowa law did not impose a mandatory recording
requirement, the court dismissed all of the County's claims on the
basis that they could not survive in the absence of mandatory
recording.

After the district court granted the motion to dismiss, Plymouth
County filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and for leave
to file an amended complaint, in which the same has been denied.
Appeal followed.

Judge Shepherd holds that the district court properly dismissed
Plymouth County's claims for failure to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted and acted within its discretion by denying
Plymouth County's motion to alter or amend its complaint. The
judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A copy of Judge Shepherd's judgment dated December 19, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/3i4O8jfrom Leagle.com.

The Eight Circuit panel consists of Chief Judge William Jay Riley
and Judges Bobby E. Shepherd and Steven M. Colloton.


MHI HOTELS: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Holland, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(B) v. MHI Hotels Services, LLC d/b/a Holiday Inn Palm Beach
Airport, Chesapeake Hospitality, LLC, Case No. 9:15-cv-80110 (S.D.
Fla., January 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a hotel management company that
regularly transacts business within Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David L. Markel, Esq.
      THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
      777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 500
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 458-1282
      Facsimile: (800) 407-1718
      E-mail: david.markel@markel-law.com


MIDWOOD LUMBER: Faces "Vivas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ezequiel Vivas, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Midwood Lumber & Millwork Inc. d/b/a Midwood Lumber &
Millwork, Boris Motovich and Alex Motovich, Case No. 1:15-cv-00513
(E.D.N.Y., February 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40
hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a lumber processing and millwork
company located at 5301 First Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11232.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOISHE'S MINI: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Avila, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Moishe's Mini Storage of Chicago, LLC and
Pawel Makowski, individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-01047 (N.D. Ill.,
February 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Cook
County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 624-8958
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


MON PETIT: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gervacio Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Mon Petit Cafe Inc. d/b/a Mon Petit Cafe, Danielle
Delburg, and Alessandra Mac Carthy, Case No. 1:15-cv-00709
(S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Mon Petit Cafe restaurant in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      Vivianna Alexandra Morales, Esq.
      PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
      488 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 308-8582
      E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
              morales@pechmanlaw.com


MOTOR COACH: Recalls J Series Model
-----------------------------------
Starting date:            January 9, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Bus
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Brakes
Units affected:           2
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015009
TC ID number:             2015009

On certain vehicles equipped with ZF front axles, incorrect
routing may allow the brake hose to rub the front tire under
certain conditions.  This could eventually cause the brake hose
protective cover and hose braiding to wear through, resulting in
loss of or reduced air pressure to the front brake chamber during
brake application.  This could reduce braking system performance
and increase stopping distances, or cause uneven brake application
on the front axle, potentially affecting vehicle control.  These
issues could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
damage to property.

Correction: To be determined.

Affected products: 2013, 2014, 2015 MCI J Series


NATIONAL CASH: "Spangler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Spangler, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. National Cash Register Company, a Maryland
Corporation, and Field Solutions, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00022 (N.D. Ga., February 3, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate call centers located within the
State of Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      P.O. Box 4979, 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Judge Compels Arbitration in "Schriever" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the Middle District of
Florida granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion in
the case RICHARD SCHRIEVER and PAMELA SCHRIEVER, Plaintiffs, v.
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-596-FTM-38CM
(M.D. Fla.)

The plaintiff Pamela Schriever executed a promissory note and
borrowed funds from the defendant Navient Solutions, in which
Richard Schriever is the co-signer. The defendant made several
calls to plaintiffs' home telephone and cellular phone numbers.

As a result of the alleged telephone calls, the plaintiffs filed a
law suit in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in
and for Charlotte County, Florida. The defendant removed the case
to present court and now moves to dismiss or compel arbitration
based upon the arbitration clause in the note.

The defendant argues the case should be dismissed for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction or in the alternative the court should
compel arbitration pursuant to the note's arbitration agreement.
The plaintiffs argue the defendant's motion should be denied
because the case was removed to this court based upon federal
question jurisdiction, the defendant failed to comply with M.D.
Fla. Local Rule 3.01(g), and further the defendant has waived its
right to arbitration.

Judge Chappell granted in part and denied in part defendant's
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or in
the alternative, to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. The
Defendant is directed to inform the Court in writing when
arbitration is scheduled, and inform the Court within 10 days of
the arbitration's completion as to the status of the case.

A copy of Judge Chappell's order dated December 17, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/MfrYOOfrom Leagle.com

Richard Schriever and Pamela Schriever, Plaintiffs, represented by
Joseph C. LoTempio -- JLoTempio@DellutriLawGroup.com -- The
Dellutri Law Group, PA

Navient Solutions, Inc., formerly known as Sallie Mae, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by:

     Laura Hardy Compton, Esq.
     Scott Parker Yount, Esq.
     GARRISON, YOUNT, FORTE, & MULCAHY, LLC
     601 Bayshore Blvd. Suite 800
     Tampa, FL 33606-2760
     Telephone: 813-275-0404
     Facsimile: 813-275-0304


NEWMAR: Recalls Essex Diesel Pusher Motorhome Model
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 12, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Motorhome
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Steering
Units affected:           2
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015012
TC ID number:             2015012

On certain vehicles, the steering column slip shaft may have
inadequate spline engagement.  This could lead to wear and
potentially result in the steering shaft becoming disconnected or
slipping, causing a loss of steering control and increase the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.

Dealers will replace the affected slip shafts with those that will
have the minimum specified engagement.

Affected products: 2015 Newmar Essex Diesel Pusher Motorhome


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Summary Judgment Bid Okayed in "Nelson"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Joseph E. Irenas of the District of New
Jersey granted defendant Nissan North America, Inc.'s (NNA) motion
for summary judgment in the case TAMEKA NELSON, et al.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants,
CIV. NO. 11-5712 (JEI/AMD) (D.N.J.)

Plaintiff Tameka Nelson purchased a used 2006 model year Nissan
Maxima from Rancho Valley Chevrolet in California in 2006.
Plaintiffs including Nelson, filed a putative class action suit
against Nissan North America, asserting that they were injured by
a design defect common to the 5-speed, automatic transmissions of
their Nissan Maxima vehicles modet years 2004 through 2006.

Nelson asserts four claims under California law: (1) breach of
express warranty; (2) violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act; (3) violation of the California Unfair Competition
Law; and (4) unjust enrichment.

NNA filed a motion for Summary Judgment on plaintiff Nelson's
claims.

Judge Irenas granted defendant NNA's motion for summary judgment.

A copy of Senior Judge Irenas's opinion dated December 19, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/F3thSSfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
     Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
     Cory S. Fein, Esq.
     CADDELL & CHAPMAN, P.C.
     1331 Lamar Street, Suite 1070
     Houston, TX 77010
     Telephone: 713-581-8295
     Facsimile: 713-751-0906

          - and -

     Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
     Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
     Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
     CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP
     361 West Lancaster Ave
     One Haverford Centre
     Haverford, PA 19041
     Telephone: 610-642-8500
     Facsimile: 610-649-3633
     Email: JosephSauder@chimicles.com
            MatthewSchelkopf@chimicles.com
            BenJohns@chimicles.com

Martin Healy -- martin.healy@sedgwicklaw.com -- E. Paul Cauley,
Jr. -- paul.cauley@sedgwicklaw.com -- S. Vance Witte --
vance.wittie@sedgwicklaw.com -- at SEDGWICK LLP, Counsel for
Defendants


PGA TOUR: Doesn't Pay Caddies Endorsement Services, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Michael Hicks, et al., and all others similarly situated
v. PGA Tour, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00489 (N.D. Cal., February 3,
2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of unlawfully
forcing golf caddies to wear the logos of the corporate sponsors
without remuneration, and to preclude the Defendant from forcing
caddies to provide these endorsement services gratuitously in the
future.

PGA Tour, Inc. organizes and promotes numerous golf tournaments
throughout the state of California and maintains a permanent
office in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee Cirsch, Esq.
      THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (310) 277-5100
      Facsimile: (310) 277-5103
      E-mail: lee.cirsch@lanierlawfirm.com

         - and -

      W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
      Eugene R. Egdorf, Esq.
      Benjamin T. Major, Esq.
      Ryan D. Ellis, Esq.
      THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      6810 FM 1960 West
      Houston, TX 77069
      Telephone: (713) 659-5200
      Facsimile: (713) 659-2204
      E-mail: wml@lanierlawfirm.com
              gene.egdorf@lanierlawfirm.com
              ben.major@lanierlawfirm.com
              ryan.ellis@lanierlawfirm.com

          - and -

      Arthur R. Miller, Esq.
      THE LANIER LAW FIRM, PLLC
      126 East 56th Street, 6th Floor
      Tower 56
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 421-2800
      Facsimile: (212) 421-2878
      E-mail: Arthur.miller@lanierlawfirm.com


PIERCE: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
---------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 8, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Subcategory:              Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type:        Safety Mfr
System:                   Suspension
Units affected:           6
Source of recall:         Transport Canada
Identification number:    2015005
TC ID number:             2015005

On certain vehicles, the lower control arms may have developed
cracks at time of manufacture and may fail.  This could cause
partial suspension failure and could result in a loss of control,
increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property
damage.

Owners will be provided with inspection instructions to determine
if the control arms may be subject to the recall.  Those found to
be potentially affected will be inspected by the manufacturer and
replaced as necessary.

Affected products:

   Maker      Model         Model year(s) affected
   -----      -----         ----------------------
   PIERCE     ENFORCER      2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
   PIERCE     QUANTUM       2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
   PIERCE     ARROW XT      2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
   PIERCE     VELOCITY      2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
   PIERCE     IMPEL         2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013


PRIME TIME: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Martinez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Prime Time Restaurant and Bar Corp and
George Les, Case No. 1:15-cv-01049 (N.D. Ill., February 2, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens,Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 624-8958
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


RETROFITNESS LL: Ardino et al. Suit Goes Back to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joel A. Pisano of the District of New Jersey
remanded to the New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County, the
case JOSEPH ARDINO, SAMANTHA ARDINO, KRISTA A. DEFAZIO, SCOTT
RICHTER, JAMES HEANEY, and PHILLIP MAZZUCO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
RETROFITNESS, LLC, ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Z TIMES
THREE LLC d/b/a RETROFITNESS OF KENILWORTH, BRITCARIANNA, LLC
d/b/a RETROFITNESS-FAIRFIELD, PJ'S FITNESS EXPRESS, INC. d/b/a
RETROFITNESS OF BORDENTOWN, PRJ HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a RETROFITNESS
OF WALL, JOHN/JANE DOES 1-100, DEFENDANT RETROFITNESS FRANCHISES
1-75 and XYZ CORPORATIONS 1-10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-
CV-01567 (JAP) (D.N.J.)

RetroFitness and the defendant franchisees are citizens of New
Jersey, while ABC Financial Services Company, Inc. is a
corporation formed under the laws of the State of Arkansas and
maintains its principal place of business in Sherwood Arkansas.

RetroFitness is alleged to be a corporation that sells franchises
of its health clubs in New Jersey. ABC Financial is responsible
for collecting all membership dues and other fees payable by
members of all New Jersey franchisees of RetroFitness, and ABC
Financial is further required to deduct all monies owed by New
Jersey franchisees of RetroFitness to RetroFitness and to remit
such monies directly to RetroFitness.

The plaintiffs, Joseph Ardino, Samantha Ardino, Krista Defazio,
Scott Richter, James Heaney, and Phillip Mazzuco are identified as
buyers of health club services. Plaintiffs' assert that
RetroFitness and the Defendant franchisees are misrepresenting the
member's payment obligation in violation of various New Jersey
state laws.

Plaintiff's class action complaint contains causes of action
relating to defendants' alleged violations of the Health Club
Services Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-39, et seq.(HCSA), the Consumer Fraud
Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et seq. (CFA), the Retail Installment Sales
Act,N.J.S.A. 17:16C-1, et seq. (RISA), and the Truth-in-Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act,N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 to 18 (WNA).

