CAR_Public/150227.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, February 27, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 42


                             Headlines

1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Bid to Appeal
A10 NETWORKS: Faces Suit by Shareholders After 67% Post-IPO Drop
ABM SECURITY: Cert. Ruling in Security Guards' Action Upheld
ADOBE SYSTEMS: 9th Circuit Junked Appeal From Rejection of Deal
ADT LLC: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

ADVANCE AMERICA: Judge Nixed "Zieger" Suit With Leave to Amend
ADVANCE ANALYTICAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Action Claims
ALIBALA GROUP: Sued in New York by Investors Over IPO Omissions
ALIPHCOM: N.D. Cal. Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Frenzel" Suit
ALTRIA GROUP: Tobacco-Related Cases Pending at Dec. 31

ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Faces 10 Health Care Cost Recovery Actions
ALTRIA GROUP: 57 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial in 2015
ALTRIA GROUP: 70 Engle Progeny Cases Resulted in Verdicts
ALTRIA GROUP: $8.3 Million Verdict in "Brown" Case
ALTRIA GROUP: Named as Defendants in 7 Class Actions in Canada

ALTRIA GROUP: 1 Medical Monitoring Class Suit Pending v. PM USA
ALTRIA GROUP: 12 Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending as of Jan. 27
ALTRIA GROUP: 26 "Lights" Class Actions Served Through Jan. 27
ALTRIA GROUP: 18 Courts in 19 "Lights" Cases Won't Certify Class
ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Set in "Miner" Case

ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in UST Case to Begin in 2016 First Quarter
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Fernandez" Suit Says
AMIRA NATURE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
ANASTASIA M. GARCIA: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ANGELO OF MULBERRY: Faces "Hajjar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

ANTHEM INC: Faces "Becker" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Haag" Suit in Fla. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hurley" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
ARIZONA: Faces Class Suit by Foster Kids Over Budget Cuts
ART LANDSCAPING: Faces "Osorio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ATLANTIC CAR: "Miranda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
AURCANA CORPORATION: Settles Class Action for $4 Million
BARCLAYS BANK: Court Refuses to Dismiss Most Claims in Forex Suit
BE LLC: Obtains Final Approval of "DuFour" Suit Settlement
BEACON: RI Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Dismissal

BECTON DICKINSON: Class Suits in Calif. Not Part of Settlement
BELL MATTRESS: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BELMONT VILLAGE: Gets Final Approval of Brumfield Suit Settlement
BP WEST: "Kelly" Suit Over Debit Card Fee Dismissed
BRINK'S INCORPORATED: "Ceron" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

CANADA: Merchant to Represent '60s Scoop Class Action Plaintiffs
CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces "Madatyan" Suit Over Alternator Recall
CLS TRANSPORTATION: "Iskanian" Case Remanded to Trial Court
CONCORD AUTOMOBILE: Court Junks Class Suit With Leave to Amend
CONSOL ENERGY: To Pay $20MM Portion of CNX Gas Case Settlement

CONSOL ENERGY: 4th Cir. Flips Certification Order in "Hale" Case
CONSOL ENERGY: 4th Cir. Flips Cert. Ruling in "Addison" Case
DAIRY FARMERS: Court Awards Atty. Fees in Antitrust Litigation
DELAWARE MANUFACTURED: Del. Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
EBAY INC: Defending Against Data Theft Class Action

ENHANCED RECOVERY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
ENERGY CORP: Court Refuses to Junk Claims Over Oil & Gas Royalty
ENTERGY CORPORATION: Appellate Court Voids Class Certification
EPLUS INC: Received Payment of $6.2 Million in Class Action
EQUITRUST LIFE: 9th Cir. Upholds Summary Judgment in "Eller" Case

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Settlement in "Holman" Suit Wins Final Okay
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Allows WVAW to Join Class Action
GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Obtains Final Approval of Miller Suit Deal
GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Dore" Suit in Fla. Over Product Misbranding
GOOGLE INC: Court Dismisses "Feitelson" Case With Leave to Amend

GOVSIMPLIFIED LLC: Has Tricked Consumers Into Buying Free Tax ID
GREENBERG TRAURIG: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Facciola" Suit
GROUPME INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in TCPA Class Action
GRUMA CORPORATION: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HARBINGER GROUP: Continues to Defend Haverhill Class Action

HARBINGER GROUP: Class Settlement in "Cressy" Case Has Final OK
HOME LOAN: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Plaintiffs Won't Appeal 9th Cir. Decision
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: "Adel" Class Action Lawsuit Ends
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: No Trial Date Yet in "Abrams" Case

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Defendant in 102 Product Liability Lawsuits
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Plaintiff in "Taylor" Case to Appeal Ruling
JACK IN THE BOX: Dismissal of "Pratt" Suit Upheld
KAISER FOUNDATION: Judge Rejects Bid to Remand "Estrada" Suit
KINRAY INC: Court Okays Amendment to "Velasquez" Overtime Suit

KNOCKOUT LOCKOUTS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LAREDO PETROLEUM: April 30 Final Hearing on $6.65MM Settlement
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Court Allows Debt FDCPA Class Suit to Proceed
LG ELECTRONICS: Suit Over Defective Plasma and LCD TVs Dismissed
MARION, FL: Court Refuses to Junk Suit Over Bailiff Intrusion

MATANUSKA-SUSITNA: Bid to Strike Jury Demand Gets Partial OK
MICHIGAN: Mag. Judge's Recommendation Adopted in "Wayne" Case
MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
MISSOURI: Sued for Retaliating Against Medicaid Challenger
MOHAMMAD AFRAKHTEH: Faces "Zelaya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MONTEREY, CA: Class of Inmates in Overcrowded Jail Certified
MWI VETERINARY: Faces Class Suit Over Sale to AmerisourceBergen
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Accused of Giving 'Sham' Classes to Athletes
NEW DOMINION: Faces Class Action Over Earthquake Damage
NEW YORK: Gov. Cuomo Asked to Immediately Replace Rep. Grimm

PAE GROUP: "Yocupicio" Wage & Hour Suit Stays in Dist. Court
PF CHANG'S: Celiac Disease Foundation Won't Back Class Action
PGA TOUR: Faces Class Suit by 83 Caddies Over Antitrust Violation
PHH MORTGAGE: NJ Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Finch" Suit
PROMPT MEDICAL: Faces "Cross" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sued for Monopolizing Medical Testing in NoCal
RADIOSHACK 401(K): Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Workers Plan
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Reiskin Suit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Customer Questions Extra Fee for HVAC Installation
SISTERS OF CHARITY: Prime Healthcare Must Face "Geiger" Suit

SONY PICTURES: Seeks Dismissal of Hacking Class Action
STAPLES INC: Delivery Driver Files Wage Class Action
SUN-TEC INSTALLATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TAKATA CORP: ARA Files Class Action Over Defective Airbags
TRAILER TRANSIT: Court Dismisses "Walker" Case With Prejudice

UBER TECH: For-Hire Drivers File Class Action
UBS AG: Court Dismisses Class Suit Involving Ex-Indonesian VP
UNION PACIFIC: Supplemental Expert Report Due April 1
UNITED STATES: FDA Failed to Act on Risperdal Effects, Suit Says
VERITY PARTNERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

W.W. GRAINGER: E.D. Cal. Judge Approves Deal in "Torchia" Case
WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Herbal Supplement False Advertising
WAL-MART STORES: Sued for Not Paying Assistant Store Managers' OT
WEISS & WEISS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Turner" Suit Says
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Awaits Court Decision on Motion to Dismiss

WYANDOTTE, KANSAS: Dist. Court Approves Deal in "Jackson" Suit
YAVONE LLC: Sued in D. Oregon Over Illegal Business Practices
ZIPCAR INC: Court Refuses to Junk Suit Over Excessive Late Fees

* New York Court Allows Debt Collection Lawsuits to Proceed


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Football Hero Fears Cancer Due to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loose-Fill Fibro Home Identified in NSW Testing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighters Repeat Fibro Warning After Fire
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Clarifies Cutoff for Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Strengthens Rejection of Exposure Theory

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found by Police Union Clears Office
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Forces Closure of Childcare Center
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Reaches $358-Mil. Fibro Settlement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrowsmith Business, Supervisor Fined $29,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Court Sentences 5 for Fibro Violations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manager Pleads Guilty in Fibro Removal from Bldg
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers to Remove Fibro Tiles at Miller Library
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Plead Guilty to Fibro Violation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canadian Ministry Probes Sudbury Fibro Complaint
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Demolishing Plant Fined Over Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims Drag on Insurance Industry Earnings
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheldon Silver Arrested for Bribery, Kickbacks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BHP Appeals Against $2.2MM Fibro Cancer Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Finds Suggest Fibro May be Widespread in Nevada
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Report Says Up to 6 Tons of Fibro in Finley

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Removes Ex-Worker's Suit to Fed. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FACT Act Introduced in House
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DC Cir. Asked to Rethink Fibro Death Dismissal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Man Charged with Illegal Fibro Disposal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Matson Man Receives GBP50,000 for Fibro Illness

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Attys Face Off at Transparency Hearing
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York Man Charged With Illegal Fibro Disposal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Disturb Fibro at Aussie School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Business Owner Accused of Fibro Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in New Mexico Building

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Contractor Ruled Guilty in Abatement Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Trusts Continue to Deplete, Witness Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suffolk Co. in Court for Unsafe Fibro Removal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Justices Snub Appeal From Fibro Claim Limit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ipswich Co. Fined for Exposing Workers to Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Fear Spread of Fibro in Columbia Univ.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Kills Former Factory Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1MM Punitive Damages Awarded in NJ Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro NHS Costs Law Overruled by Supreme Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ni Management to Settle Fibro Allegations

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Lawsuit Granted Reprieve by Appeals Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Judge Cuts Award Over Fibro Injuries to $30MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Makes $490MM Final Payment to Trust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Bill Would Make it Harder to File Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moon Area Fibro Removal Schedule Stirs Ire

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sufferers to Receive GBP54,000 in New Rules
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Michigan Fibro Release Leads to 3 Convictions
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepsi Can't Recoup Payouts From Federal-Mogul
ASBESTOS UPDATE: EL Workers Exposed to Fibro, Mercury, Suit Says
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GOP Drafting Bill to Let Fibro Cos. Off the Hook

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Record Fibro Payout Cut After Silver's Arrest
ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Expects More State Fines for Violations
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Alert at Leisure Center in Castlereagh
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Fines Tigard Firm for Fibro Removal Breaches
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gran's Disease Caused by Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Covered Clothes Caused Woman's Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Fibro Victim Appeals to Colleagues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waltham Forest Council to be Sentenced
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wales Blocked from Claiming Fibro Costs
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Fibro Victim Receives Settlement

ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Senate Ponders Fibro Trust Claims Act
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Kills Derby Founder Worker
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hailsham Man Suffering From Fibro Poisining Dies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Oglebay Norton Unit Can't Dodge Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suits Against Crane Co. Time-Barred

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 12,000 Pending Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Technologies Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC App. Affirms Compensation Ruling in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Grants Bids to Vacate PI Suit Verdict

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hammond" Suit Remanded to Miss. State Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6 Cos. Obtain Dismissal of "Denton" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Inmate's Claims for Damages Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Bray" Suit


                            *********


1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Bid to Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended December 28, 2014, that the court has
not yet ruled on the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal the
various rulings against them to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit and to have a partial final judgment
entered dismissing those claims that the Court had ordered
dismissed.