Plaintiffs filed the complaint before the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Middlesex County.  ABC Financial removed the matter to
this Court, asserting that the underlying jurisdictional basis for
removal was the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(2). Plaintiffs move the District Court to remand
the matter, contending, among other things, that the local
controversy exception to the CAFA applies.

ABC Financial disagrees, and also, along with RetroFitness and the
franchisee defendants, moves to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for
failure to state a claim.

Judge Pisano granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the
New Jersey Superior Court, Middlesex County, and denied all
defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice as being moot.

A copy of Judge Pisano's opinion dated December 18, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/nbBdJ9- from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by ANDREW R. WOLF -- awolf@wolflawfirm.net
-- ANDREW WEI LI -- ali@wolflawfirm.net -- at THE WOLF LAW FIRM,
LLC; JOHN N. POULOS -- poulos@pllawfirm.com -- at POULOS LOPICCOLO
PC; JOSEPH K. JONES -- at LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES


RETROFITNESS, LLC, Defendant, represented by EVAN MATTHEW GOLDMAN
-- evan@marksklein.com -- JUSTIN M. KLEIN -- justin@marksklein.com
-- at MARKS & KLEIN, LLP

ABC FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Defendant, represented by
JONATHAN A. CASS -- jcass@cohenseglias.com -- at COHEN, SEGLAS,
PALLAS, GREENHALL & FURMAN

Z TIMES THREE LLC, BRITCARIANNA, LLC and PJ'S FITNESS EXPRESS,
INC., Defendants, represented by JOSHUA S. BAUCHNER --
jb@ansellgrimm.com -- at ANSELL GRIMM & AARON


ROBERTA MOORE: Faces "Tzintzun" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jetzary Tzintzun and Brisa Gorosieta, individually and on behalf
of other employees similarly situated v. Roberta Moore, Inc. d/b/a
Bobbie's Screen Printing and Roberta Moore, Case No. 1:15-cv-01048
(N.D. Ill., February 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a screen printing business in
Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 624-8958
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


ROCHDALE VILLAGE: Faces "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynica Morales, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Rochdale Village Inc., Marion Scott Real Estate, Inc.,
Marion Scott, and Herbert Freedman, Case No. 1:15-cv-00502
(E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
overtime compensation, damages, penalties and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act

Rochdale Village Inc. is a cooperative housing development that
manages approximately 5,860 residential units located in 20 high-
rise buildings.

Marion Scott Real Estate, Inc. specializes in the management of
government assisted housing in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee S. Shalov, Esq.
      McLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
      260 Madison Ave., 17th Fl
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 448-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 448-0066
      E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com


SAN BERNARDINO: Appellate Court Keeps Ruling in "Williams" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Thomas E. Hollenhorst of the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, Division Two, rejected plaintiffs'
contention and affirmed the trial court's decision in the case
BARBARA ANN WILLIAMS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY
OF SAN BERNARDINO et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. E057635
(Cal. App.)

The plaintiffs and appellants Barbara Ann Williams, Shelda Vinson,
and Karen Branch filed a suit against County of San Bernardino and
Patricia Wilson for employment discrimination and wrongful
termination action on September 11, 2007. On February 13, 2009,
plaintiffs added class action allegations. More than three years
later, on April 5, 2012, defendants moved to strike the class
action allegations.  On April 18, 2012, plaintiffs moved to
certify the class, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 382
and California Rules of Court, rule 3.764. The court denied
plaintiffs' motion on May 25, 2012.

From February 2009 through May 2012, the court held at least three
trial setting conferences and at least six case management
conferences. Plaintiffs never asked for a trial date, nor did they
take any further steps to manage the progress of their case to
trial.

On August 27, 2012, defendants moved for dismissal of this action
pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. Sections 583.310 and 583.360. On
September 26, 2012, the court found that plaintiffs had failed to
act with diligence in bringing the case to trial, and ordered the
action dismissed. Plaintiffs timely appealed.

Plaintiffs contend the trial court (1) abused its discretion in
not setting a trial date at the ex parte hearing after indicating
that its calendar was free to do so; (2) erred in dismissing this
action in its entirety; (3) heard and decided three motions for
partial summary judgment in violation of section 437c, subdivision
(f)(1); and (4) improperly granted each of the motions for partial
summary adjudication.

Justice Hollenhorst rejected plaintiffs' contentions and affirmed
the trial court's decision in dismissing the action. The trial
court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion
to specially set the case for trial and defendants' motion to
dismiss pursuant to sections 583.310 and 583.360.

A copy of Justice Hollenhorst's unpublished opinion dated December
18, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/D6VooPfrom Leagle.com

For Plaintiffs and Appellants:

     Rob Hennig, Esq.
     Brandon Ruiz, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROB HENNIG
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 1960
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: 310-843-0020
     Facsimile: 310-843-9150

For Defendants and Respondents:

     Calvin House, Esq.
     Clifton A. Baker, Esq.
     GUTIERREZ, PRECIADO & HOUSE
     3020 E. Colorad Blvd.
     Pasadena, CA 91107
     Telephone: 888-680-8579
     Facsimile: 626-449-2330

The Court of Appeals of California Fourth District panel consists
of Presiding Justice Manuel A. Ramirez and Justices Thomas E.
Hollenhorst and Douglas P. Miller.


SANOFI: Faces "de Brabander" Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen de Brabander, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sanofi, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00753
(S.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

Sanofi is a global pharmaceutical company that researches,
develops and manufactures prescription pharmaceuticals and
vaccines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
      Adam M. Apton, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN, LEVI & KORSINKY, LLP
      39 Broadway, Suite 1440
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com
              aapton@zlk.com


SCIFUNERAL SERVICES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nina Rossi, Destin Defeo, and Martin Herman v. Scifuneral Services
Of New York, Inc., a/k/a Service Corporation International, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00473 (E.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees,
and all other appropriate legal and equitable relief, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Scifuneral Services of New York, Inc. operates numerous funeral
homes in the New York City and around the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Harrison, Esq.
      HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      110 Highway 35, 2nd Floor
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (718) 799-9111
      Facsimile: (718) 799-9171
      E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


SCOTIAN GOLD: Recalls Scotian Gold Apple Slices
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 10, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning
Subcategory:              Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification:    Class 1
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Scotian Gold Co-operative Limited
Distribution:             New Brunswick, Newfoundland and
                          Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward
                          Island
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9574

Scotian Gold Co-operative Limited is recalling Scotian Gold brand
apple slices that used apples sourced from the United States (US)
that are now recalled from the marketplace due to possible
Listeria monocytogenes 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 Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick.  Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness.  Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

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

The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities related to the recall of Granny Smith
and Gala apples exported by Bidart Bros. in the US. 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.


SHELBY HEALTHCARE: Tenn. High Court Rules on Bid to Quash Liens
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Tennessee ruled on plaintiffs' motion to
quash liens in the case DIANE WEST, ET AL., v. SHELBY COUNTY
HEALTHCARE CORPORATION D/B/A REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AT MEMPHIS,
NO. W2012-00044-SC-R11-CV (Tenn.)

The Regional Medical Center at Memphis (the Med) is a nonprofit
hospital operated by the Shelby County Healthcare Corporation.
When a patient receives treatment at the hospital, the Med
categorizes the patient according to the type of injury and the
circumstances surrounding the injury. If the Med decides that a
third party may be personally liable for the patient's injuries,
the hospital perfects a lien for the full, unadjusted charges for
the care the patient received while hospitalized, pursuant to the
Tennessee Hospital Lien Act (HLA), Tenn. Code Ann. Sections 29-22-
101 to -107 (2012).

Diane West was injured in a motor vehicle accident and was treated
at the Med and released on the same day. On August 10, 2006, the
Med perfected a lien in the amount of $14,008.97 for medical
services it provided Ms. West. Ms. West was insured by Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Alabama (BCBSA) through Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Tennessee (BCBST). Despite the payment received from BCBSA, the
Med declined to release its $14,008.97 lien.

Jammie Heags-Johnson was also injured in a motor vehicle accident
and was treated at the Med and released on the same day. On August
3, 2006, the Med perfected a lien in the amount of $4,304.92 for
the medical services it provided Ms. Heags-Johnson on July 21,
2006. On November 22, 2006, the Med perfected an amended lien that
included the original $4,304.92, as well as an additional $338.42,
unadjusted cost of additional medical services provided to Ms.
Heags-Johnson.

At the time of the accident, Ms. Heags-Johnson was insured by
Accordia National Insurance which is part of the Baptist Health
Services Group of the Mid-South, Inc. (BHS"). In accordance with
its provider agreement with BHSG, the Med made a $880.98
adjustment to the costs of the services it provided to Ms. Heags-
Johnson, and billed her insurance company for $2,952.96.
Similarly, the Med made a $67.68 adjustment to the costs of the
services it provided and billed Ms. Heags-Johnson's insurance
company for $216.59. Ms. Heags-Johnson's insurance company paid
the Med $3,169.55. The remaining balance of $525.12 represented
co-pays owed to the Med by Ms. Heags-Johnson. Despite receiving
payments from Ms. Heags-Johnson's insurance company and Ms. Heags-
Johnson's offer to pay the remaining balance of her co-pays, the
Med it declined to release its $4,643.34 lien. In doing so, the
Med reiterated its position that its hospital lien was for the
total unadjusted amount of Ms. Heags-Johnson's charges.

On December 26, 2007, West and Heags-Johnson filed a class action
suit in the Circuit Court for Shelby County seeking to quash the
Med's liens and to recover damages. The lawsuit alleged, in part,
that the Med had violated the HLA, the Tennessee Consumer
Protection Act, and the federal Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), and accused the Med of attempted
conversion, intentional interference with contract rights, and
intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation. Because of the
ERISA claim, the Med removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. After West
and Heags-Johnson filed an amended complaint omitting the ERISA
claim, the case was remanded to the circuit court.

On February 9, 2010, Mses. West and Heags-Johnson filed a second
amended complaint, alleging that the Med was engaging in illegal
balance billing by receiving payment from its patients' insurance
companies while, at the same time, perfecting a hospital lien for
the full, unadjusted amount of the cost of the medical services
provided. On May 18, 2010, West and Heags-Johnson moved to quash
the Med's liens.

The court denied the motion to quash. West and Heags-Johnson
appealed to the Court of Appeals, which the latter reversed the
trial court. Med made an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals
reversing the trial court's refusal to quash the Med's lien
against Ms. West. However, it reverses the court of appeals'
judgment with regard to Ms. Heags-Johnson and affirmed the trial
court's judgment because Ms. Heags-Johnson has not yet fully
extinguished her debt to the Med. The case is remanded to the
trial court for further proceedings.

A copy of Justice Koch's opinion dated December 19, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/Z8YhELfrom Leagle.com

John I. Houseal, Jr. -- jhouseal@Glankler.com -- Don L. Hearn, Jr.
-- DHearn@Glankler.com - at Glankler Brown, PLLC, for the
appellant Shelby County Healthcare Corporation, d/b/a Regional
Medical Center at Memphis

For the appellees, Diane West, Jammie Heags-Johnson, and Charles
Garland, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, represented by:

     Eugene A. Laurenzi, Esq.
     GOODWIN, MORRIS, LAURENZI & BLOOMFIELD, P.C.
     50 North Front Street, Suite 800
     Memphis, TN 38103
     Telephone: 901-236-0578
     Facsimile: 901-528-0246

          - and -

     A. Wilson Wages, Esq.
     WAGES LAW FIRM
     4557 Shelby Rd.
     Millington, TN 38053
     Telephone: 901-872-8008
     Facsimile: 901-872-4503
    Email: awages@wageslaw.com

For the Amicus Curiae:

     W. Bryan Smith, Esq.
     Tennessee Association for Justice
     1903 Division Street
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Telephone: 615-329-3000

The Supreme Court of Tennessee panel consists of Chief Justice
Sharon G. Lee, Justices William C. Koch, Jr., Janice M. Holder,
Cornelia Clark and Gary R. Wade


SIX AMIGOS: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Soria-Ramirez" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lazaro Soria-Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Six Amigos, Inc., and Jatin
Patel, individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-01040 (N.D. Ill., January
31, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a car wash shop located at 4454
North Elston Avenue, in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 624-8958
      E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


SNC-LAVALIN ENGINEERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Bearicks on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. SNC-Lavalin Engineers & Constructors, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-00022 (S.D. Tex., February 2, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

SNC-Lavalin Engineers & Constructors, Inc. is a construction
company conducting business in the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas H. Padgett Jr., Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 474-7677
      Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
      E-mail: tpadgettlaw@gmail.com


SOUTHERN WRECKER: "O'Neil" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia O'Neill, on her own behalf and others similarly situated
v. Southern Wrecker and Recovery, LLC, a Florida Profit
Corporation and Greg Gaylord, Case No. 3:15-cv-00126 (M.D. Fla.,
February 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Southern Wrecker and Recovery, LLC is a Florida corporation that
provides vehicle towing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eddie Easa Farah, Esq.
      FARAH & FARAH, PA
      3rd Floor10 W Adams St
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Telephone: (904) 807-3180
      Facsimile: (904) 358-5300
      E-mail: efarah@farahandfarah.com


SUPERIOR RECHARGE: Mere Filing of Suit Does Not Waive Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Texas granted the petition for review,
reversed the Court of Appeals judgment, and remanded to the trial
court the case captioned as, RICHMONT HOLDINGS, INC., NUKOTE
HOLDING, INC., NUKOTE INTERNATIONAL, INC., INKBRARY, L.L.C.,
SUPERIOR ACQUISITIONS L.L.C., JOHN P. ROCHON, SR., JOHN P. ROCHON,
JR., KELLY KITTRELL, RUSSELL MACK, C & R SERVICES, INC. AND
KENNETH R. SCHLAG, Petitioners, v. SUPERIOR RECHARGE SYSTEMS,
L.L.C., AND JON BLAKE, Respondents, NO. 13-0907 (Tex.)

Richmont Holdings, Inc., through an affiliate, bought the assets
of Superior Recharge Systems, L.L.C. The parties' Asset Purchase
Agreement contained an arbitration provision. Superior Recharge's
part-owner, Jon Blake, agreed to continue as general manager of
the business for two years. The employment contract contained a
covenant not to compete but not an arbitration clause. After six
months, Blake's employment was terminated, allegedly for cause.
Superior Recharge and Blake sued Richmont and several of its
affiliates and principals in Denton County for fraud, breach of
contract, a declaration that the covenant not to compete was
unenforceable, and an injunction. Richmont sued Blake individually
in Dallas County to enforce the covenant not to compete, invoking
a forum selection clause in that agreement, and moved to transfer
venue of the Denton County suit to Dallas County or Collin County.

In the Denton County suit, Richmont does not appear to have sought
discovery other than a request for disclosure. Nineteen months
after being sued, Richmont moved to compel arbitration, asserting
that Blake's claims arose out of the Asset Purchase Agreement and
were therefore subject to arbitration. Blake did not dispute that
assertion but argued that Richmont had waived arbitration by
engaging in litigation. The trial court denied the motion to
compel.

The court of appeals affirmed, but not on waiver, the only ground
Blake raised. Rather, it held that Blake's claims were not covered
by the arbitration agreement.  Richmont filed a petition for
review.

The Supreme Court granted the petition for review and reversed the
Court of Appeals judgment and remanded the case to the trial
court. The Supreme Court said the mere filing of a suit does not
waive arbitration, even when the movant files a second, separate
suit in another county based in part on a contract at issue in the
first action and the arbitration provision in the asset purchase
agreement has no application to Blake's lawsuit is contrary to the
parties' contentions and has no support in the record.

A copy of the state Supreme Court's opinion dated December 19,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/FaZkv3from Leagle.com


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Herring" Suit Over Defective Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Herring, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-00056 (N.D.
Okla., February 3, 2015), alleges that the Defective Vehicles
contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of
protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents,
they violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal
amounts of metal  debris and shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allan Kanner, Esq.
      Conlee Schell Whiteley, Esq.
      KANNER & WHITELEY LLC
      701 Camp St.
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 524-5777
      Facsimile: (504) 524-5763
      E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
              c.whiteley@kanner-law.com

         - and -

      Wilfred K. Wright Jr., Esq.
      WRIGHT LAW
      PO Box 982
      Claremore, OK 74017
      Telephone: (918) 341-1923
      Facsimile: (918) 341-1923
      E-mail: re.9001@yahoo.com


TELESTONE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chao Sun, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Telestone Technologies Corporation, et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-00703 (D.N.J., February 2, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Telestone Technologies Corporation is a Delaware corporation that
offers homegrown access-network equipment, such as repeaters,
antennas and radio-frequency peripherals, project design, project
management, installation, maintenance and other after-sales
services to its customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
      South Orange, NJ 07079
      Telephone: (973) 313-1887
      Facsimile: (973) 833-0399
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


THRIFTY FOODS: Recalls Veggie Quiche Due to Undeclared Soy
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 9, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory:              Allergen - Soy
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Thrifty Foods
Distribution:             British Columbia
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9571

Affected products: 250 g. Thrifty Kitchens Veggie - Roasted
Artichoke, Sundried Tomato, Spinach, Kale & Feta Quiche


TULSA INSPECTION: "Fenley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy L. Fenley, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Tulsa Inspection Resources, LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-02316 (D. Kan., February 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Tulsa Inspection Resources, LLC is a limited liability company
providing pipeline inspection and pipeline integrity services to
companies in the oil and gas industry throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
      Williams Dirks Dameron, LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 876-2600
      Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
      E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com

         - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              sschalman-bergen@bm.net
              akoropey@bm.net


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Secure Business Licenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miadeco Corp., B & S Taxi Corp., Checker Cab Operators, Inc., Mr.
Phil Ellis Lowery, Ms. Minnie Mae Lowery, Ms. Eddielene G. Lowery
Brown, Mr. Arnett Jr. Lee, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Lyft, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-20356 (S.D. Fla., January 30, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendants' illegal practice of operating as a passenger service
company without for-hire licenses.

The Defendants own and operate a passenger service company that
provides for-hire transportation services to consumers in Miami-
Dade County through the use of a smartphone application designed
to act as a means to dispatch its drivers to customers through
internet communications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ralph George Patino, Esq.
      PATINO & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      550 Biltmore Way, Suite 740
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 443-6163
      Facsimile: 443-5635
      E-mail: rpatino@patinolaw.com


UNCLE T FOOD: Recalls Wei Hsin and Yu Hsiang Bean Curd Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date:            January 12, 2015
Type of communication:    Recall
Alert sub-type:           Notification
Subcategory:              Chemical
Hazard classification:    Class 3
Source of recall:         Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm:           Uncle T Food Ltd.
Distribution:             Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario
Extent of the product
distribution:             Retail
CFIA reference number:    9580


UNITED STATES: Court Dismissed Suit for Lack of Jurisdiction
------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Ortrie D. Smith of the Western District of
Missouri, Western Division, dismissed the case entitled JOEL
BREMER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEH JOHNSON, et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 13-1226-CV-W-ODS (W.D. Mo.)

In 2001, Joel Bremer was convicted of crime under the Adam Walsh
Act. A United States citizen, Mr. Bremer filed an I-130 petition
with United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
seeking to classify his wife Mrs. Ma Susan Bremer, his foreign
national spouse, as an immediate relative so she could become a
lawful permanent resident. Under the Adam Walsh Act, USCIS may not
approve I-130 petitions if the petitioner has been convicted of a
qualifying crime, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
the Secretary's sole and unreviewable discretion" determines that
the petitioner poses no risk to the beneficiary of the petition. 8
U.S.C. 1154(a)(1)(A)(viii)(I).

Mr. Joel Bremer and Mrs. Ma Susan Bremer filed a class action
complaint in District Court on December 20, 2013. Plaintiffs
allege in their Complaint that Defendants improperly denied their
visa petitions pursuant to the AWA. Plaintiffs generally allege
these improper denials violated the Administrative Procedures Act
(APA) and various Constitutional provisions.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Defendants argue
that the District Court lacks jurisdiction to review all of
plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the judicial review scheme
established in 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a)(2).

Judge Smith dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of
jurisdiction.  A copy of Judge Smith's order and opinion dated
December 17, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/ybEBKKfrom
Leagle.com.

Joel Bremer and Ma Susan Bremer, Plaintiffs, represented by
Matthew L. Hoppock -- mhoppock@dunndavison.com -- at Dunn &
Davison, LLC

Rand Beers, Robert M. Cowan, Eric H. Holder, Jr., Daniel Renaud,
Defendants, represented by:

     Geoffrey Forney, Esq.
     Lana L Vahab, Esq.
     U.S. Department of Justice
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20530-0001
     Telephone: 202-514-2000
     Email: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Alejandro Mayorkas Defendant, represented by:

     Geoffrey Forney
     U.S. Department of Justice
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20530-0001
     Telephone: 202-514-2000
     Email: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Alejandro Mayorkas Defendant, represented by:

     Lana L Vahab
     U.S. Department of Justice
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20530-0001
     Telephone: 202-514-2000
     Email: AskDOJ@usdoj.gov


VENAXIS INC: Sued in D. Colo. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nile J. Boldt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Venaxis, Inc., Stephen T. Lundy, and Jeffrey G.
McGonegal, Case No. 1:15-cv-00222 (D. Colo., February 2, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Venaxis, Inc. is a Colorado-based in vitro diagnostic company
focused on developing and commercializing its lead product
candidate, the APPY1 diagnostic test. The APPY1 test is designed
to aid in the identification of patients at low risk for acute
appendicitis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
      Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
      THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      885 Arapahoe Avenue
      Boulder, CO 80302
      Telephone: (303) 861-3003
      Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
      E-mail: Kip@shumanlawfirm.com
              Rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              fmcconville@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


ZA RESTAURANT: "Shahin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmed Shahin, Jorge Carmona, Javier Portugal, Raul Ramirez, Duane
Dawson, Shain Fike, Miguel Lopez, and Jose Diaz, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Za Restaurant
Management LLC d/b/a Reserve Cut Steakhouse, and Albir Allaham,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00708 (S.D.N.Y., January 30, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay, misappropriated tips
and other monies, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 40 Broad
Street, New York, New York 10004.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      Roberto Concepcion, Esq.
      PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
      488 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 308-8582
      E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
              concepcion@pechmanlaw.com


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has 47,507 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. was a defendant in 47,507 claims filed in numerous state
and federal courts alleging injury or death as a result of
exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated
January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 26, 2015.

Of the 47,507 pending claims as of December 31, 2014,
approximately 18,700 claims were pending in New York,
approximately 9,300 claims were pending in Texas, approximately
5,100 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 300
claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which
legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that
can proceed to trial on the merits.

Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either
dismissed or concluded through settlements. As of January 26,
2015, the Company has paid three judgments arising from adverse
jury verdicts in asbestos matters. The first payment, in the
amount of $2.54 million, was made on July 14, 2008, approximately
two years after the adverse verdict in the Joseph Norris matter in
California, after the Company had exhausted all post-trial and
appellate remedies. The second payment, in the amount of $0.02
million, was made in June 2009 after an adverse verdict in the
Earl Haupt case in Los Angeles, California on April 21, 2009. The
third payment, in the amount of $0.9 million, was made in June
2014, approximately two years after the adverse verdict in the
William Paulus matter in California, after the Company had
exhausted all post-trial and appellate remedies.