On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation,
Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an
action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging
violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act ("CUTPA") among other statutes, and for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction
marketing practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries
previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors. On
December 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice. The court
entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the case in its
entirety. This case was subsequently refiled in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On March 6, 2012 and March 15, 2012, two additional purported
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and
numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to
assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the
lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010. In each case, plaintiffs seek
to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek
restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0
million. On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were
consolidated with a third case previously pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut in which the
Company is not a party (the "Consolidated Action"). A consolidated
amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012,
purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those
originally asserted. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on December 7, 2012, which was subsequently
refiled at the direction of the Court on January 16, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action
voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as
defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to
those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint (the "Frank
Action"). On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed
on December 5, 2012 with the Consolidated Action. The Company
intends to defend each of these actions vigorously.

On January 31, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause
directing plaintiffs' counsel in the Frank Action, also counsel
for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, to show cause why the
Frank Action is distinguishable from the Consolidated Action such
that it may be maintained despite the prior-pending action
doctrine. On June 13, 2013, the court issued an order in the Frank
Action suspending deadlines to answer or to otherwise respond to
the complaint until 21 days after the court decides whether the
Frank Action should be consolidated with the Consolidated Action.
On July 24, 2013 the Frank Action was reassigned to Judge Vanessa
Bryant, before whom the Consolidated Action is currently pending,
for all further proceedings. On August 14, 2013, other defendants
filed a motion for clarification in the Frank Action requesting
that Judge Bryant clarify the order suspending deadlines.

On March 28, 2014, the Court issued a series of rulings disposing
of all the pending motions in both the Consolidated Action and the
Frank Action. Among other things, the Court dismissed several
causes of action, leaving pending a claim for CUTPA violations
stemming from Trilegiant's refund mitigation strategy and a claim
for unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the Court consolidated the
Frank case into the Consolidated Action.

On April 28, 2014 Plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal the various
rulings against them to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit and to have a partial final judgment entered
dismissing those claims that the Court had ordered dismissed. The
Court has not yet ruled on this new motion. The Company has filed
its answer to the complaint on May 12, 2014.


A10 NETWORKS: Faces Suit by Shareholders After 67% Post-IPO Drop
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that software maker A10 Networks
deceived investors ahead of its initial public offering last year,
a class action alleges, pointing to a 67 percent drop since March.

The City of Warren Police And Fire Retirement System filed the
complaint against San Jose, Calif.-based A10 in Santa Clara County
Superior Court.

When A10, a provider of software-based application networking
solutions, made its initial public offering on March 21, 2014, a
decade after its founding, it had several products in its
wheelhouse that signaled positive revenue trends, according to the
Jan. 29 complaint.

The class highlights the 2005 launch of the AX series of
application delivery controllers, which optimize data-center
performance, and the May 2013 rollout of the "Thunder Series"
family of appliances to integrate such controllers.

Critical to the class's claims, however, is that "the products in
the two product families are not interchangeable, and as A10's
Thunder Series product sales increased and AX Series products
decreased, the company built up an inventory of obsolete AX Series
product."

Since A10 sales cycles can stretch past 12 months for large-end
customers, A10 has "tremendous visibility into where the company
is tracking on sales at any given point in time," the class says.

That means "A10 had strong visibility into sales outcomes for at
least the four quarters of fiscal 2014 at the time of the
March 21, 2014, IPO, and at least some visibility into sales
outcomes for 1Q [the first quarter] 2015," according to the
complaint.

Despite the bloat of obsolete product on its books at inflated
values, A10 allegedly took only "a partial inventory write-down of
$2.6 million at the end of fiscal 2013."

"Significant obsolete inventory" allegedly remained on A10's books
at inflated values at the time of the IPO, the complaint alleges.

A10 sold 9 million shares in the IPO, plus another 3.845 million
shares were sold by certain selling stockholders, raising more
than $135 million in gross proceeds for the company and $57.675
million for the selling stockholders, according to the action.

Claiming that the company's registration statement with the
Securities and Exchange Commission was misleading, the class notes
that it "emphasized A10's purportedly strong on-going sales growth
rate . . . without disclosing any then present downturn in that
sales trend."

The class specifies that one section of the registration statement
"conceal[ed] that a significant portion of the 2013 sales growth
was due to existing customers exchanging AX series product for the
newly rolled out Thunder Series product."

What A10 should have disclosed was that its 2013 sales growth had
been substantially augmented by" such product conversions, "rather
than through organic sales to new customers, and this upgrade
cycle had largely extinguished itself by the time of the IPO,"
according to the complaint.

Indeed A10 was allegedly finding it difficult "to protect its
intellectual property and to compete with unique product
offerings" after a 2012 civil settlement required it to license
all of its patents to Brocade Communications Systems through 2025.

The class says A10 also concealed that it "was then experiencing
lower revenue bookings from its all-important North American
service provider customers."

In addition to lacking sufficient engineering staff to timely
close sales, A10 furthermore "did not have sufficient management
oversight and involvement in those sales," the complaint states.

Though A10 was not on track to achieve the financial results, the
company failed in its duty to disclose those declining trends,
according to the complaint.

By the time the class filed suit, A10 stock was trading at $5 a
share, "a more than 67% decline from the IPO price," according to
the complaint.

A10 and its CEO, Lee Chen, are named as defendants to the action
along with five other individual officers and directors, and
several financial institutions that allegedly performed
underwriting services for A10.  Those companies are Morgan Stanley
& Co. LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC; RBC Capital Markets LLC; Pacific Crest Securities
LLC; Oppenheimer & Co. Inc.

The class seeks damages, rescission and injunction for violations
of the Securities Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn Williams, Esq.
          ROBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center
          One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 9410
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com


ABM SECURITY: Cert. Ruling in Security Guards' Action Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Victoria Gerrard Chaney of the Court of Appeals
of California, Second District, Division One, ruled on the
defendant's appeal in the appealed case entitled JENNIFER
AUGUSTUS, et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ABM SECURITY
SERVICES, INC., Defendant and Appellant, NOS. B243788 and B247392
(Cal. App.)

ABM Security Services, Inc. employs thousands of security guards
at locations in California.  Jennifer Augustus, Emmanuel Davis and
Delores Hall worked for ABM as security guards.

In 2005, Augustus filed a putative class action, seeking to
represent all security guards employed by ABM. In 2006, her
complaint was related to and consolidated with similar complaints
filed by Davis and Hall, and a master complaint was filed. The
master complaint alleges ABM failed to consistently provide
uninterrupted rest periods, or premium wages in lieu of rest
breaks, as required by section 226.7 of Wage Order No. 4. They
alleged that ABM failed to provide rest periods required by
California law in that it failed to relieve security guards of all
duties during rest breaks, instead requiring its guards to remain
on call during breaks. Plaintiffs contend a security guard's rest
period is therefore indistinguishable from normal security work,
which renders every rest break invalid.

The trial court certified a class and granted plaintiffs' motion
for summary adjudication, concluding an employer must relieve its
employees of all duties during rest breaks, including the
obligation to remain on call. Plaintiffs then moved for summary
judgment on the issue of damages, seeking unpaid wages, interest,
penalties, attorney fees and an injunction. Finding no triable
issue as to whether ABM was subject to approximately $90 million
in statutory damages, interest, penalties, and attorney fees, the
court granted the motion. ABM appealed from the resulting
judgment.

Justice Chaney reversed the orders granting summary adjudication
and summary judgment and the amended judgment vacated. The order
certifying the class is affirmed.

A copy of Justice Chaney's unpublished opinion dated December 31,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/F6TBx2from Leagle.com.

For Defendant and Appellant: Theodore J. Boutrous --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Theane Evangelis --
tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Andrew G. Pappas --
apappas@gibsondunn.com -- Bradley J. Hamburger --
bhamburger@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher; Keith A.
Jacoby -- kjacoby@littler.com -- Dominic J. Messiha --
dmessiha@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson

For California Employment Law Council and Employers Group as
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant: Paul Grossman
-- paulgrossman@paulhastings.com -- at Paul Hastings

David R. Ongaro -- David.Ongaro@tklaw.com -- at Thompson & Knight
as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

John A. Taylor, Jr. -- jtaylor@horvitzlevy.com -- Robert H. Wright
-- rwright@horvitzlevy.com -- Felix Shafir --
fshafir@horvitzlevy.com -- at Horvitz & Levy as Amicus Curiae on
behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

D. Gregory Valenza -- gvalenza@shawvalenza.com -- at Shaw Valenza
as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

For Plaintiffs and Respondents: Drew E. Pomerance --
dep@rpnalaw.com -- Michael B. Adreani -- mba@rpnalaw.com -- Marina
N. Vitek -- mnv@rpnalaw.com -- at Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye &
Adreani; Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich -- at The Ehrlich Law Firm; Monica
Balderrama -- Arthur Meneses -- at Initiative Legal Group; Scott
Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com -- Matthew R. Bainer --
mbainer@scalaw.com -- at  Scott Cole & Associates; Alvin L.
Pittman -- at Law Offices of Alvin L. Pittman

As Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Respondents: Louis
Benowitz -- louis@benowitzlaw.com -- at Law Offices of Louis
Benowitz; and William Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- David
T. Mara -- dmara@turleylawfirm.com -- at The Turley Law Firm

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, for Division
One panel consists of Presiding Justice Frances Rothschild and
Associate Justices Victoria Gerrard Chaney and Jeffrey W. Johnson.