The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts
by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. The
Company further has pursued appeals of certain adverse jury
verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Verdict in Pa. Suit v. Crane Co. Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has issued a second opinion
reversing a jury verdict in the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit filed by James Nelson against Crane Co., according to the
Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015.

On March 23, 2010, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court jury
found the Company responsible for a 1/11th share of a $14.5
million verdict in the James Nelson claim, and for a 1/20th share
of a $3.5 million verdict in the Larry Bell claim.  On February
23, 2011, the court entered judgment on the verdicts in the amount
of $0.2 million against the Company, only, in Bell, and in the
amount of $4.0 million, jointly, against the Company and two other
defendants in Nelson, with additional interest in the amount of
$0.01 million being assessed against the Company, only, in Nelson.
All defendants, including the Company, and the plaintiffs took
timely appeals of certain aspects of those judgments. The Company
resolved the Bell appeal by settlement, which is reflected in the
settled claims for 2012. On September 5, 2013, a panel of the
Pennsylvania Superior Court, in a 2-1 decision, vacated the Nelson
verdict against all defendants, reversing and remanding for a new
trial. Plaintiffs requested a rehearing in the Superior Court and
by order dated November 18, 2013, the Superior Court vacated the
panel opinion, and granted en banc reargument. On December 23,
2014, the Superior Court issued a second opinion reversing the
jury verdict.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Briefing in NY Suit v. Crane Co. Concludes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Briefing has concluded in the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuit filed by Ronald Dummitt against Crane Co., according to
the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015.

On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the
Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on
the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company filed post-trial motions
seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to
reduce the damages, which the Company argued were excessive under
New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic
losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on October
18, 2011 and issued a written decision on August 21, 2012
confirming the jury's liability findings but reducing the award of
damages to $8 million. At plaintiffs' request, the Court entered a
judgment in the amount of $4.9 million against the Company, taking
into account settlement offsets and accrued interest under New
York law. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed in a
3-2 decision and order dated July 3, 2014. The Company has
appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The parties' briefing
has concluded and oral argument will be heard in 2015.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Accepts Appeal in "Suttner" v. Crane Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Court of Appeals has accepted Crane Co.'s appeal from
an order in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by
Gerald Suttner, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January
26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 26, 2015.

On October 23, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Gerald Suttner claim in Buffalo, New York. The jury found that
the Company was responsible for four percent (4%) of plaintiffs'
damages of $3 million. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict, which were denied. The court entered a judgment of
$0.1 million against the Company. The Company appealed, and the
judgment was affirmed by order dated March 21, 2014. The Company
sought reargument of this decision, which was denied. The Company
sought review before the New York Court of Appeals, which was
accepted in the fourth quarter of 2014. Oral argument will be
heard in 2015.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in Pa. Suits Appeals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. awaits ruling on its appeal from an order in the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Thomas Amato and
Frank Vinciquerra, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated
January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 26, 2015.

On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court
jury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5
million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a
$2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were
consolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgments in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement
offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with
Pennsylvania law. These motions were denied. The Company has
appealed.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 66 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc., had 66 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 December 31, 2014.

Ashland and Hercules, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ashland that
was acquired in 2009, have liabilities from claims alleging
personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos.  To assist in
developing and annually updating independent reserve estimates for
future asbestos claims and related costs given various
assumptions, Ashland retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates,
Inc. (HR&A). The methodology used by HR&A to project future
asbestos costs is based largely on recent experience, including
claim-filing and settlement rates, disease mix, enacted
legislation, open claims and litigation defense. The claim
experience of Ashland and Hercules are separately compared to the
results of previously conducted third party epidemiological
studies estimating the number of people likely to develop
asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were undertaken in
connection with national analyses of the population expected to
have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&A
estimates a range of the number of future claims that may be
filed, as well as the related costs that may be incurred in
resolving those claims. Changes in asbestos-related liabilities
and receivables are recorded on an after-tax basis within the
discontinued operations caption in the Statements of Consolidated
Comprehensive Income.

The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos
asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of
Riley, a former subsidiary. The amount and timing of settlements
and number of open claims can fluctuate from period to period. For
the three months ended December 31, 2014, Ashland had 66 asbestos-
related claims.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions to industries. The
Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers
products, technologies and resources in key markets including
personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage,
coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water
Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to
the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation,
refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal
markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create
substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing,
cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the
manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland
Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial
and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $431-Mil. Fibro Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. had $431 million total reserves for asbestos claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2014.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A. As a result of the most recent annual update of this
estimate, completed during the June 2014 quarter, it was
determined that the liability for asbestos claims should be
increased by $4 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were
$431 million at December 31, 2014 compared to $438 million at
September 30, 2014.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions to industries. The
Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers
products, technologies and resources in key markets including
personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage,
coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water
Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to
the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation,
refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal
markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create
substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing,
cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the
manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland
Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial
and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had $392MM Fibro Defense Receivable
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc.'s receivable for recoveries of litigation defense and
claim settlement costs from insurers amounted to $392 million,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 31, 2014.

Ashland has insurance coverage for most of the litigation defense
and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its
asbestos claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the
insurance companies that provide most of the coverage currently
being accessed. As a result, any increases in the asbestos reserve
have been largely offset by probable insurance recoveries. The
amounts not recoverable generally are due from insurers that are
insolvent, rather than as a result of uninsured claims or the
exhaustion of Ashland's insurance coverage.

For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations
and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent. Approximately 70% of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers. Of the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best,
all have a credit rating of B+ or higher as of December 31, 2014.
The remainder of the insurance receivable is due from London
insurance companies, which generally have lower credit quality
ratings, and from Underwriters at Lloyd's, whose insurance policy
obligations have been transferred to a Berkshire Hathaway entity.
Ashland discounts this portion of the receivable based upon the
projected timing of the receipt of cash from those insurers unless
likely settlement amounts can be determined.

At December 31, 2014, Ashland's receivable for recoveries of
litigation defense and claim settlement costs from insurers
amounted to $392 million, of which $80 million relates to costs
previously paid. Receivables from insurers amounted to $402
million at September 30, 2014. During the June 2014 quarter, the
annual update of the model used for purposes of valuing the
asbestos reserve described above, and its impact on valuation of
future recoveries from insurers, was updated. This model update
resulted in a $7 million increase in the receivable for probable
insurance recoveries. In 2014, subsequent to the model update, a
$15 million increase to the receivable was recorded to reflect a
change to certain model assumptions related to the timing of
receipts.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions to industries. The
Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers
products, technologies and resources in key markets including
personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage,
coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water
Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to
the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation,
refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal
markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create
substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing,
cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the
manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland
Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial
and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care
products.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tyco Int'l. Has 5,700 Fibro Claims at Dec. 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International PLC has 5,700 pending asbestos-related claims
pending, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
December 26, 2014.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries, including Yarway
Corporation ("Yarway") and Grinnell LLC ("Grinnell"), along with
numerous other third parties, are named as defendants in personal
injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos containing
materials. Over 90% of cases pending against affiliates of the
Company have been filed against Yarway or Grinnell, and have
typically involved product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were used with asbestos
containing components. Claims filed against Yarway derive from
Yarway's purported use of asbestos-containing gaskets and packing
in the sale or distribution of steam valves and traps and from its
alleged manufacture of asbestos-containing expansion joint
packing. Yarway's alleged manufacture, distribution and/or sale of
asbestos-containing materials ceased by 1988, and Yarway ceased
substantially all of its manufacturing, distribution and sales
operations in 2003. Claims filed against Grinnell typically allege
that it manufactured, sold or distributed valves, gaskets, piping
and sprinkler systems containing asbestos.

As of December 26, 2014, the Company has determined that there
were approximately 5,700 claims pending against it, which includes
approximately 3,200 claims pending against Yarway. This amount
reflects the Company's current estimate of the number of viable
claims made against it and includes adjustments for claims that
are not actively being prosecuted, identify incorrect defendants,
are duplicative of other actions or for which the Company is
indemnified by third parties.

Tyco International PLC (Tyco), formerly Tyco International Ltd.,
is engaged in providing security products and services, fire
detection and suppression products and services, as well as life
safety products. The Company operates through three segments. The
North America Installation & Services and Rest of World
Installation & Services segments design, sell, install, service
and monitor electronic security systems and fire detection and
suppression systems. The Global Products segment designs,
manufactures and sells fire protection, security and life safety
products. The Company offers its products and services under
various brands, including Tyco, Sensormatic, Wormald, Ansul,
Simplex, Scott, and ADT (in jurisdictions outside of North
America). It serves the commercial, industrial, retail,
institutional and governmental markets, as well as non-United
States residential and small business markets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GenCorp Inc. Had 117 Fibro Cases as of Nov. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
GenCorp Inc., had 117 asbestos cases pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2014.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations.  The majority of cases are pending in Texas and
Pennsylvania.  There were 117 asbestos cases pending as of
November 30, 2014.

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

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for fiscal
2014, 2013, and 2012 were $0.4 million for all years presented.

GenCorp Inc., is a manufacturer of aerospace and defense products
and systems along with a real estate segment that includes
activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale, and
leasing of our excess real estate assets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Negotiations Ongoing in AMEC-Aerojet Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------------
Negotiations are ongoing in the asbestos-related dispute between
GenCorp Inc.'s Aerojet Rocketdyne and AMEC, plc, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2014.

In 2011, Aerojet Rocketdyne received a letter demand from AMEC,
plc, ("AMEC") the successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the
business assets of Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet
Rocketdyne subsidiary, for Aerojet Rocketdyne to assume the
defense of sixteen asbestos cases, involving 271 plaintiffs,
pending in Louisiana, and reimbursement of over $1.7 million in
past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that Aerojet
Rocketdyne retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard &
Burk assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under
the relevant purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only
certain, specified liabilities relating to the operation of
Barnard & Burk before the sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all
unassumed pre-closing liabilities, and Aerojet Rocketdyne agreed
to indemnify the purchaser against unassumed liabilities that are
asserted against it. Based on the information provided, Aerojet
Rocketdyne declined to accept the liability and requested
additional information from AMEC pertaining to the basis of the
demand. On April 3, 2013, AMEC filed a complaint for breach of
contract against Aerojet Rocketdyne in Sacramento County Superior
Court, AMEC Construction Management, Inc. v. Aerojet-General
Corporation, Case No. 342013001424718. Aerojet Rocketdyne filed
its answer to the complaint denying AMEC's allegations and
discovery is ongoing. As of November 30, 2014, AMEC contends it
has incurred approximately $3.0 million in past legal fees and
expenses. The court has scheduled a trial date for May 18, 2015.
The parties attended a mediation session on December 9, 2014 and
negotiations are ongoing. As of November 30, 2014, the Company has
accrued $0.2 million related to this matter.  None of the
expenditures related to this matter are recoverable from the U.S.
government.

GenCorp Inc., is a manufacturer of aerospace and defense products
and systems along with a real estate segment that includes
activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale, and
leasing of excess real estate assets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Pays $900,000 to Settle "Paulus" Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. paid $0.9 million as judgment in the asbestos-related
lawsuit filed by William Paulus, according to the Company's Form
8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015.

On August 29, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
William Paulus claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury found
that the Company was responsible for ten percent (10%) of
plaintiffs' non-economic damages of $6.5 million, plus a portion
of plaintiffs' economic damages of $0.4 million. Based on
California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment
was entered in the amount of $0.8 million against the Company. The
Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgment in the
Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, which were
denied. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed by
order dated February 21, 2014. The Company sought review of
certain aspects of the ruling before the California Supreme Court,
and review was denied. Having exhausted all post-trial and
appellate remedies, the Company in June 2014 paid to plaintiffs
the amount of $0.9 million, the judgment including interest, and
this amount is included in second quarter indemnity totals.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Hellam" Suit is Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal from an order issued in the asbestos-related
lawsuit filed by James Hellam remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 26, 2015.

On November 28, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the James Hellam claim in Oakland, CA. The jury found that the
Company was responsible for seven percent (7%) of plaintiffs' non-
economic damages of $4.5 million, plus a portion of their economic
damages of $0.9 million. Based on California court rules regarding
allocation of damages, judgment was entered against the Company in
the amount of $1.282 million. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict and also requesting that settlement offsets be
applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with California law.
On January 31, 2013, the court entered an order disposing
partially of that motion. On March 1, 2013, the Company filed an
appeal regarding the portions of the motion that were denied. The
court entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $1.1
million. The Company appealed. By opinion dated April 16, 2014,
the Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of liability against the
Company, and the California Supreme Court denied review of this
ruling. The Court of Appeal reserved the arguments relating to
recoverable damages to a subsequent appeal that remains pending.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in Pa. Suit Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal from an order issued in a consolidated
asbestos-related lawsuit pending in a Pennsylvania court remains
pending, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26,
2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 26, 2015.

On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court
jury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5
million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a
$2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were
consolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgments in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement
offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with
Pennsylvania law. These motions were denied. The Company has
appealed.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Peraica" Suit Heard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal from an order issued in the asbestos-related
lawsuit filed by Ivo Peraica was heard in the fourth quarter of
2014, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated January 26, 2015,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on January
26, 2015.

On March 1, 2013, a New York City state court jury entered a $35
million verdict against the Company in the Ivo Peraica claim. The
Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict,
to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company
argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing
awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to
settlement offsets. After the trial court remitted the verdict to
$18 million, but otherwise denied the Company's post-trial motion,
judgment also entered against the Company in the amount of $10.6
million (including interest). The Company has appealed. The
Company has taken a separate appeal of the trial court's denial of
its summary judgment motion. The Court has consolidated the
appeals, which were heard in the fourth quarter of 2014.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "Holdsworth" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is awaiting a ruling in the asbestos-related lawsuit
filed by Lee Holdsworth, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated
January 26, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 26, 2015.

On July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a
$3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworth
claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn
the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which
the Company argues were excessive under New York appellate case
law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were
subject to settlement offsets. Post-trial motions were denied, and
the court will set a hearing to assess the amount of damages.
Plaintiffs have requested judgment in the amount of $1.1 million.
The Company plans to pursue an appeal if necessary.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 21 Hercules Claims at Dec. 31
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc., reported that its subsidiary, Hercules, had 21
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 December 31, 2014.

Hercules has liabilities from claims alleging personal injury
caused by exposure to asbestos. Such claims typically arise from
alleged exposure to asbestos fibers from resin encapsulated pipe
and tank products which were sold by one of Hercules' former
subsidiaries to a limited industrial market. The amount and timing
of settlements and number of open claims can fluctuate from period
to period. For the three months ended December 31, 2014, Hercules
had 21 asbestos-related claims.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions to industries. The
Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers
products, technologies and resources in key markets including
personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage,
coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water
Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to
the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation,
refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal
markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create
substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing,
cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the
manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland
Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial
and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Has $324-Mil. Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc., reported that its subsidiary, Hercules, had $324
million total reserves for asbestos claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A. As a result of the most recent annual update of this
estimate, completed during the June 2014 quarter, it was
determined that the liability for Hercules asbestos-related claims
should be increased by $10 million. Total reserves for asbestos
claims were $324 million at December 31, 2014 compared to $329
million at September 30, 2014.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions to industries. The
Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers
products, technologies and resources in key markets including
personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage,
coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water
Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to
the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation,
refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal
markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create
substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing,
cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the
manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland
Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial
and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc.'s Hercules Has $77MM Receivables
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc., reported that its subsidiary, Hercules, had $77
million receivables associated with its asbestos reserve from
insurers, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2014.

For the Hercules asbestos-related obligations, certain
reimbursement obligations pursuant to coverage-in-place agreements
with insurance carriers exist. As a result, any increases in the
asbestos reserve have been partially offset by probable insurance
recoveries. Ashland has estimated the value of probable insurance
recoveries associated with its asbestos reserve based on
management's interpretations and estimates surrounding the
available or applicable insurance coverage, including an
assumption that all solvent insurance carriers remain solvent. The
estimated receivable consists exclusively of domestic insurers. Of
the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best, all have a credit
rating of B+ or higher as of December 31, 2014.

As of December 31, 2014 and September 30, 2014, the receivables
from insurers amounted to $77 million, respectively. During the
June 2014 quarter, the annual update of the model used for
purposes of valuing the asbestos reserve and its impact on
valuation of future recoveries from insurers was completed. This
model update caused a $3 million increase in the receivable for
probable insurance recoveries. As a result of the January 13,
2015, settlement reported above, Hercules has resolved all
disputes with Chartis (AIG) member companies under their existing
coverage-in-place agreement for past, present and future Hercules
asbestos claims, and an adjustment in the insurance receivable
will be made in the next quarterly report.

Projecting future asbestos costs is subject to numerous variables
that are extremely difficult to predict. In addition to the
significant uncertainties surrounding the number of claims that
might be received, other variables include the type and severity
of the disease alleged by each claimant, the long latency period
associated with asbestos exposure, dismissal rates, costs of
medical treatment, the impact of bankruptcies of other companies
that are co-defendants in claims, uncertainties surrounding the
litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case
to case, and the impact of potential changes in legislative or
judicial standards. Furthermore, any predictions with respect to
these variables are subject to even greater uncertainty as the
projection period lengthens. In light of these inherent
uncertainties, Ashland believes that the asbestos reserves for
Ashland and Hercules represent the best estimate within a range of
possible outcomes. As a part of the process to develop these
estimates of future asbestos costs, a range of long-term cost
models was developed. These models are based on national studies
that predict the number of people likely to develop asbestos-
related diseases and are heavily influenced by assumptions
regarding long-term inflation rates for indemnity payments and
legal defense costs, as well as other variables mentioned
previously. Ashland has currently estimated in various models
ranging from approximately 40 to 50 year periods that it is
reasonably possible that total future litigation defense and claim
settlement costs on an inflated and undiscounted basis could range
as high as approximately $870 million for the Ashland asbestos-
related litigation and approximately $670 million for the Hercules
asbestos-related litigation (or approximately $1.5 billion in the
aggregate), depending on the combination of assumptions selected
in the various models. If actual experience is worse than
projected, relative to the number of claims filed, the severity of
alleged disease associated with those claims or costs incurred to
resolve those claims, Ashland may need to further increase the
estimates of the costs associated with asbestos claims and these
increases could be material over time.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions to industries. The
Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers
products, technologies and resources in key markets including
personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage,
coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water
Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to
the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation,
refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal
markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create
substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing,
cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the
manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland
Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial
and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $398MM Settlement with Insurers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc., and its subsidiary, Hercules, entered into a $398
million comprehensive settlement with Underwriters at Lloyd's,
certain London Companies and Chartis (AIG) member companies, along
with National Indemnity and Resolute Management, Inc., according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2014.

On January 13, 2015, Ashland and Hercules entered into a
comprehensive settlement with Underwriters at Lloyd's, certain
London Companies and Chartis (AIG) member companies, along with
National Indemnity and Resolute Management, Inc., under which
Ashland and Hercules received a total of $398 million and, in
exchange, released all claims against these entities for past,
present and future coverage obligations arising out of the
asbestos coverage-in-place agreements that were the subject of the
pending arbitration proceedings. In addition, as part of this
settlement, Ashland and Hercules released all claims against
National Indemnity and Resolute Management, Inc. in the Kentucky
state court action. As a result, the arbitration proceedings and
the Kentucky state court action have been terminated. Ashland
intends to segregate a significant portion of the funds received
in the settlement to pay for ongoing and future litigation defense
and claim settlement costs incurred in connection with asbestos
claims.

As a result of this settlement, during the quarter ending March
31, 2015, Ashland expects to record an after-tax gain of
approximately $110 million to $130 million, within the
discontinued operations caption of the Statement of Consolidated
Comprehensive Income and an approximately $250 million reduction
in the receivable balance within the Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheet. The ranges reflect certain current estimates and
assumptions with respect to tax consequences of the transaction
that may change as certain tax attributes are finalized. See Note
K of the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements for
further information.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions to industries. The
Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers
products, technologies and resources in key markets including
personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage,
coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water
Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to
the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation,
refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal
markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create
substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing,
cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the
manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland
Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial
and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 9 Fibro Claims for $800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
H.B. Fuller Company settled nine asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims for a total of $0.8 million, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the fiscal year ended November 29, 2014.

The Company states: "From time to time and in the ordinary course
of business, we are a party to, or a target of, lawsuits, claims,
investigations and proceedings, including product liability,
personal injury, contract, patent and intellectual property,
environmental, health and safety, tax and employment matters.
While we are unable to predict the outcome of these matters, we
have concluded, based upon currently available information, that
the ultimate resolution of any pending matter, individually or in
the aggregate, including the asbestos litigation described in the
following paragraphs, will not have a material adverse effect on
our results of operations, financial condition or cash flow.

"We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs
have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos
manufactured more than 30 years ago. The plaintiffs generally
bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages
(both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases,
plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any
compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result
of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically
dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the
plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury
occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is
generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of
the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to
products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other
defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has
been brought.

"A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in
asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including
indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement
under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently,
this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under
a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to
the third party.

"In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third
parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide
coverage for asbestos liabilities (including defense costs).
Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our
defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation.
However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered
into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for
the allocation of defense costs and under certain circumstances,
settlements and judgments, in asbestos-related lawsuits. Under
these agreements, we are required under certain circumstances to
fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in
which the responsible insurer is insolvent. In addition, to
delineate our rights under certain insurance policies, in October
2009, we commenced a declaratory judgment action against one of
our insurers in the United States District Court for the District
of Minnesota. Additional insurers were brought into the action to
address issues related to the scope of their coverage. In 2013, we
entered into a settlement agreement with the defendant insurers in
this case that provided for the allocation of defense costs and
settlements in the future. The allocation under the settlement
agreement depends on the outcome of an appeal of two issues to the
United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"For the year ended November 29, 2014, the Company settled 9
asbestos-related lawsuits and claims for a total of $0.8 million.

"We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the
aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us
because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve
exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured.
Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of
lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the
plaintiff. To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of
our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we
establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for
insurance recoveries.

"Based on currently available information, we have concluded that
the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related
litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
condition or cash flow. However, adverse developments and/or
periodic settlements could negatively impact the results of
operations or cash flows in one or more future periods."

H.B. Fuller Company is formulator, manufacturer and marketer of
adhesives, sealants and other specialty chemical products. The
Company operates in four segments: Americas Adhesives,
Construction Products, EIMEA (Europe, India, Middle East and
Africa) and Asia Pacific. Industrial adhesives represent its core
product offering. Customers use its adhesives products in
manufacturing common consumer and industrial goods, including food
and beverage containers, disposable diapers, windows, doors,
flooring, appliances, sportswear, footwear, multi-wall bags, water
filtration products, insulation, textiles and electronics. It has
established a variety of product offerings for residential
construction markets, such as tile-setting adhesives, grout,
sealants and related products. These products are sold primarily
in its Construction Products operating segment. On June 6, 2013,
it acquired Plexbond Quimica, S.A. In September 2014, H.B. Fuller
Co acquired ProSpec Construction Products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Columbus McKinnon Records $8.2MM Fibro Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corporation recorded an estimated $8,202,000 for
its asbestos-related aggregate liability, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014.