ADOBE SYSTEMS: 9th Circuit Junked Appeal From Rejection of Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the 9th Circuit on Feb. 3
dismissed an appeal of a federal judge's rejection of several
Silicon Valley tech giants' first effort at settling an anti-
poaching labor antitrust class action while a new, $415 million
offer awaits the judge's approval.

The appellate case is Adobe Systems, Inc., et al. v. Siddharth
Hariharan, et al., Case No. 14-72745, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The District Court case is
Siddharth Hariharan, et al. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., et al., Case
No. 5:11-cv-02509-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.

                           *     *     *

Courthouse News Service reports that citing the settlement with
tech workers over wage-fixing, Adobe, Apple, Google and Intel
asked the 9th Circuit on January 30 to dismiss a petition for a
writ of mandamus.

The appellate case is Adobe Systems, Inc., Apple Inc., Google
Inc., and Intel Corp., Defendants-Petitioners v. United States
District Court for the Northern District of California,
Respondent; and Michael Devine, Mark Fichtner, Siddharth
Hariharan, Brandon Marshall, and Daniel Stover, Plaintiffs-Real
Parties in Interest, Case No. Case No. 14-72745, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The trial court case is Michael Devine, et al. v. Adobe Systems,
Inc., et al., Case No. 5:11-2509-LHK, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Defendant and Petitioner Google Inc. is represented by:

          Robert A. Van Nest, Esq.
          Daniel Purcell, Esq.
          Eugene M. Paige, Esq.
          Justina Sessions, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
          E-mail: rvannest@kvn.com
                  dpurcell@kvn.com
                  epaige@kvn.com
                  jsessions@kvn.com

               - and -

          Edward D. Johnson, Esq.
          Lee H. Rubin, Esq.
          Donald M. Falk, Esq.
          MAYER BROWN LLP
          Two Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real, Suite 300
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112
          Telephone: (650) 331-2057
          Facsimile: (650) 331-4557
          E-mail: wjohnson@mayerbrown.com
                  lrubin@mayerbrown.com
                  dfalk@mayerbrown.com

Defendant and Petitioner Apple Inc. is represented by:

          Michael F. Tubach, Esq.
          George A. Riley, Esq.
          Christina J. Brown, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 984-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
          E-mail: griley@omm.com
                  cjbrown@omm.com
                  mtubach@omm.com

Defendant and Petitioner Adobe Systems, Inc., is represented by:

          David C. Kiernan, Esq.
          Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Esq.
          Craig A. Waldman, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          555 California Street, 26th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 626-3939
          Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
          E-mail: dkiernan@jonesday.com
                  ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com
                  cwaldman@jonesday.com

Defendant and Petitioner Intel Corporation is represented by:

          Gregory P. Stone, Esq.
          Bradley S. Phillips, Esq.
          Steven M. Perry, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 683-9100
          Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
          Email: gregory.stone@mto.com
                 brad.phillips@mto.com
                 steven.perry@mto.com


ADT LLC: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Castillo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ADT LLC and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
2:15-at-00247 (E.D. Cal., February 17, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
more than 40 per week.

ADT LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Boca Raton, Florida. It provides electronic
security, interactive home and business automation and alarm
monitoring services throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Alan Harris, Esq.
      HARRIS & RUBLE
      4771 Cromwell Avenue
      Los Angeles, CA 90027
      Telephone: (323) 931-3777
      Facsimile: (323) 931-3366
      E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com


ADVANCE AMERICA: Judge Nixed "Zieger" Suit With Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the District of Delaware
granted the defendants' motions in the case EDMUND ZIEGER, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ADVANCE AMERICA, CASH ADVANCE CENTERS, INC. d/b/a ADVANCE AMERICA,
and NCAS OF DELAWARE, LLC d/b/a ADVANCE AMERICA, Defendants, C.A.
NO. 13-1614-GMS (D. Del.)

Edmund Zieger entered into a loan agreement with Advance America,
Cash Advance Centers, Inc. in the amount of $650.00. Pursuant to
the terms of the Customer Agreement, Zieger was to submit payments
of approximately $249.50 every month for six months, for a total
of $1,496.94, in order to repay the loan. Removing the principal
from the calculus, this amounted to $846.94.  Zieger also granted
Advance ACH authorization to make automatic debit withdrawals from
his bank account to meet the monthly payments. In addition, the
Customer Agreement contained provisions governing dispute
resolution, which contains a clause that mandated that disputes
would be resolved via arbitration or small claims court.

After making one of the scheduled monthly payments, Zieger filed
the putative class action complaint. Subsequently, after a second
payment had been withdrawn, the parties reached an agreement
whereby Advance would not take or accept further payment from
Zieger during the pendency of the action.

The complaint alleges that the Customer Agreement Zieger signed
and other similar agreements signed by putative class members are
unconscionable.  The complaint contains five counts: (1)
injunctive relief preventing the enforcement of the Customer
Agreement, (2) declaratory judgment that the Customer Agreement
and those containing similar terms are unconscionable and
enforceable, (3) breach of duty of fair dealing, (4) violation of
the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act and (5) unjust enrichment.

Advance filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Zieger lacks
standing to assert several of the claims in the complaint and
therefore the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over these
matters. Advance also moved to dismiss Counts III, IV, and V for
failure to state a claim. In addition, Advance filed a motion to
strike the class allegations of the complaint.

Judge Sleet granted defendants' motion to dismiss and motion to
strike, but Zieger was granted leave to amend his complaint with
new class allegations.

A copy of Judge Sleet's memorandum dated December 29, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/6sSdlEfrom Leagle.com.

Edmund Zieger, Plaintiff, represented by Richard H. Cross, Jr. --
rcross@crosslaw.com -- Christopher Page Simon --
csimon@crosslaw.com -- Cross & Simon, LLC

Advance America Cash Advance Centers Inc., Defendant, represented
by Peter J. Walsh, Jr -- pwalsh@potteranderson.com -- John
Anderson Sensing -- jsensing@potteranderson.com -- at Potter
Anderson & Corroon, LLP; Lewis S. Wiener --
lewis.wiener@sutherland.com -- Wilson G. Barmeyer --
wilson.barmayer@sutherland.com -- at Sutherland Asbill & Brennan
LLP

NCAS of Delaware LLC, Defendant, represented by Peter J. Walsh, Jr
-- pwalsh@potteranderson.com -- John Anderson Sensing --
jsensing@potteranderson.com -- at Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP


ADVANCE ANALYTICAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Packaging, Inc., an Illinois corporation, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Advance Analytical
Testing Laboratories, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, Advanced
Analytical Testing Laboratories, LLC, a New Jersey limited
liability company, and Krishna Chivukula, Case No. 1:15-cv-01414
(N.D. Ill., February 16, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of sending unsolicited junk faxes in bulk to unwilling
recipients with deficient opt-out notices.

The Defendants offer several laboratory-testing services, such as
water and gas testing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State St., Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com


ALIBALA GROUP: Sued in New York by Investors Over IPO Omissions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Alibaba's initial public offering raked in more than $25 billion
while the Chinese e-commerce behemoth faced a probe into bribery
and counterfeiting, a federal class action alleges.

Manishkumar Khunt filed the complaint on February 2 in Manhattan
against Alibala Group, CEO Jack Yun Ma, and three other
individuals.  Another investor, Devorah Klein, filed similar
allegations in the same court February 3.

Alibaba is a Chinese e-commerce company that provides an online
portal linking Chinese manufacturers with overseas buyers. It also
runs Alipay, an online payment service, and the online shopping
website Taobao.

The company bills itself as "the largest online and mobile
commerce company in the world in terms of gross merchandise
volume," according to the complaint.

Alibaba's initial public offering in late September 2014 raised
$25 billion, but investors now say that Alibaba knew two months
beforehand "that company executives had met with China's State
Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC) in July 2014 . . .
and that regulators had then brought to Alibaba's attention a
variety of highly dubious -- even illegal -- business practices
that the SAIC advised Alibaba it was then clamping down on and
which threatened the core of Alibaba's business."

These practices included the sale of counterfeit goods, such as
branded handbags and fake cigarettes, and of restricted weapons.

SAIC also allegedly informed Alibaba that its staff members were
taking bribes from merchants to boost their search rankings,
engaging in anticompetitive behavior such as forbidding merchants
from using rival's sites, and doing nothing to stop merchants from
false advertising.

The civil suits come just days after Jan. 28 reports by various
financial media that the SAIC had formally issued a white paper
accusing Alibaba of engaging illegal activity.  News of the
accusations caused Alibaba's share price to fall 4 percent on
unusually high volume that day.

On Jan. 29 Alibaba released disappointing financial results for
the fourth quarter of 2014, missing its revenue target by over
$200 million, according to the complaint.  It also allegedly
reported that profits fell 28 percent from fourth quarter 2013.

The shares slid a further 9 percent, reaching a price down more
than 25 percent from its four-month high, according to the
complaint.

Alibaba CEO Jack Ma told reporters that the government's findings
were mistaken, and the SAIC said January 30 that its findings did
not have "judicial effect," Voice of America reported .

But investors claim that Alibaba would not have been able to hit
the price point of $68 per share in its IPO if it had disclosed
the accusations against it.

Alibaba's shares traded February 3 at $90.10. They reached a high
of $119.15 in November 2014.

The Plaintiff in the February 2 lawsuit is represented by:

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com

The Plaintiff in the February 3 lawsuit is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, 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


ALIPHCOM: N.D. Cal. Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Frenzel" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of
California granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case ROBERT
FRENZEL, Plaintiff, v. ALIPHCOM, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-03587-
WHO (N.D. Cal.)

AliphCom d/b/a Jawbone is a California corporation headquartered
in San Francisco, California. It markets and sells Jawbone UP, a
fitness-tracker wristband that contains an accelerometer designed
to track the user's daily movements and sleep patterns. Jawbone
has distributed three generations of the device: a first
generation Jawbone UP released in 2011, a second generation
Jawbone UP released in 2012, and a Jawbone UP24 released in 2013.

Frenzel resides in Kansas City, Missouri, and is a Missouri
citizen. Frenzel purchased a second generation Jawbone UP from an
Apple store. Before purchasing the device, Frenzel reviewed
Jawbone's marketing materials and representations. The
representations included that Jawbone UP is a fitness and
lifestyle tracker that monitors the purchaser's physical activity,
sleep patterns, and eating habits, and the battery is expected to
last for 10 days when fully charged.