Like many industrial manufacturers, the Company is involved in
asbestos-related litigation. In continually evaluating costs
relating to its estimated asbestos-related liability, the Company
reviews, among other things, the incidence of past and recent
claims, the historical case dismissal rate, the mix of the claimed
illnesses and occupations of the plaintiffs, its recent and
historical resolution of the cases, the number of cases pending
against it, the status and results of broad-based settlement
discussions, and the number of years such activity might continue.
Based on this review, the Company has estimated its share of
liability to defend and resolve probable asbestos-related personal
injury claims. This estimate is highly uncertain due to the
limitations of the available data and the difficulty of
forecasting with any certainty the numerous variables that can
affect the range of the liability. The Company will continue to
study the variables in light of additional information in order to
identify trends that may become evident and to assess their impact
on the range of liability that is probable and estimable.

Based on actuarial information, the Company has estimated its
asbestos-related aggregate liability including related legal costs
to range between $6,700,000 and $11,200,000 using actuarial
parameters of continued claims for a period of 37 years from
December 31, 2014. The Company's estimation of its asbestos-
related aggregate liability that is probable and estimable, in
accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles
approximates $8,202,000, which has been reflected as a liability
in the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2014.
The recorded liability does not consider the impact of any
potential favorable federal legislation. This liability will
fluctuate based on the uncertainty in the number of future claims
that will be filed and the cost to resolve those claims, which may
be influenced by a number of factors, including the outcome of the
ongoing broad-based settlement negotiations, defensive strategies,
and the cost to resolve claims outside the broad-based settlement
program. Of this amount, management expects to incur asbestos
settlement payments and legal defense costs of approximately
$2,000,000 over the next 12 months. Because payment of these costs
is likely to extend over many years, management believes that the
potential additional costs for claims will not have a material
effect on the financial condition of the Company or its liquidity,
although the effect of any future liabilities recorded could be
material to earnings in a future period.

The Company is also involved in other unresolved legal actions
that arise in the normal course of business. The most prevalent of
these unresolved actions involve disputes related to product
design, manufacture and performance. The Company's estimation of
its product-related aggregate liability that is probable and
estimable, in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles approximates $4,594,000, which has been reflected as a
liability in the consolidated financial statements as of December
31, 2014. In some cases, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of
loss because there is insufficient information regarding the
matter. Management believes that the potential additional costs
for claims will not have a material effect on the financial
condition of the Company or its liquidity, although the effect of
any future liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a
future period.

Columbus McKinnon Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer
and marketer of hoists, rigging tools, cranes, actuators, and
other material handling products serving a range of commercial and
industrial end user markets. The products include a range of
electric, lever, hand and air-powered hoists, hoist trolleys,
winches, industrial crane systems such as bridge, gantry and jib
cranes; alloy and carbon steel chain; closed-die forged
attachments, such as hooks, shackles, textile slings, clamps,
logging tools and load binders; industrial components, such as
mechanical and electromechanical actuators and rotary unions;
below-the-hook special purpose lifters; tire shredders; and light-
rail systems. The Company is a manufacturer and marketer of
hoists, alloy and high strength carbon steel chain and
attachments, and actuators in North America. In March 2014,
Columbus McKinnon Corp acquired privately-owned Unified
Industries, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Utah High Ct. Affirms Wrongful Death Suit Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Micah Riggs is the personal representative of the estate
of decedent Vickle Warren, his mother-in-law.  Mr. Riggs brought a
wrongful death on behalf of Ms. Warren's children, Amanda Riggs
and Benjamin Warren.

In 2007, Ms. Warren developed peritoneal mesothelioma, a rare type
of cancer linked to asbestos exposure.  Later that year, Ms.
Warren filed a personal injury lawsuit against Georgia-Pacific
LLC, Union Carbide Corporation and other defendants, seeking
damages due to her exposure to asbestos, which she claimed caused
her mesothelioma.

The personal injury lawsuit went to trial, and on May 12, 2010, a
jury found that Ms. Warren was entitled to $5,256,818 in damages.
The jury allocated 5 percent of the fault to Georgia-Pacific and
20 percent to Union Carbide; the remaining fault was distributed
among other parties.  Ms. Warren died on May 25, 2010, 13 days
after receiving the verdict in her personal injury lawsuit.  The
court of appeals later affirmed the judgment.

On May 23, 2012, Mr. Riggs, on behalf of the Heirs, filed a
wrongful death and survival suit against Georgia-Pacific, Union
Carbide Corporation, and others, including some defendants who
were named in Ms. Warren's personal injury suit and some who were
not.  The court ruled that the claims against the new defendants
were barred by the statute of limitations and dismissed them.  The
Heirs conceded that they are barred from re-litigating issues that
were decided in Ms. Warren's personal injury case.  They argue
that the issue in their wrongful death suit is simply whether
exposure to Defendants' asbestos products caused Ms. Warren's
death and if so, what damages are owed to the Heirs.

Defendants Georgia-Pacific and Union Carbide moved to dismiss the
wrongful death claim under rule 12(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of
Civil Procedure on the grounds that Ms. Warren's personal injury
trial and judgment precluded the wrongful death action.  The Third
District Court denied the motion and held that the Heirs had an
independent cause of action for wrongful death.

The Supreme Court of Utah, in an opinion dated Jan. 30, 2015,
affirmed the district court's ruling and remanded for further
proceedings, holding that Utah Code section 78B-3-106 states
plainly that "when the death of a person is caused by the wrongful
act or neglect of another, his heirs . . . may maintain an action
for damages."  According to the Supreme Court, the statutory
language is clear and unambiguous, and does not indicate that the
cause of action is in any way tied to the decedent's own personal
injury action.  The Supreme Court therefore concluded that
wrongful death is an independent cause of action not barred by the
existence of a final judgment in the decedent's underlying
personal injury suit.  The Supreme Court also noted also that
article XVI, section 5 of the Utah Constitution requires that the
Court robustly protect Utah's wrongful death cause of action from
attempts to limit it.

The case is MICAH RIGGS and AMANDA RIGGS, Appellees, v. GEORGIA-
PACIFIC LLC and UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Appellants, NO.
20130459, (Utah).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available
at http://is.gd/x1zHcafrom Leagle.com.

Gilbert L. Purcell, Alan R. Brayton, Brian Holmberg, A. Jase
Allen, Salt Lake City, for appellees.

Karra J. Porter, Esq. -- karra.porter@chrisjen.com -- Sarah E.
Spencer, Esq. -- sarah.spencer@chrisjen.com -- Katherine E. Venti,
Esq., Salt Lake City, for appellant Georgia-Pacific, LLC.

Patricia W. Christensen, Esq. -- pchristensen@parrbrown.com --
Salt Lake City, Mary Price Birk, Esq. -- mbirk@bakerlaw.com --
Ronald L. Hellbusch, Esq. -- rhellbusch@bakerlaw.com -- Denver,
CO, for appellant Union Carbide Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Inmate's Suit Allowed to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
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, among other things, that the vents are
filthy and have not been cleaned in decades, there is a gas leak,
and that asbestos is airborne and is coming through the vents.

In a memorandum dated Jan. 30, 2015, Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware ordered
that Drumgo will be allowed to proceed with condition of
confinement claims against defendants Lt. Farrington, C/O Lenigan,
Lt. Todd Drace, Cpl. Matthew Dutton, and VCC Warden Pierce.  Judge
Sleet further ordered that the remaining defendants and claims
will be dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and Section 1915A(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. Section
1997e(c)(1).

The case is DESHAWN 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/InQSd2from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NJ Court Grants Bid to Dismiss "Priest" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Claire C. Cecchi of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey issued an order dated Jan. 29, 2015,
adopting the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge James
B. Clark III that defendant Asbestos Corporation Limited's motion
to dismiss plaintiff Leon Priest's asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit be granted for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The case is LEON PRIEST, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASBESTOS
CORPORATION LIMITED, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2697
(D.N.J.).  A full-text copy of Judge Cecchi's Order is available
at http://is.gd/v5Pp0ifrom Leagle.com.

LEON C. PRIEST, Plaintiff and Cross Defendant, represented
by KARDON A. STOLZMAN, Esq. -- KStolzman@NapoliBern.com -- NAPOLI
BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK & ASSOCIATES, LLP & MONICA HABIB ANDRAWIS,
NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK.

SHARON M. PRIEST, Plaintiff and Cross Defendant, represented
by KARDON A. STOLZMAN, NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK & ASSOCIATES,
LLP.

ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by GARY MICHAEL EVERY, Esq. -- gevery@goldfeinlaw.com
-- GOLDFEIN & JOSEPH PC & MADHURIKA JEREMIAH, Esq. --
mjeremiah@goldfeinlaw.com -- GOLDFEIN & JOSEPH, P.C..

BORGWARNER MORSE TEC, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, Esq. --
christopher.keale@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP.

CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE,
SEDGWICK LLP.

CHARLES A. WAGNER CO., INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by KEVIN E. HOFFMAN, Esq. --
%20khoffman@kentmcbride.com -- KENT & MCBRIDE, PC.

CRANE CO., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by ANGELA
DIGIGLIO, Esq. -- angela.digiglio@klgates.com -- K&L GATES & TARA
LYNNE PEHUSH, Esq. -- tara.pehush@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP.

FMC CORPORATION, Defendant and Claimant, represented by ANGELA
COLL CALIENDO, Esq. -- acaliendo@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons
McGowan Spinelli Hanna & Reber, LLP.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by ROBYN GNUDI KALOCSAY, Esq. --
robyngnudi.kalocsay@leclairryan.com -- LECLAIR RYAN & MICHAEL
DORON GOLDKLANG, Esq. -- michael.goldklang@leclairryan.com --
LECLAIR RYAN.

FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant and
Cross Claimant, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP
& MICHAEL A. TANENBAUM, Esq. -- michael.tanenbaum@sedgwicklaw.com
-- SEDGWICK LLP.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by CHRISTOPHER J. KEALE, SEDGWICK LLP.

GEORGIA PACIFIC, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by CYNTHIA J. CHO, Esq. -- cho@lawlynch.com -- LYNCH DASKAL EMERY
LLP, DIANE M. POMPEI, Esq. -- pompei@lawlynch.com -- Lynch Daskal
Emery LLP & IAN STERN MILLICAN, LYNCH DASKAL EMERY LLP.

GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by STEVEN FREDERIK SATZ, Esq. --
ssatz@hoaglandlongo.com -- HOAGLAND LONGO MORAN DUNST & DOUKAS.

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Cross Defendant, represented
by ETHAN D. STEIN, Esq. -- estein@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC.

INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Claimant, represented
by LISA PASCARELLA, PASCARELLA DIVITA LINDENBAUM & TOMASZEWSKI,
PLLC.

JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by DAWN DEZII, Esq. -- ddezii@margolisedelstein.com --
MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN.

MANNINGTON MILLS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by JORDAN DAVID BELTZ, Esq. --
jbeltz@smsm.com -- SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY LTD.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by RICHARD V. JONES, LAW OFFICES OF ROGER
V. JONES, LLP.

PEP BOYS - MANNY, MOE & JACK OF DELAWARE, INC., Defendant and
Cross Defendant, represented by PAUL C. JOHNSON, Esq. --
pcjohnson@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN &
GOGGIN, PA.

PETERBILT MOTORS COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by DINESH UTTAM DADLANI, Esq. -- ddadlani@smsm.com --
SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY LTD..

PNEUMO ABEX LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by ROY
VIOLA, JR., Esq. -- rviola@hptylaw.com -- HAWKINS PARNELL
THACKSTON & YOUNG.

TRANE US, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by LISA PASCARELLA, PASCARELLA DIVITA LINDENBAUM &
TOMASZEWSKI, PLLC.

UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by RICHARD DOMINICK PICINI, Esq. --
rpicini@carusosmith.com -- CARUSO SMITH EDELL PICINI, PC.

VIKING PUMPS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by MARK F. MACDONALD, BAGINSKI MEZZANOTTE HASSON &
RUBINATE.

WARREN PUMPS, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by PAUL C. JOHNSON, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN,
PA.

WESTERN AUTO SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH BLOCK, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA.

WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS, INC., Defendant, Cross Defendant and
Cross Claimant, represented by NORA J. GRIMBERGEN, Esq. --
ngrimbergen@hoaglandlongo.com -- HOAGLAND LONGO.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit Partially Junked as to JR Clarkson
-----------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant J.R. Clarkson
Co., sued as the successor by merger to IMI Cash Valve, Inc.,
moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it on the ground
that the plaintiffs' decedent Donald Izbicki misidentified Cash
valves as a source of his exposure.  In the alternative, Cash
moves for partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs'
eleventh cause of action for loss of consortium.

Mr. Izbicki served in the United States Navy and United States Air
Force for nearly 30 years.  In 1955 he was assigned to work aboard
the USS Butner as a fireman's apprentice and machinist's mate in
respect of which he was responsible for repairing and maintaining
equipment.  Mr. Izbicki testified that Cash was one of several
manufacturers whose valves he repaired and that his work therewith
caused him to be exposed to asbestos.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
in a decision and order dated Jan. 28, 2015, granted the motion in
part and denied it in part.  Judge Heitler granted the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment only to the extent of dismissing the
plaintiffs' eleventh cause of action against it for loss of
consortium.  The plaintiffs' eleventh cause of action for loss of
consortium is severed and dismissed as against defendant J.R.
Clarkson, Judge Heitler ruled.

The case is MADELINE E. IZBICKI, Individually and as Executrix of
the Estate of DONALD J. IZBICKI, Sr., deceased, Plaintiffs, v.
ADVANCE AUTO SUPPLY, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190140/13,
MOTION SEQ. 009 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's
Decision is available at http://is.gd/y9B95vfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ark. Court Recommends Dismissal of "Miller" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith E. Miller, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of
Correction, filed a pro se action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, claiming the Defendants violated his constitutional rights.
The Plaintiff alleges that he was employed as a "skilled worker"
by the Defendants and that while performing work on a project, he
claims he was exposed to asbestos when he cut through a concrete
foundation.  He brought the action alleging that each of the
Defendants violated his constitutional rights when they knowingly
allowed him to continue work at that site without proper
protection, despite knowing that unsafe levels of asbestos were
present.

Magistrate Judge Joe J. Volpe of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Pine Bluff Division,
recommended that the Plaintiff's Complaint should be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

The case is KEITH E. MILLER, ADC # 144926, Plaintiff, v. GAIL
MAINARD, Construction Engineer, Arkansas Department of Correction,
et al., Defendants, NO. 5:15CV00018-BRW-JJV (E.D. Ark.).  A full-
text copy of Magistrate Volpe's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/hE0hp4from Leagle.com.

Keith E Miller, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Junk Inmate's Suit Partially Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Edwin Jay Hutchison, a state prisoner incarcerated at
San Quentin State Prison, filed a pro se civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, seeking damages for the
alleged violation of his constitutional rights by the California
Prison Industry Authority, operating under the auspices of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and
individuals who are employees of CALPIA or of SQSP.  On April 4,
2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California ordered service of the following cognizable claims:
(1) an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to
serious medical needs against Andrew Deems, Chief Executive
Officer of Health Care Services at SQSP, for creating a policy,
custom or practice of failing to test inmates who may have been
exposed to asbestos; (2) an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate
indifference to hazardous conditions against CALPIA and employees
of CALPIA and SQSP; and (3) a state law claim against CALPIA for
violation of California Government Code injury caused by a
dangerous condition on its property if certain conditions are met.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss in part, holding that the Plaintiff's constitutional
claims against CALPIA and its employees sued in their official
capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment and the
Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against all Defendants, except
for CEO Deems, based on deliberate indifference to hazardous
conditions and the Plaintiff's statutory claim against CALPIA are
barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Judge Wilken directed the Plaintiff to file an amended complaint
asserting an Eighth Amendment claim against specific Defendants,
in their individual capacity, based on allegations of specific
conduct undertaken by them that prevented or delayed the Plaintiff
from receiving medical treatment so as to aggravate his disease.

The case is EDWIN JAY HUTCHISON, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA PRISON
INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-04635-CW
(N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Judge Wilken's order dated
Jan. 14, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/mA0FxTfrom
Leagle.com.

Edwin Jay Hutchison, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

California Prison Industry Authority, Defendant, represented by
Caitlin Whitwell Noble, Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino,
California State Attorney General's Office.

Ron Glass, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.

Gary Loredo, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.

Philip Earley, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.

Luu Rogers, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.

John Walker, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.

Elizabeth Babcock, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell
Noble, Department of Justice, Loran Michael Simon, California
State Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.

Brad Smith, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.

Charles Pattillo, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell
Noble, Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.

Kevin Chappell, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice, Loran Michael Simon, California State
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.

Andrew W. Deems, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice, Loran Michael Simon, California State
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Doctrine of Claim Preclusion Bars Widow's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation filed on November 26, 2014, a motion for judgment
on the pleadings arguing that Beverly Ahnert's claims are barred
on the ground of claim preclusion and res judicata.  General
Electric filed a similar motion on December 22, 2014.  Both
parties cite an August 29, 2014, findings of fact and conclusions
of law respecting defendant Owens-Illinois's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff Beverly Ahnert and her husband sued these defendants in
2010 alleging that Daniel Ahnert developed asbestosis from
exposure to the defendants' asbestos containing products.  After
Daniel Ahnert was diagnosed and died from mesothelioma, Beverly
Ahnert did not oppose the movant's motions for summary judgment
and stipulated to their dismissal.  Hence, CBS and General
Electric were dismissed from the earlier action with prejudice.

In a decision and order dated Feb. 3, 2015, Judge C.N. Clevert,
Jr., of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Wisconsin granted CBS and GE's motions, holding that Beverly
Ahnert's attempt to sue these same defendants again must fail
inasmuch as the pending claims are barred by the doctrine of claim
preclusion.

The case is BEVERLY AHNERT Individually and as Executrix of the
Estate of Daniel Ahnert, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. BRAND INSULATION
INC., BUILDING SERVICES INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC., CBS CORPORATION,
EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY OF WAUSAU, FOSTER WHEELER LLC, GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY, L & S INSULATION COMPANY INC., PABST BREWING
COMPANY, SPRINKMANN SONS CORPORATION, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER
COMPANY, MERCO-THERMOTEC INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-C-1456
(E.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy of Judge Clevert's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/Fp5NMbfrom Leagle.com.

Beverly Ahnert, Plaintiff, represented by Jin Ho Chung, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices Ltd, Robert G McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.
Brand Insulations Inc, Defendant, represented by Donald H Carlson,
Crivello Carlson SC & Eric D Carlson, Crivello Carlson SC.

Building Services Industrial Supply Inc, Defendant, represented by
Gabrielle B Adams, Esq. -- gadams@whdlaw.com -- Whyte Hirschboeck
Dudek SC, John J Laffey, Esq. -- jlaffey@whdlaw.com -- Whyte
Hirschboeck Dudek SC & Sarah Thomas Pagels, Esq. --
stpagels@whdlaw.com -- Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek SC.

Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Defendant, represented by
James A Niquet, Crivello Carlson SC & Travis J Rhoades, Crivello
Carlson SC.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven W Celba,
Celba LLC.

L & S Insulation Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Frank R
Terschan, Esq. -- frank.terschan@tshglaw.com -- Terschan Steinle
Hodan & Ganzer Ltd.

Pabst Brewing Company, Defendant, represented by Michael T
Antikainen, Hepler Broom LLC.

Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Defendant, represented by James A
Niquet, Crivello Carlson SC & Travis J Rhoades, Crivello Carlson
SC.

Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Defendant, represented by Travis
J Rhoades, Crivello Carlson SC & James A Niquet, Crivello Carlson
SC.

Merco-Thermotec Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher P
Banaszak, Esq. -- cbanasza@reinhartlaw.com -- Reinhart Boerner Van
Deuren SC & Robert S Driscoll, Esq. -- rdriscol@reinhartlaw.com --
Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren SC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Bid to Dismiss "Proctor" Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, unanimously affirmed the order of the Supreme Court,
New York County, entered July 1, 2014, which denied the motion of
defendant Andal Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the
asbestos-related complaint as against it.

According to the Appellate Division, the record presents triable
issues of fact as to whether Andal's alleged predecessors-in-
interest performed certain construction work at the former World
Trade Center site, and were responsible for the plaintiff's
exposure to asbestos at the site.  Although the plaintiff failed
to identify any entity that used asbestos during the period that
he worked at the site in 1970, he submitted sufficient evidence to
raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Andal's alleged
predecessors-in-interest were present during that period and used
an asbestos product in the area in which plaintiff worked.

The case is JAMES AUGUSTUS PROCTOR, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents
v. ALCOA, INC., ET AL., Defendants, ANDAL CORP, ETC., Defendant-
Appellant, 14153, 190040/13 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision is available at http://is.gd/KRKcUXfrom Leagle.com.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Armand
Kalfayan, Esq. -- armand.kalfayan@wilsonelser.com -- of counsel),
for appellant.

Early Lucarelli Sweeney Meisenkothen, New York (Kyle A. Shamberg,
of counsel), for respondents.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transpo Co.'s Suit Over Fibro Leaks Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, commenced a
diversity action against defendants RTL Enterprises, LLC, and East
Coast Systems Engineering, Inc., alleging state law claims for
negligence and breach of contract related to two separate asbestos
leaks.  RTL and East Coast separately filed motions to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction, while Swift filed a cross motion
seeking leave to amend its complaint, limited jurisdictional
discovery, and/or transfer to another forum.

Judge Gary L. Sharpe of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York granted the defendants' motions and
denied Swift's cross motion, holding that the only argument Swift
offers with respect to the due process test is that, "[w]hen the
'product' involved is a hazardous substance or waste, the court
should consider the nature of the substance involved in
determining the expectation of the defendant to be hauled into
court in another state" and Swift does not cite any authority that
would be binding on the court for such a proposition, instead
relying primarily on one case from the District of Rhode Island.

Accordingly, Judge Sharpe dismissed Swift's complaint and ordered
the Clerk to close the case.

The case is SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, Plaintiff,
v. RTL ENTERPRISES, LLC et al., Defendants, NO. 1:14-CV-902
(GLS/CFH)(N.D.N.Y.).  A full-text copy of Judge Sharpe's
memorandum-decision and order dated Feb. 3, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/OLpWJbfrom Leagle.com.

DANIEL W. COFFEY, ESQ., Bowitch, Coffey Law Firm, Albany, NY, for
the Plaintiff.

THERESA B. MARANGAS, ESQ., Esq. --
theresa.marangas@wilsonelser.com -- RTL Enterprises, LLC, Wilson,
Elser Law Firm, Albany, NY, JACOB F. LAMME, ESQ., --
lamme@mltw.com -- JOHN J. PRIVITERA, ESQ., -- privitera@mltw.com
-- East Coast Systems Engineering, Inc., McNamee, Lochner Law
Firm, Albany, NY, for the Defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Montana Court Agrees to Transfer "Trezza" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, issued on
Feb. 5, 2015, a memorandum and order agreeing that the case
captioned ANTHONY TREZZA, and PEGGY TREZZA, Plaintiffs, v. 84
LUMBER COMPANY, et al., Defendants, NO. 4:14CV01282 AGF (E.D.
Mont.), should be transferred to a different venue.

The case arises out of Plaintiff Anthony Trezza's contraction of
lung cancer that he asserts was a result of his exposure to
asbestos over a 20 year period in different locations across the
country.  The Defendants are all allegedly companies that have
manufactured, distributed, and/or sold asbestos or asbestos
products to which Anthony Trezza was exposed.  Several of the
Defendants filed motions to transfer the case to a different
venue.

Judge Fleissig concludes that the case should be transferred to a
different venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a) and believes
that the District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
would be the most appropriate venue.  However, the Court offered
the parties the opportunity to show that another venue would be
more appropriate and directed them to file a memoranda showing
cause why the action should not be transferred to North Carolina
or proposing a venue other than the Western District of North
Carolina.