Within a few months, Frenzel's Jawbone UP stopped maintaining its
charge. Frenzel contacted Jawbone and was issued a replacement
second generation Jawbone UP.  The replacement also experienced
power problems and ultimately died when it failed to turn on.
Frenzel again contacted Jawbone but was told that his only
recourse was to purchase a new device.

Plaintiff alleges that he was fraudulently induced to purchase a
Jawbone UP fitness-tracker wristband by misrepresentations
regarding the product's battery life and general functionality.
Plaintiff asserts six causes of action in the complaint: (i)
violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA),
Cal. Civ. Code Section 1750, et seq.; (ii) violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200, et seq.; (iii) violations of California's False
Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500, et
seq.; (iv) breach of express warranty; (v) breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability; and (vi) breach of the implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Plaintiff seeks an
order certifying a national class, compensatory and punitive
damages, and injunctive relief.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Frenzel's claims are precluded by
California's choice-of-law rules and, in addition, are not
adequately alleged.

Judge Orrick granted defendant's motion to dismiss in an order
dated December 29, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/pCtwFZfrom
Leagle.com.

Robert Frenzel, Plaintiff, represented by Julia A. Luster --
jluster@bursor.com -- Annick Marie Persinger --
apersinger@bursor.com -- Lawrence Timothy Fisher --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- at Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

Aliphcom, Defendant, represented by Mortimer H. Hartwell --
mhartwell@velaw.com -- at VINSON & ELKINS LLP; Howard Holderness
-- hholderness@morganlewis.com -- Jeremy Noah Lateiner --
jlateiner@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP


ALTRIA GROUP: Tobacco-Related Cases Pending at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., reported, in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 30, 2015, the number of certain tobacco-related cases
pending in the United States against Philip Morris USA Inc. and,
in some instances, Altria Group, Inc. as of December 31, 2014,
December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012:

  Type of Case                Number of Cases Pending as of
                              12/31/2014   12/31/2013  12/31/2012
  ------------                ----------   ----------  ----------
Individual Smoking
and Health Cases                      67           67          77

Smoking and Health Class
Actions and Aggregated
Claims Litigation                      5            6           7

Health Care Cost
Recovery Actions                       1            1           1

"Lights/Ultra Lights"
Class Actions                         12            15         14

Individual Smoking and Health Cases does not include 2,558 cases
brought by flight attendants seeking compensatory damages for
personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to environmental
tobacco smoke ("ETS"). The flight attendants allege that they are
members of an ETS smoking and health class action in Florida,
which was settled in 1997 (Broin). The terms of the court-approved
settlement in that case allow class members to file individual
lawsuits seeking compensatory damages, but prohibit them from
seeking punitive damages. Also, does not include individual
smoking and health cases brought by or on behalf of plaintiffs in
Florida state and federal courts following the decertification of
the Engle case.

Smoking and Health Class Actions and Aggregated Claims Litigation
includes as one case the 600 civil actions (of which 346 were
actions against PM USA) that were to be tried in a single
proceeding in West Virginia (In re: Tobacco Litigation). The West
Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has ruled that the United States
Constitution did not preclude a trial in two phases in this case.
Issues related to defendants' conduct and whether punitive damages
are permissible were tried in the first phase. Trial in the first
phase of this case began in April 2013. In May 2013, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of defendants on the claims for design
defect, negligence, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and
concealment and declined to find that the defendants' conduct
warranted punitive damages. Plaintiffs prevailed on their claim
that ventilated filter cigarettes should have included use
instructions for the period 1964 - 1969. The second phase, if any,
will consist of individual trials to determine liability and
compensatory damages on that claim only. In August 2013, the trial
court denied all post-trial motions. The trial court entered final
judgment in October 2013 and, in November 2013, plaintiffs filed
their notice of appeal to the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals. On November 3, 2014, the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals affirmed the final judgment. Plaintiffs filed a petition
for rehearing with the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals,
which the court denied on January 8, 2015.


ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Faces 10 Health Care Cost Recovery Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 30, 2015, that as of January 27, 2015, Philip Morris USA
Inc. is a named defendant in ten health care cost recovery actions
in Canada, eight of which also name Altria Group, Inc. as a
defendant. PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are also named defendants
in seven smoking and health class actions filed in various
Canadian provinces. A Distribution Agreement between Altria Group,
Inc. and PMI provides for indemnities for certain liabilities
concerning tobacco products.


ALTRIA GROUP: 57 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial in 2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 30, 2015, that as of January 27, 2015, 57 Engle progeny
cases and three individual smoking and health cases against Philip
Morris USA Inc. are set for trial in 2015. Cases against other
companies in the tobacco industry are also scheduled for trial in
2015. Trial dates are subject to change.

Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts
have been returned in 56 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights"
and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a
defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were
returned in 38 of the 56 cases. These 38 cases were tried in
Alaska (1), California (6), Florida (10), Louisiana (1),
Massachusetts (1), Mississippi (1), Missouri (3), New Hampshire
(1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1),
Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motion
for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in
the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court
withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's motion for
reconsideration. Oral argument of plaintiff's appeal of this
ruling occurred in September 2014.

Of the 18 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs, 15 have reached final resolution. A
verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case
(Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were
dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against
defendants in a purported "Lights" class action in Illinois
(Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in
December 2006, but plaintiff is seeking to reinstate the verdict,
which an intermediate appellate court ordered in April 2014. PM
USA filed a petition for leave to appeal, which automatically
stayed the April 2014 order. In September 2014, the Illinois
Supreme Court granted PM USA's motion for leave to appeal.

As of January 27, 2015, 70 state and federal Engle progeny cases
involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida
Supreme Court's Engle decision. Thirty-six verdicts were returned
in favor of plaintiffs and 34 verdicts were returned in favor of
PM USA.


ALTRIA GROUP: 70 Engle Progeny Cases Resulted in Verdicts
---------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 30, 2015, that as of January 27, 2015, 70 federal and
state Engle progeny cases involving Philip Morris USA Inc. have
resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court Engle
decision. Thirty-six verdicts were returned in favor of
plaintiffs.

Thirty-four verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA (Gelep,
Kalyvas, Gil de Rubio, Warrick, Willis, Russo (formerly Frazier),
C. Campbell, Rohr, Espinosa, Oliva, Weingart, Junious, Szymanski,
Gollihue, McCray, Denton, Hancock, Wilder, D. Cohen, LaMotte, J.
Campbell, Dombey, Haldeman, Jacobson, Blasco, Gonzalez, Reider,
Banks, Surico, Davis, Baum, Bishop, Starbuck and Vila). In
addition, there have been a number of mistrials, only some of
which have resulted in new trials as of January 27, 2015. The
juries in the Reider and Banks cases returned zero damages
verdicts in favor of PM USA. The juries in the Weingart and
Hancock cases returned verdicts against PM USA awarding no
damages, but the trial court in each case granted an additur. In
the Russo case (formerly Frazier), however, the Florida Third
District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in defendants'
favor in April 2012 and remanded the case for a new trial.
Defendants sought review of the case in the Florida Supreme Court,
which was granted in September 2013. Oral argument occurred in
April 2014 in the Florida Supreme Court on the question of whether
the statute of repose applies in Engle progeny cases.


ALTRIA GROUP: $8.3 Million Verdict in "Brown" Case
--------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 30, 2015, that on January 21, 2015, a jury in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida returned a
verdict against Philip Morris USA Inc. awarding plaintiff in the
"Brown" case approximately $8.3 million in compensatory damages
and $9 million in punitive damages.


ALTRIA GROUP: Named as Defendants in 7 Class Actions in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 30, 2015, that as of January 27, 2015, Philip Morris USA
Inc. and Altria Group, Inc. are named as defendants, along with
other cigarette manufacturers, in seven class actions filed in the
Canadian provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, Nova Scotia,
Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.

Since the dismissal in May 1996 of a purported nationwide class
action brought on behalf of allegedly addicted smokers, plaintiffs
have filed numerous putative smoking and health class action suits
in various state and federal courts. In general, these cases
purport to be brought on behalf of residents of a particular state
or states (although a few cases purport to be nationwide in scope)
and raise addiction claims and, in many cases, claims of physical
injury as well.

Class certification has been denied or reversed by courts in 59
smoking and health class actions involving PM USA in Arkansas (1),
California (1), the District of Columbia (2), Florida (2),
Illinois (3), Iowa (1), Kansas (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1),
Michigan (1), Minnesota (1), Nevada (29), New Jersey (6), New York
(2), Ohio (1), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (1), Puerto Rico (1),
South Carolina (1), Texas (1) and Wisconsin (1).

As of January 27, 2015, PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are named as
defendants, along with other cigarette manufacturers, in seven
class actions filed in the Canadian provinces of Alberta,
Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Ontario.
In Saskatchewan, British Columbia (two separate cases) and
Ontario, plaintiffs seek class certification on behalf of
individuals who suffer or have suffered from various diseases,
including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart
disease or cancer, after smoking defendants' cigarettes. In the
actions filed in Alberta, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, plaintiffs
seek certification of classes of all individuals who smoked
defendants' cigarettes.


ALTRIA GROUP: 1 Medical Monitoring Class Suit Pending v. PM USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 30, 2015, that one medical monitoring class action is
currently pending against Philip Morris USA Inc.

In medical monitoring actions, plaintiffs seek to recover the cost
for, or otherwise the implementation of, court-supervised programs
for ongoing medical monitoring purportedly on behalf of a class of
individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose
liability under various product-based causes of action and the
creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the
purported class Low Dose CT ("LDCT") scanning in order to identify
and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek
punitive damages, although plaintiffs in Donovan have indicated
they may seek to treble any damages awarded. The future defense of
these cases may be negatively impacted by evolving medical
standards and practice.

One medical monitoring class action is currently pending against
Philip Morris USA Inc.  In Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs
purportedly brought the action on behalf of the state's residents
who are: age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20
pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung
cancer nor are under investigation by a physician for suspected
lung cancer. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in
answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in
October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes
a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the
absence of an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or
not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is
a factual issue to be determined by the trial court. The case was
remanded to federal court for further proceedings. In June 2010,
the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims
for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to
plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate review
of the class certification decision. The petition was denied in
September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a 28-year
medical monitoring program with an approximate cost of $190
million. In June 2011, plaintiffs filed various motions for
partial summary judgment and to strike affirmative defenses, which
the district court denied in March 2012 without prejudice. In
October 2011, PM USA filed a motion for class decertification,
which motion was denied in March 2012. In February 2013, the
district court amended the class definition to extend to
individuals who satisfy the class membership criteria through
February 26, 2013, and to exclude any individual who was not a
Massachusetts resident as of February 26, 2013. In January 2014,
plaintiffs renewed their previously filed motions for partial
summary judgment and to strike affirmative defenses. In December
2014, the court issued its rulings on plaintiffs' previously-filed
motions, granting and denying the motions in part. A trial date
has not been set.