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

Anthony Trezza, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace, Esq. --
RHorace@NapoliBern.com -- NAPOLI AND BERN & Sean Patrick Barth,
Esq. -- SBarth@NapoliBern.com -- NAPOLI AND BERN.

Peggy Trezza, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan P. Horace, NAPOLI AND
BERN & Sean Patrick Barth, NAPOLI AND BERN.

84 Lumber Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Gary L. Smith, Esq. -- gls@herzogcrebs.com -- HERZOG CREBS LLP
& James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

American Biltrite Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI
SCHULTZ, Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol,
KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC & Lacy M. Fields, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

Bird, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Lawrence
S. Denk, Esq. -- ldenk@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY AND MANSFIELD,
P.L.L.P., Michael R. Dauphin, Esq. -- mdauphin@foleymansfield.com
-- FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Robert J. Brummond, Esq. --
rbrummond@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Esq. --
ddonahue@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P.
& James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Daniel G. Donahue, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P. & Michael R.
Dauphin, FOLEY AND MANSFIELD, P.L.L.P..

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, Esq. --
gflatt@heylroyster.com -- HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent L. Plotner, Esq.
-- kplotner@heylroyster.com -- HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Conwed Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Mark D. Bauman, Esq. -- mbauman@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW AND
CULBERTSON.

Crane Co., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Benjamin John Wilson, HEPLER BROOM & Carl J.
Geraci, HEPLER BROOM.

DAP, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Jennifer
M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI
SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol, KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC & Lacy M. Fields,
KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

DOMCO Products Texas Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Beth Kamp Veath, Esq. -- bveath@bjpc.com
-- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..

Eaton Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by J. Todd Applegate, Esq. -- applegate@pspclaw.com -- PITZER
SNODGRASS, P.C. & Brian J. Connolly, REEG LAWYERS, LLC.

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ
&Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

FMC Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq. -- ddobbels@polsinelli.com --
POLSINELLI PC & Marcie J. Vantine, Esq. -- mvantine@smbtrials.com
-- SWANSON AND MARTIN, LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Robert Drake Andrekanic, CRIVELLO AND CARLSON.

General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Esq. --
rfournie@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Anita
Maria Kidd, Esq. -- akidd@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Esq. --
jfixmeyer@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP
& Melanie R. King, Esq. -- mking@armstrongteasdale.com --
ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.

Goulds Pumps, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented by Mark
D. Bauman, HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON.

Honeywell International Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Anthony L. Springfield, Esq. --
aspringfield@polsinelli.com -- POLSINELLI PC.

J.P. Bushnell Packing Supply Co., Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Stephen J. Maassen, HOAGLAND AND FITZGERALD.

John Crane, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Albert J. Bronsky, Esq. -- ajbronsky@bjpc.com --
BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Agota Peterfy, CARMODY MACDONALD P.C..

Kohler Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross Claimant,
represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant and Cross
Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Esq. --
cjoley@ilmoattorneys.com -- JOLEY AND OLIVER.

Navistar, Inc., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Anthony L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC.

Patterson Pump Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Leslie G. Offergeld, WALKER AND WILLIAMS,
P.C..

Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Thomas L. Orris, Esq. -- torris@wvslaw.com --
WILLIAMS AND VENKER, LLC, Mary Dianne Rychnovsky, Esq. --
mrychnovsky@wvslaw.com -- Williams Venker & Sanders LLC, Matthew
E. Pelikan, Esq. -- mpelikan@wvslaw.com -- WILLIAMS AND VENKER,
LLC & Ross S. Titzer, Esq. -- rtitzer@wvslaw.com -- WILLIAMS AND
VENKER, LLC.

Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, and Cross
Claimant, represented by Jennifer M. Valentino, KUROWSKI
SCHULTZ,Lindsay A. Dibler, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ, Jerry S. Warchol,
KUROWSKI SHULTZ LLC & Lacy M. Fields, KUROWSKI SCHULTZ.

RSCC Wire & Cable LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross
Claimant, represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER & Kent
L. Plotner, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Schneider Electric Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Anthony L. Springfield, POLSINELLI PC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Esq. -- J.Bash@lewisbrisbois.com -
- LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP, Charles S. Anderson, Esq. --
Charles.Anderson@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS AND BRISBOIS,
LLP, Matthew J. Morris, Esq., LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP &Matthew W.
Schuh, Esq. -- Matthew.Schuh@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS AND
BRISBOIS, LLP.

Viking Pumps, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Gregory C. Flatt, HEYL AND ROYSTER.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Claimant,
represented by Raymond R. Fournie, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP,Anita
Maria Kidd, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, ARMSTRONG
TEASDALE, LLP &Melanie R. King, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant and Cross Defendant,
represented by James D. Maschhoff, HERZOG CREBS LLP.

Young Group Ltd., Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by Anastasios T. Foukas, Esq. -- afoukas@smsm.com -- SEGAL AND
MCCAMBRIDGE.

Young Insulation Group of St. Louis, Inc., Cross Defendant,
represented by Anastasios T. Foukas, SEGAL AND MCCAMBRIDGE.

Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant and Cross Defendant, represented
by John D. Risvold, Esq. -- jrisvold@smsm.com -- SEGAL AND
MCCAMBRIDGE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PepsiAmericas Can't Pursue Claims Against FMC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez of the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware affirmed a bankruptcy court's Oct. 27,
2010, grant of summary judgment in favor of Federal-Mogul Global,
Inc., agreeing with the Bankruptcy Court that PepsiAmericas, Inc.,
failed to establish a right to pursue any claim against Debtors
Federal-Mogul Corporation and Federal-Mogul Products, Inc.

Before the Bankruptcy Court was a motion for summary judgment on
the amended proof of claim of PepsiAmericas, filed in the
bankruptcy of Federal-Mogul Global against FMC and FMP.
PepsiAmericas had alleged that Federal-Mogul Global improperly
billed shared insurance policies, giving rise to claims based on
tort, conversion, and breach of the implied covenant good faith
and fair dealing.  Federal-Mogul Global argued that no factual
basis existed to substantiate the validity of PepsiAmerica's
claims.

The dispute derives from both parties' relationship with the
former Abex Corporation, a producer of brakes and other friction
products that spawned countless cases of asbestos exposure.  The
assets and liabilities of Abex Corporation were divided and sold
through several mergers and acquisitions resulting Appellant and
Appellee, among others, owning a portion.  That is, along with
owning assets from Abex Corporation, both parties owned
liabilities from asbestos-related litigation filed against Abex.
Both Appellant and Appellee collected proceeds from Comprehensive
General Liability Insurance Policies which insured against those
asbestos claims.  However, Abex Corporation was not the only
source of Appellee's asbestos-related liability, as it owned six
other streams of the asbestos liability.  Appellant has argued
that Appellee improperly collected insurance proceeds from the
shared Comprehensive General Liability plans to compensate for
cases deriving from its six non-Abex streams of liability, and as
a result benefited from the insurance policies without
indemnifying Appellant for litigation costs and expenses.

The case is In re: Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., relating to
PepsiAmericas, Inc., n/k/a Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan, Bottling
Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Federal-Mogul Global Inc., et al.,
Debtor-Appellee, CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-CV-986, NO. 11-CV-813 (D.
Del.).  A full-text copy of Judge Rodriguez's opinion and order
dated Feb. 5, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/uUL7Pgfrom
Leagle.com.

Federal Mogul-Global Inc., Debtor and Appellee, represented by
James E. O'Neill, III, Esq. -- joneill@pszjlaw.com -- Pachulski,
Stang, Ziehl & Jones, LLP & Laura Davis Jones, Esq. --
ljones@pszjlaw.com -- Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl & Jones, LLP.

T&N Limited, Debtor and Appellee, represented by James E. O'Neill,
III, Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl & Jones, LLP & Laura Davis Jones,
Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl & Jones, LLP.

PepsiAmericas Inc., Appellant, represented by Ricardo Palacio,
Esq. -- RPalacio@ashby-geddes.com -- Ashby & Geddes, William P.
Bowden, Esq. -- WBowden@ashby-geddes.com -- Ashby & Geddes &
Benjamin Wilson Keenan, Esq. -- BKeenan@ashby-geddes.com -- Ashby
& Geddes.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Res Judicata Bars Damages Suit vs. Railway Co.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas D. Schroeder of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina granted the motion filed by
defendant Norfolk Southern Railway Company for judgment in the
damages action that follows a prior personal injury action arising
from the same alleged asbestos exposure but was dismissed for
failure to timely substitute a personal representative upon the
death of the plaintiff's decedent.

Judge Schroeder granted NSRC's motion after agreeing with NSRC
that the dismissal of the prior action under Rule 25 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure acts as res judicata against the
present claims it contends arise out of the same transactions and
core of operative facts.

The case is RICHARD ERIC TAYLOR, individually and as Executor for
the Estate of DIANE GRUBB TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. NORFOLK SOUTHERN
RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant, NO. 1:12CV688 (M.D.N.C.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Schroeder's memorandum opinion and order dated
Feb. 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/nNEJIFfrom Leagle.com.

RICHARD ERIC TAYLOR, Plaintiff, represented by WILLIAM MARC
GRAHAM, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A. & JOHN E. GUERRY, III, Esq. --
rguerry@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE LLC.

NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO., Defendant, represented by DAVID A.
DAMICO, Esq. -- dadamico@burnswhite.com -- BURNS WHITE LLC & JOHN
S. BUFORD, Esq. -- jbuford@brookspierce.com -- BROOKS PIERCE
MCLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crown Cork Gets Summary Judgment in "Lett" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jane J. Boyle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted the motion for summary
judgment filed by defendant Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc., as to
plaintiff Patricia Lusk in the consolidated action to recover for
injuries suffered as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing
products allegedly manufactured by Mundet Cork Corporation, with
whom Crown Cork merged in 1965.

The case is WILLIAM G. LETT and MARIA LETT, Plaintiffs, v. CROWN
CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC., and GUARD-LINE, INC., Defendants,
PATRICIA LUSK, Individually and as Personal Representative of the
Estate of William E. Lusk, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. CROWN CORK &
SEAL COMPANY, INC., and GUARD-LINE, INC., Defendants, and DEBRA
WHITE, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate
of Frederick H. White, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. CROWN CORK & SEAL
COMPANY, INC., and GUARD-LINE, INC., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NOS.
3:14-CV-860-B, 3:14-CV-861-B, 3:14-CV-862-B (N.D. Tex.).

A full-text copy of Judge Boyle's memorandum opinion and order
dated Feb. 5, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/NRLJQkfrom
Leagle.com.

William G Lett, Plaintiff, represented by Kyla G Cole, Waters &
Kraus LLP, Peter A Kraus, Waters & Kraus & Symone J Redwine,
Waters & Kraus LLP.

Maria Lett, Plaintiff, represented by Kyla G Cole, Waters & Kraus
LLP, Peter A Kraus, Waters & Kraus & Symone J Redwine, Waters &
Kraus LLP.

Patricia Lusk, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Kyla G Cole,
Waters & Kraus LLP, Peter A Kraus, Waters & Kraus & Symone J
Redwine, Waters & Kraus LLP.

Debra White, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Kyla G Cole, Waters
& Kraus LLP, Peter A Kraus, Waters & Kraus & Symone J Redwine,
Waters & Kraus LLP.

Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc, Defendant, represented by James C
Ho, Esq. -- jho@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP &
Prerak Shah, Esq. -- pshah@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP.

Guard-Line Inc, Defendant, represented by Nathaniel Austin Bosio,
Esq. -- nbosio@dwwattorneys.com -- Dogan & Wilkinson PLLC & Kevin
Melchi, Esq. -- kmelchi@dwwattorneys.com -- Dogan & Wilkinson
PLLC.


                             *********

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 2015. 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  * * *