ALTRIA GROUP: 12 Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending as of Jan. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 30, 2015, that as of January 27, 2015, a total of 12
Lights/Ultra Lights" cases are pending in various U.S. state
courts.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory
fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been
brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group,
Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased
and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro
Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and
Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in
these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation,
injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability
under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies
with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As of
January 27, 2015, a total of 12 such cases are pending in various
U.S. state courts.

In El-Roy, a purported "Lights" class action in Israel, the trial
court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
ordered the plaintiffs to pay defendants approximately $100,000 in
attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs in that case noticed an appeal. Oral
argument at the Israel Supreme Court occurred on November 17,
2014, and the same day plaintiffs agreed to accept judgment
against them in return for trial costs.


ALTRIA GROUP: 26 "Lights" Class Actions Served Through Jan. 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 30, 2015, that since the December 2008 United States
Supreme Court decision in Good, and through January 27, 2015, 26
purported "Lights" class actions were served upon Philip Morris
USA Inc. and, in certain cases, Altria Group, Inc. These cases
were filed in 15 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District
of Columbia. All of these cases either were filed in federal court
or were removed to federal court by PM USA and were transferred
and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPMDL") before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine
for pretrial proceedings ("MDL proceeding").

In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering
the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia,
Illinois and Maine. These jurisdictions were selected by the
parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two
selected by defendants. Plaintiffs sought appellate review of this
decision but, in February 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal.
Later that year, plaintiffs in 13 cases voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice their cases. In April 2012, the JPMDL remanded
the remaining four cases (Phillips, Tang, Wyatt and Cabbat) back
to the federal district courts in which the suits originated.
These cases were ultimately resolved in a manner favorable to PM
USA.

In Tang, which was pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
the case without prejudice in July 2012, concluding the
litigation. In Phillips, which was pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, following the district
court's denial of class certification, PM USA made an offer of
judgment to resolve the case for $6,000, which plaintiff accepted,
and the court dismissed the case. In Cabbat, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Hawaii denied plaintiffs' class
certification motion in January 2014. After plaintiffs were
unsuccessful in obtaining appellate review, in July 2014, the
parties filed, and the court approved, a stipulation for dismissal
with prejudice. In Wyatt, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin denied plaintiffs' class certification
motion in August 2013. After plaintiffs were unsuccessful in
obtaining appellate review, PM USA made an offer of judgment to
resolve the case for $1,000, which plaintiff accepted in September
2014. The district court dismissed the case in October 2014.


ALTRIA GROUP: 18 Courts in 19 "Lights" Cases Won't Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 30, 2015, that as of January 27, 2015, 18 courts in 19
"Lights" cases have refused to certify class actions, dismissed
class action allegations, reversed prior class certification
decisions or have entered judgment in favor of Philip Morris USA
Inc.

Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have refused to
grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class
action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in
Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs
asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection
Act.

Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed
rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed
rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an
intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court
that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme
Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois
overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified class in
the Price case.

In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
dismissed a purported "Lights" class action (Sullivan) on the
grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FCLAA. In
New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
overturned a trial court decision in Schwab that granted
plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of all
U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the United States that
were labeled "Light" or "Lights." In July 2010, plaintiffs in
Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. In Ohio, the
Ohio Supreme Court overturned class certifications in the Marrone
and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice both cases in August 2009, but refiled in federal court
as the Phillips case. The Supreme Court of Washington denied a
motion for interlocutory review filed by the plaintiffs in the
Davies case that sought review of an order by the trial court that
refused to certify a class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily
dismissed the Davies case with prejudice.

In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
affirmed the Illinois federal district court's dismissal of
"Lights" claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary case. In
Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the Minnesota
Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment
in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation.

In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and
subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October
2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to
dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation.


ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Set in "Miner" Case
-----------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 30, 2015, that certified class actions remain pending at
the trial or appellate level in California (Brown), Massachusetts
(Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen) and Arkansas (Miner).

State trial courts have certified classes against PM USA in
several jurisdictions. Over time, several such cases have been
dismissed by the courts at the summary judgment stage. Certified
class actions remain pending at the trial or appellate level in
California (Brown), Massachusetts (Aspinall), Missouri (Larsen)
and Arkansas (Miner). Significant developments in these cases
include:

Aspinall: In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
affirmed the class certification order. In August 2006, the trial
court denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and granted
plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the defenses of
federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts'
consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial
court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment
to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings
pending completion of the appellate review. In March 2009, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying
summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs' cross-
motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary
judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from the
findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. In
March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. In February
2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties, dismissed
without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against Altria Group, Inc. PM
USA is now the sole defendant in the case. In September 2013, the
case was transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the
Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in September 2013, plaintiffs
filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the scope of
remedies available in the case, which the Massachusetts Superior
Court denied in February 2014, concluding that plaintiffs cannot
obtain disgorgement of profits as an equitable remedy and that
their recovery is limited to actual damages or $25 per class
member if they cannot prove actual damages greater than $25.
Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to report its
February 2014 ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court for
review, which the trial court denied. In March 2014, plaintiffs
petitioned the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review of the
ruling, which the appellate court denied. Trial is scheduled
to begin October 19, 2015.

Brown: In June 1997, plaintiffs filed suit in California state
court alleging that domestic cigarette manufacturers, including PM
USA and others, violated California law regarding unfair, unlawful
and fraudulent business practices.  In May 2009, the California
Supreme Court reversed an earlier trial court decision that
decertified the class and remanded the case to the trial court.
At that time, the class consisted of individuals who, at the time
they were residents of California, (i) smoked in California one or
more cigarettes manufactured by PM USA that were labeled and/or
advertised with the terms or phrases "light," "medium," "mild,"
"low tar," and/or "lowered tar and nicotine," but not including
any cigarettes labeled or advertised with the terms or phrases
"ultra light" or "ultra low tar," and (ii) who were exposed to
defendant's marketing and advertising activities in California.
Plaintiffs are seeking restitution of a portion of the costs of
"light" cigarettes purchased during the class period and
injunctive relief ordering corrective communications. In September
2012, at the plaintiffs' request, the trial court dismissed all
defendants except PM USA from the lawsuit.  Trial began in April
2013. In May 2013 the plaintiffs redefined the class to include
California residents who smoked in California one or more of
defendant's Marlboro Lights cigarettes between January 1, 1998 and
April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to defendant's marketing and
advertising activities in California. In June 2013, PM USA filed a
motion to decertify the class. Trial concluded in July 2013. In
September 2013, the court issued a final Statement of Decision, in
which the court found that PM USA violated California law, but
that plaintiffs had not established a basis for relief. On this
basis, the court granted judgment for PM USA. The court also
denied PM USA's motion to decertify the class. In October 2013,
the court entered final judgment in favor of PM USA. In November
2013, plaintiffs moved for a new trial, which the court denied. In
December 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal and PM USA
filed a conditional cross-appeal. In February 2014, the trial
court awarded PM USA $764,553 in costs. Also in February 2014,
plaintiffs appealed the costs award.

Larsen: In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the
class certification order. In December 2009, the trial court
denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during
which potential class members can qualify to become part of the
class. The class period remains 1995-2003. In June 2010, PM USA's
motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request
for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved
for partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the
case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case
brought by the Department of Justice.  The plaintiffs' motion was
denied in December 2010. In June 2011, PM USA filed various
summary judgment motions challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In
August 2011, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for partial
summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not present a
damages claim based on allegations that Marlboro Lights are more
dangerous than Marlboro Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's
remaining summary judgment motions. Trial in the case began in
September 2011 and, in October 2011, the court declared a mistrial
after the jury failed to reach a verdict. In January 2014, the
trial court reversed its prior ruling granting partial summary
judgment against plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim and allowed
plaintiffs to pursue that claim. In October 2014, PM USA filed
motions to decertify the class and for partial summary judgment on
plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim. A trial date has not been set.

Miner: In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the
lower court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) that
denied plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as
opposed to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected
defendants' contention that the case must be tried in federal
court under the "federal officer" statute. Following remand, the
case was removed again to federal court in Arkansas and
transferred to the MDL proceeding. In November 2010, the district
court in the MDL proceeding remanded the case to Arkansas state
court. In December 2011, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their
claims against Altria Group, Inc. without prejudice. In March
2013, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion. In November
2013, the trial court granted class certification. The certified
class includes those individuals who, from November 1, 1971
through June 22, 2010, purchased Marlboro Lights, including
Marlboro Ultra Lights, for personal consumption in Arkansas. PM
USA filed a notice of appeal of the class certification ruling to
the Arkansas Supreme Court in December 2013. Oral argument is
scheduled for February 12, 2015.


ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in UST Case to Begin in 2016 First Quarter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 30, 2015, that in December 2014, the court in the UST
Litigation entered a scheduling order setting trial to commence in
the first quarter of 2016.

Claims related to smokeless tobacco products generally fall within
the following categories:

First, UST LLC and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in
certain actions in West Virginia brought by or on behalf of
individual plaintiffs against cigarette manufacturers, smokeless
tobacco manufacturers and other organizations seeking damages and
other relief in connection with injuries allegedly sustained as a
result of tobacco usage, including smokeless tobacco products.
Included among the plaintiffs are five individuals alleging use of
U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC's smokeless tobacco products
and alleging the types of injuries claimed to be associated with
the use of smokeless tobacco products. USSTC, along with other
non-cigarette manufacturers, has remained severed from such
proceedings since December 2001.

Second, UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries has been named in a
number of other individual tobacco and health suits over time.
Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on
various theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict
liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to
warn, breach of implied warranty, addiction and breach of consumer
protection statutes. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief,
including compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable
relief, including but not limited to disgorgement. Defenses raised
in these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk,
comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of
limitations. USSTC is currently named in one such action in
Florida (Vassallo). In December 2014, the court entered a
scheduling order setting trial to commence in the first quarter of
2016.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Fernandez" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reya Fernandez, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. American Medical Collection Agency, and John Does 1 to 10, Case
No. 2:15-cv-01205 (D.N.J., February 16, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, specifically by sending debt collection letters
which unlawfully exposed sensitive and personal financial
information to the public through the window envelope.

American Medical Collection Agency is a debt collection agency
with offices at 4 Westchester Plaza Suite 110, Elmsford, New York
10523.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
      KIM LAW FIRM LLC
      411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 273-7117
      Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
      E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


AMIRA NATURE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, on Feb. 10
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Amira Nature Foods, Ltd. Stock between September 27,
2012 and February 9, 2015.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Amira investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Amira class action, go to the website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-506.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Jonathan Horne, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or jhorne@rosenlegal.com for information on
the class action.  The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

The lawsuit alleges: (a) Amira fraudulently overstated its Indian-
produced basmati rice exports, thereby overstating revenues by at
least 24% and 18.7% in FY 2013 and 2014, respectively; (b) Amira
concealed that many of its counterparties are secretly related
parties, including its largest customer, one of its largest
suppliers, a potential counterparty to a $30 million transaction,
and over a dozen others; (c) Amira's CEO used company money to pay
his own personal household expenses, including salaries for a
personal house manager and a chef for his farmhouse.

The lawsuit alleges that the truth was disclosed on two occasions,
on April 3, 2013, causing its stock price to fall to $1.10 by
April 5, or almost 20%, and on February 9, 2015, causing Amira's
stock price to fall $3.45, or almost 26% from its previous close.
A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
April 13, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation go to
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-506.htmlor to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip
Kim, Esq., or Jonathan Horne, Esq., of The Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
jhorne@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.


ANASTASIA M. GARCIA: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yenisey Perez, Cintia Cini, and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Anastasia M. Garcia, P.A. and Anastasia
M. Garcia, Case No. 1:15-cv-20615 (S.D. Fla., February 17, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.  The
Defendants own and operate a legal services firm in Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANGELO OF MULBERRY: Faces "Hajjar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bashir Hajjar and Izet Jasaraj, on of themselves and on behalf of
all other similarly situated persons v. Angelo Of Mulberry Street
Inc., and Giovanni Aprea, Concetta "Tina" Aprea, Rino Aprea,
Teresa Aprea, and Luigi "Gino" Silvestri, in their personal and
professional capacities, Case No. 1:15-cv-01082 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 146
Mulberry Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Bodansky, Esq.
      David Evan Gottlieb, Esq.
      Tanvir Haque Rahman, Esq.
      WIGDOR LLP
      85 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 257-6800
      E-mail: bbodansky@wigdorlaw.com
              dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
              trahman@wigdorlaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Becker" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Hank Becker and John L. McAffry, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-00230 (S.D. Ind., February 16, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and
protection for its computer systems containing patient's
personally identifiable information and personal health
information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
      Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
      Vess A. Miller, Esq.
      Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD, LLP
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
      E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
              rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
              sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
              vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
              ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

         - and -

      Laddie Montague, Esq.
      Sherrie Savett, Esq.
      Shanon Carson, Esq.
      Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
      Jon Lambiras, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, PC
      1622 Locust St.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: hlmontague@bm.net
              ssavett@bm.net
              scarson@bm.net
              mdellangelo@bm.net
              jlambiras@bm.net

         - and -

      Michael F. Becker, Esq.
      THE BECKER LAW FIRM
      50 Public Square, Suite 3500
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (440) 372-0810
      E-mail: mbecker@beckerlawlpa.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Haag" Suit in Fla. Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Haag and Maria Haag, individually, on their own behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc. d/b/a
Anthem Health, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-00238 (M.D. Fla.,
February 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to provide adequate security and protection for its computer
systems containing patient's personally identifiable information
and personal health information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Allen Yanchunis Sr., Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      7th Floor, 201 N Franklin Street
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Hurley" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Thomas Hurley, individually and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc. d/b/a Anthem Health,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00247 (S.D. Ind., February 17,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide
adequate security and protection for its computer systems
containing patient's personally identifiable information and
personal health information.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay P. Kennedy, Esq.
      KROGER GARDIS & REGAS LLP
      111 Monument Circle, Suite 900
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 692-9000
      Facsimile: (317) 264-6832
      E-mail: jpk@kgrlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert R. Sparks, Esq.
      STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
      The Federal Building
      150 East Fourth, Street
      Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
      Telephone: (513) 621-2120
      Facsimile: (513) 241-8259
      E-mail: rrsparks@strausstroy.com


ARIZONA: Faces Class Suit by Foster Kids Over Budget Cuts
---------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Tim Hull reports that
Arizona's deep budget cuts threaten thousands of foster children
with physical and emotional harm, 10 children claim in a federal
class action.

Ten foster children and their next friends sued Arizona Department
of Child Safety Director Charles Flanagan and Arizona Department
of Health Services Director William Humble on Feb. 3, alleging
numerous civil rights violations on behalf of more than 16,000
children in the state's foster care system.

Arizona's population of foster children, many of whom have been
removed from their families because of abuse and neglect, nearly
doubled from 2003 to 2012, a time during which national rates
declined, according to the 51-page lawsuit.

"This huge growth in the state's foster care population has been
fueled by extensive state budget cuts to important support
services that had previously helped keep families together," the
complaint states.

Community-based providers and in-home services which "aimed at
making removal of children into foster care unnecessary" have seen
some of the deepest cuts, declining from $43 million in fiscal
year 2008 to less than $22 million in fiscal year 2012, according
to the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit identifies several issues that have "plagued" the
state's foster-care system for at least a decade, leading former
Gov. Jan Brewer to describe it as "broken" in 2014.

These include "a severe shortage in and inaccessibility of
physical, mental and behavioral health services available to
children in state care."

"As a result, far too many children in state foster care custody
do not receive the health care services they desperately need and
all children in state care are subject to an unreasonable risk
that they will suffer physical and emotional harm and
deterioration while in the state's care," the complaint states.

It tells of the often horrific foster-care experiences of the 10
plaintiffs, all of whom are identified only by their initials.

One 10-year-old girl, B.K., who has spent most of her life in
foster care, was so neglected by the system that she eventually
threatened suicide.

"The state failed to ensure that B.K. obtained the glasses she
needed to see properly," the lawsuit states.  "The state also
failed to discover that B.K. was walking with a limp, and failed
to make sure that she received the orthopedic shoes she needed.
Despite months of complaints from B.K. about a toothache, the
state failed to make sure she saw a dentist while she was living
at the group home."

B.K. later reported "hearing voices that were telling her to hurt
other people or that someone would die," according to the
complaint, and in December 2014 she "had another psychiatric
crisis and threatened suicide" and "the state moved her out of the
foster home and admitted her to another psychiatric hospital."

The foster-care system is dogged by a "widespread failure to
conduct timely investigations of reports that children have been
maltreated while in state foster care custody"; a "severe and
sustained shortage of family foster homes"; and a "widespread
failure to engage in basic child welfare practices aimed at
maintaining family relationships," according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs seek an injunction and other relief to "ensure that
all members of the General Class receive . . . physical, mental
and behavioral health services," prompt investigations of reports
of abuse and neglect, and concentration up on and commitment to
reunification with siblings and biological parents.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anne C. Ronan, Esq.
          Timothy M. Hogan, Esq.
          ARIZONA CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
          514 West Roosevelt Street
          Phoenix, AZ 85003
          Telephone: (602) 258-8850
          Facsimile: (602) 258-8757
          E-mail: aronan@aclpi.org
                  thogan@aclpi.org

               - and -

          Keith Beauchamp, Esq.
          Roopali H. Desai, Esq.
          Shelley Tolman, Esq.
          COPPERSMITH BROCKELMAN PLC
          2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 381-5478
          Facsimile: (602) 224-6020
          E-mail: kbeauchamp@cblawyers.com
                  rdesai@cblawyers.com
                  stolman@cblawyers.com


ART LANDSCAPING: Faces "Osorio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Manuel Lopez Osorio, and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) v. Art Landscaping, Corp., Alexander
Acosta, Case No. 1:15-cv-20614 (S.D. Fla., February 16, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Art Landscaping, Corp. is a full service design and installation
landscaping company located in Kankakee, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATLANTIC CAR: "Miranda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Miranda, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v.  Atlantic Car Wash, Inc., d/b/a 5 Star Auto Spa, Efim Roitman,
and Fema Mittleman, Case No. 1:15-cv-00796 (E.D.N.Y., February 16,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a car wash shop located at 571
Washington Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11238.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


AURCANA CORPORATION: Settles Class Action for $4 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
Aurcana Corporation on Feb. 10 disclosed that it has entered into
an agreement to settle the class action litigation commenced by
Nunzio Cardillo and John Witiluk in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice against the Company and two former executives of the
Company.

The Settlement provides for the full and final settlement, release
and dismissal of all claims brought under the Action.  The
Settlement is subject to customary conditions, including the
receipt of court approval of the Settlement.

Under the terms of the Settlement, the Company will pay an
aggregate of $4,000,000, which amount, net of legal fees and other
costs, will be divided among members of the plaintiff class on a
pro rata basis.  The Settlement Amount will be fully funded by
insurance maintained by the Company, and the Company does not
anticipate that the payment of the Settlement Amount will have any
effect on the Company's cash position or operations.

The Company elected to enter into the Settlement in order to avoid
the expense, burden and inconvenience associated with the
continuance of the Action.  The Settlement does not constitute an
admission by the Company of any violation of law or other
wrongdoing.

Kevin Drover, the Company's President and CEO, states, "We are
pleased that a settlement of the class action litigation has been
reached and will not have an impact on Aurcana's cash position.
The Company remains fully focused on continuing to improve the
operation and profitability of the La Negra mine."

                   About Aurcana Corporation

Aurcana Corporation is a primary silver producing company with two
properties: the La Negra Mine in Mexico and the Shafter Silver
Project in Texas, US.  The latter was put on care and maintenance
in December 2013, in part due to depressed silver prices.  The
Company is developing new mining plans for both properties as it
continues to work to improve margins and shareholder value.


BARCLAYS BANK: Court Refuses to Dismiss Most Claims in Forex Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Adam Klasfeld reports that in
private corner of the Internet, a shadowy group of power people
allegedly met in chat rooms called "The Cartel," "The Bandits'
Club" and "The Mafia" to plot illicit, lucrative trades.

No, it's not a scene from the ongoing federal trial of Silk Road
founder Ross Ulbricht, who is accused of running an underground
narcotics empire on the Deepnet.

The allegation comes from an antitrust lawsuit accusing 12 major
banks of sending their top-level traders to manipulate a booming
foreign-currency exchange trade that nets more than $5 trillion a
day.

Bank of America, Barclays, BNP Paribas, Citigroup, Credit Suisse,
Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley,
Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS failed to dismiss most of those
claims, as alleged in three actions, January 29.

One of the lawsuits consolidates the claims of a dozen investment
funds, pension plans, hedge funds and a municipal board that sued
the banks in 2003.

U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield's ruling summarizes the case
as allegedly involving "a long-running conspiracy among the
world's largest banks to manipulate the benchmark rates in one of
the world's largest markets."

The accused banks controlled 84.25 percent "of all trades in the
market in 2013," Schofield wrote.  They are accused of fixing "the
fix," a rate estimated as the "median price of actual foreign
exchange transactions in the 30 seconds before and after 4 pm
London time," the opinion states.  Of all of these estimates, the
most widely used is allegedly the WM/Reuters rate.

The complaints accuse the banks of sending their top-level traders
"to meet and conspire for over a decade" on chat rooms, instant
messages and emails.

"The chat rooms, with evocative names such as "The Cartel," "The
Bandits' Club," "The Mafia" and "One Team, One Dream," were the
primary sites of conspiracy," Schofield wrote, describing the
allegations.  "The Cartel, for example, counted traders from at
least four defendants among its members, including Citigroup,
Barclays, UBS and JPMorgan, whose chief currency dealer in London
ran the chat room.  The Cartel's members 'exchanged information on
customer orders and agreed to trading strategies to manipulate'
the fix.  After manipulating the fix, members allegedly 'would
send written slaps on the back for a job well done.'

"In The Cartel and in other chat rooms, FX traders from the
various defendant banks shared inappropriate 'market-sensitive
information with rivals' including 'information about pricing,'
their customers' orders and their net trading positions in advance
of 4 pm London time.  The traders discussed the 'types and volume
of trades they planned to place.'  Using this nonpublic
information, and 'by agreeing in chat rooms and instant messages'
to employ collusive trading strategies, defendants moved the fix
in the direction they desired and thereby fixed the prices of the
FX instruments."

The traders allegedly discussed "front running," "banging the
close" and "painting the screen" as their three strategies for
"fixing the fix."

U.S. and European regulators fined many of these major banks $4.25
billion for conspiring to manipulate foreign currency markets on
Nov. 12, 2014.

"Other investigations remain ongoing," Schofield noted.

"Since the investigations began, all 12 defendants have
terminated, suspended or overseen the departure of over 30 long-
time and key employees associated with their FX operations," the
opinion states.

Schofield gave a green light to the U.S.-based antirust claims,
but she dismissed the foreign actions as statutorily barred.

"Fairly read, the U.S. Complaint adequately alleges that
defendants engaged in a long-running conspiracy to manipulate the
fix to defendants' advantage," she wrote.

Citigroup declined to comment.  Attorneys for the plaintiffs and
Barclays did not return calls by press time.


BE LLC: Obtains Final Approval of "DuFour" Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles T. Breyer issued a final approval order
approving a settlement on February 23, 2015, in TIMOTHY and JEANNE
DuFOUR and KENNETH TANNER, individuals, on their own behalves and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BE.,
LLC, DYNAMIC SHOWCASES, LLC, California limited liability
companies, MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., a California
corporations, BE MARKETING LIMITED, a private limited company
registered in England and Wales, ERIK DeSANDO, BARRY FALCK, JACOB
STEINBECK, and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 09-03770-
CRB, (N.D. Cal.).

Under the ruling, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/cJXkHVfrom Leagle.com, Judge Breyer held that
the Settlement consideration is fair and that said Settlement is,
in all respects, fair, just, reasonable and adequate to the
Settlement Class Members.

The Court certified the Settlement Class solely for purposes of
effectuating the settlement.  The Settlement Class is defined as:
Persons who entered into non-arbitrable contracts for services
with Be., LLC and/or Monterey, examples of which contracts were
identified in ECF Filing Nos. 187-6, 187-7, and 187-10, and who
did not properly and timely opt out of the Settlement.

David C. Parisi of Parisi & Havens LLP and Ethan Preston of
Preston Law Offices were confirmed as Class Counsel. Plaintiffs
Timothy and Jeanne DuFour were confirmed as class representatives.

The Court ordered Monterey to establish a Settlement Fund of
$1,250,000 on the later of September 15, 2014 and (i) if no appeal
has been filed, after 45 days have lapsed since entry of the
Judgment, or (ii) if a timely appeal has been filed (including any
appeal by an objecting Class Member or Plaintiffs/Class Counsel's
appeal from an award of fees and/or costs), after 45 days have
lapsed since the appeal is finally resolved, with no possibility
of further appellate or other review, resulting in final judicial
approval of the Settlement.

The Court ordered Monterey to maintain such Settlement Fund until
all money within the Settlement Fund is distributed.

The Court awarded Class Counsel attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses in the total amount of $600,000.

The Court also awarded Plaintiffs an incentive fee of $5,000.

Ethan Preston -- ep@eplaw.us -- PRESTON LAW OFFICES, Scottsdale,
Arizona, David C. Parisi -- dcparisi@parisihavens.com -- Suzanne
Havens Beckman -- shavens@parisihavens.com -- PARISI & HAVENS LLP,
Sherman Oaks, California.


BEACON: RI Supreme Court Upholds Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
Workcompcentral reports that the Rhode Island Supreme Court upheld
the dismissal of a massive class action against state-chartered
workers' compensation insurance carrier Beacon for allegedly
improperly diverting $101 million in surplus revenue to its
largest policyholders.


BECTON DICKINSON: Class Suits in Calif. Not Part of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the class
actions filed in the Superior Court of California are not part of
the proposed settlement and are still pending.

On October 5, 2014, CareFusion Corporation ("CareFusion") and the
Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger that provides
for the acquisition of CareFusion by the Company. Under the terms
of the merger agreement, a subsidiary of the Company ("the merger
subsidiary") will merge with and into CareFusion, with CareFusion
surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.
Several putative class action lawsuits have been filed against
CareFusion, its directors, the Company and the merger subsidiary
in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in the Superior Court of
California, San Diego County. These lawsuits generally allege that
the members of the board of directors of CareFusion breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by, among other
things, carrying out a process that plaintiffs allege did not
ensure adequate and fair consideration to CareFusion stockholders.
The plaintiffs in these actions further allege that CareFusion,
and the Company aided and abetted the individual defendants'
breaches of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the
merger, rescission of the merger and/or rescissory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 30, 2014, the parties to the actions filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Actions") entered into
an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Actions on the
basis of additional disclosures made in a CareFusion Schedule 14A,
filed with the SEC on January 5, 2015. The settlement terms are
reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU").

On December 31, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel notified the Delaware
Court of Chancery of the settlement and MOU. Pursuant to the MOU,
the parties to the Delaware Actions have agreed to negotiate in
good faith to execute a stipulation of settlement, and will
present the proposed settlement to the Delaware Court of Chancery
as soon as practicable. The actions filed in the Superior Court of
California are not part of the proposed settlement and are still
pending.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each of
the suits pending against the Company and is engaged in a vigorous
defense of each of these matters.


BELL MATTRESS: "Gonzales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan L. Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bell Mattress, Inc., Daniel Zamora, and
Flor Zamora, Case No. 1:15-cv-20634 (S.D. Fla., February 17,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and
reasonable attorneys' fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a music company located in 24
Thompson Rd, East Windsor, CT, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
      3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 727-8570
      Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
      E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


BELMONT VILLAGE: Gets Final Approval of Brumfield Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell, on February 20, 2015,
granted final approval of a class action settlement in
LISA BRUMFIELD, and IVA FARHANI individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BELMONT VILLAGE, L.P.,
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. CV 13-07445-BRO
(CWX), (C.D. Cal.).

The Court held that the Settlement Class conditionally certified
in the Preliminary Approval Order is confirmed.

Judgment is entered dismissing the action against Defendant
Belmont Village, L.P. on the merits and with prejudice and without
the payment of fees or costs other than as provided in the
Settlement.

All claims asserted by Plaintiffs are dismissed with prejudice.

Judge O'Connell held that Harris & Ruble and the Law Office of
Andrew J. Sokolowski (Class Counsel) are qualified to represent
the Settlement Class, and the Court confirms their appointment as
Class Counsel. Class Counsel's request for an award of attorney's
fees in the amount of $114,828 is granted pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23(h). The Court also approved reimbursement
for Class Counsel's expenses in the amount of $5,059.24.

The Court approved the payment of settlement-administration fees
and expenses to CPT Group, Inc. in the amount of $26,000.

The Court found that it is appropriate to grant service awards in
the amounts of $5,000 each to Plaintiffs Brumfield and Farhani.
These payments will be made pursuant to the procedures specified
in the Settlement Agreement.

The Court approved the penalty payment of $5,000 to the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) and directed that
$3,750 be distributed to the LWDA with the remaining $1,250 to be
distributed among the class members on a pro rata basis in
accordance with California Labor Code section 2699(i).

The case is dismissed with prejudice, with all parties to bear
their own costs, Judge O'Connell concluded.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/e3CLc2from
Leagle.com.

Lisa Brumfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski --
andrew@sokolawfirm.com -- The Law Office of Andrew J Sokolowski, D
Alan Harris -- HarrisA@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble &
Priya Mohan -- pmohan@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble.

Belmont Village LP, Defendant, represented by Dorothy Sheng-Ing
Liu -- dliu@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP & Emily Jane
Leahy -- eleahy@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP.


BP WEST: "Kelly" Suit Over Debit Card Fee Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Eastern District of
California granted defendants' motion to dismiss the case, CHARLES
KELLY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS LLC and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-01507-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.)

Charles Kelly drove into BP's ARCO station in Vacaville since he
had seen BP's sign advertising gas at a price lower than at other
nearby stations. When he parked his car in front of a pump, he saw
the same price and inserted his debit card in a nearby machine.
The display warned him that if he continued, his card would be
charged an additional $0.35. This was the first time he learned of
the fee.

Kelly sued BP West Coast Products LLC under the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code Section
1750, et seq. and under the California Unfair Competition Law
(UCL), California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et
seq.  Kelly seeks to represent a class of any BP customers who
purchased gas with a debit card from an ARCO brand gasoline
station in the state of California. He seeks, among other
remedies, damages and an injunction requiring BP to disclose the
existence of the debit card fee on its street signs and pumps.

BP moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Mueller granted BP's motion to dismiss and dismissed the
complaint with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Mueller order dated December 30, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/vn1H8Dfrom Leagle.com.

Charles Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Carlson
mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com  -- at Carlson Legal Services
BP West Coast Products, LLC, Defendant, represented by Isabelle
Louise Ord -- isabelle.ord@dlapiper.com -- Mark Allen Nadeau --
mark.nadeau@dlapiper.com -- Thomas Alexander Cierny --
alec.cierny@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper, LLP


BRINK'S INCORPORATED: "Ceron" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dorian Ceron, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Brink's Incorporated, a Delaware
Corporation, Brink's Global Services USA, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-01129 (C.D.
Cal., February 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and penalties under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide security services including secure
transportation and logistics solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fletcher W. H. Schmidt, Esq.
      Paul Keith Haines, Esq.
      BOREN OSHER AND LUFTMAN LLP
      222 N Sepulveda Blvd Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: fschmidt@bollaw.com
              phaines@bollaw.com


CANADA: Merchant to Represent '60s Scoop Class Action Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a Saskatchewan law firm is representing more
than a thousand victims who are seeking compensation from the
federal government for the '60s Scoop, and some Manitoba survivors
think it's a good idea.

From the 1960s to the 1980s, the federal government ran the Adopt
Indian Metis program.  Under the program, thousands of indigenous
children were taken from their homes and adopted into white
families in Canada and the United States.  Some children even
ended up as far away as the United Kingdom.

Marlene Orgeron is from the Sapotaweyak Cree Nation in Manitoba.
After both her parents died, she lived with her aunt and uncle
until the age of four.

That's when she was taken from Manitoba and adopted into a family
in Louisiana.  She returned to the province when she was 21, but
she says there will always be a disconnect with her birth family.

"You share the same blood but that doesn't automatically mean
there's going to be this relationship," she said.

Ms. Orgeron hasn't signed on, but says she supports the class-
action lawsuit.

"Money isn't going to solve anything," she said.  "But if someone
got into a horrible car accident and it wasn't their fault, then
they should be compensated."

Ms. Orgeron says what's more important is that the federal
government acknowledge the damage caused by the '60s Scoop and
apologize.

"It needs to be done publicly," she said.  "All of Canada should
hear an apology."

Selena Kern also supports the lawsuit but agrees that
acknowledgement of wrongdoing from the federal government is more
important.

Raised on the Brokenhead Ojibway Nation until she was nine years
old, Kern was taken with two of her siblings and adopted into a
Pennsylvania family.

Although she's returned to live in Manitoba, Kern says being taken
from her family and community has robbed her of the Ojibway
culture and language. It's something she worries she won't be able
to pass on to her son.

"But I know if there is any compensation, it's going directly to
him," she said.

The Merchant Law Group served the federal government with the
class-action lawsuit on Jan. 30.

Merchant also represented more than 7,000 Indian residential
school survivors in a landmark case against the federal government
that lead to a multibillion-dollar settlement agreement.


CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces "Madatyan" Suit Over Alternator Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, reports that Chrysler Group LLC was
slapped on Feb. 9 with a putative class action in California state
court, claiming the automaker issued a recall over hundreds of
thousands of cars equipped with faulty alternators but doesn't
have enough parts to repair all the affected vehicles and is
refusing to pay for rentals for customers.

Lead plaintiff Robert Madatyan says that Chrysler issued a recall
notice in October for vehicles featuring defective 160 amp
alternators -- which cause the cars to rapidly and completely shut
down while being driven and can catch on fire -- and informed
owners and lessees that it would take approximately six months to
obtain the needed parts.

But in the meantime, consumers were warned not to drive the
vehicles or park them near structures, even though Chrysler
refuses to pay for rental vehicles.

"Chrysler should, among other things, be required to furnish or
pay for replacement vehicles until Chrysler fixes the defective
vehicles and should pay damages and restitution to the owners and
lessees of the vehicles for loss of use, loss of market value and
other financial losses," the complaint said.

The suit says Chrysler began designing, manufacturing, marketing
and selling the affected vehicles in 2011, with approximately
434,581 Dodge Challenger, Charger and Durangos and Chrysler 300
and Jeep Grand Cherokees equipped with the defective parts.

The cars feature a defective 160 amp alternator, causing the
vehicles to shut down and possibly catch fire, and if the car
doesn't completely shut down, the defect causes electrical failure
that results in failure of the systems that enable the driver to
control the vehicle, steer it and brake it, according to the
complaint.

The failures occur without warning, or at least without enough
warning to prevent the dangers, the suit says.  The defect can
cause fires in the cars even when they are parked or not being
operated, and hundreds of complaints have been filed with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that outline these
issues, the suit says.

In October, Chrysler issued a recall notice, stating that the
parts needed to remedy the defect are not available.  The notice
said it would take the automaker six months to get the parts and
then another two months to fix the vehicles, so the cars wouldn't
be able to be driven until July or later, according to the suit.

"Yet Chrysler refuses to furnish or pay for rental or replacement
vehicles to be used by owners and lessees until Chrysler fixes the
defect," the complaint said.

Mr. Madatyan leased a 2013 Dodge Challenger in April 2013 and said
Chrysler hasn't paid for a rental vehicle for him to drive in the
meantime.

The plaintiff is represented by Hovanes Margarian of The Margarian
Law Firm.

The suit is Madatyan et al v. Chrysler Group LLC, case number
BC571830, in the California Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles.


CLS TRANSPORTATION: "Iskanian" Case Remanded to Trial Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
In August 2011, Arshavir Iskanian took an appeal from a trial
court order requiring him to arbitrate claims brought against his
former employer, CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC (CLS). The
order also dismissed class claims. The trial court based its
decision granting CLS's motion to compel arbitration on an
employment agreement that contained a class and representative
action waiver and also provided that "any and all claims" arising
out of Iskanian's employment were to be submitted to binding
arbitration before a neutral arbitrator.

Iskanian's operative first amended complaint alleged seven causes
of action for Labor Code violations and an unfair competition law
claim (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.). Iskanian
brought his claims as an individual, as a putative class
representative, and (with respect to the Labor Code claims) in a
representative capacity under the Labor Code Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004 (the PAGA, Labor Code section 2698 et seq.).

The Supreme Court in Iskanian, having concluded that Iskanian's
representative claim was not waivable but that the agreement
between Iskanian and CLS was otherwise enforceable according to
its terms, found that Iskanian must proceed with bilateral
arbitration on individual damages claims, while CLS must respond
to representative PAGA claims. The court then raised a number of
questions to be decided following remand: "(1) Will the parties
agree on a single forum for resolving the PAGA claim and the other
claims? (2) If not, is it appropriate to bifurcate the claims,
with individual claims going to arbitration and the representative
PAGA claim going to litigation? (3) If such bifurcation occurs,
should the arbitration be stayed pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 1281.2?"

In addition, the court stated: "The parties may also address CLS's
contention that the PAGA claims are time-barred, as well as
Iskanian's response that CLS has forfeited this contention and
cannot raise it on appeal."

In August 2014, pursuant to Government Code section 68081, the
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two
requested that the parties address in letter briefs "the
preliminary question of whether any or all of these issues are
best now addressed in the Court of Appeal or in the trial court."
In separate briefs, both parties responded that these matters
should be addressed in the trial court. As stated in the letter
from Iskanian's counsel, "All of these issues will involve fact-
specific determinations that the trial court is best-suited to
make in the first instance."

In an opinion entered February 19, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/aFIpjnfrom Leagle.com, the Calif.
Appeal Court agreed that and remanded the case to the trial court
so that these issues may be determined.

The case is ARSHAVIR ISKANIAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CLS
TRANSPORTATION LOS ANGELES, LLC, Defendant and Respondent, NO.
B235158.

Capstone Law, Glenn Danas -- Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com ;
Initiative Legal Group, Raul Perez -- RPerez@InitiativeLegal.com
-- for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Fox Rothschild, David F. Faustman -- dfaustman@foxrothschild.com
-- Yesenia M. Gallegos -- ygallegos@foxrothschild.com -- Namal
Tantula -- ntantula@foxrothschild.com -- for Defendant and
Respondent.


CONCORD AUTOMOBILE: Court Junks Class Suit With Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Katherine Proctor reports
that a federal judge dismissed with leave to amend a class action
accusing an East Bay Lexus manager of payroll fraud and making
death threats against an employee.

Lead plaintiff Robert Brock Jr., six others and two of their wives
sued Concord Automobile Dealership, Lexus of Concord and Toyota
Motor Sales in April 2014.  Also sued were dealership owner Hank
Torian, general sales manager Patrick Miliano and general manager
Greg James.

Brock et al. claimed that Miliano filed false bonus forms in their
names, for more than they actually received, then pocketed the
extra cash -- stealing from them and increasing their tax
liabilities.

They also complained that Miliano used racial slurs, brought guns
and swords to work and threatened them with violence.  Brock
claimed that after he told the general manager about the payroll
fraud, Miliano threatened to kill him and his family.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found on Jan. 29 that
the plaintiffs' amended complaint was "not a model of clarity."
She ruled that the plaintiffs "failed to define properly the
relevant parties in all instances," among other muddled details.

Rogers said that the court "will not waste judicial resources to
analyze in detail all of the legal issues raised by defendants
when doing so would require making assumptions."  She gave the
plaintiffs 14 days to correct the deficiencies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles Bonner, Esq.
          BONNER & BONNER ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          475 Gate Five Rd., Suite 212
          Sausalito, CA 94965
          Telephone: (415) 331-3070
          Facsimile: (415) 331-2738
          E-mail: charles@bonnerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael Pott, Esq.
          PORTER SCOTT
          75 Iron Point Cir., Suite 200
          Folsom, CA 95630
          Telephone: (916) 850-7300
          Facsimile: (916) 850-7800
          E-mail: mpott@porterscott.com


CONSOL ENERGY: To Pay $20MM Portion of CNX Gas Case Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the CNX Gas shareholder
settlement was the result of an agreement for resolution of the
class actions brought by shareholders of CNX Gas challenging the
tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire all of the shares of CNX
Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did not already own for $38.25
per share in May 2010. The total settlement provided for payment
to the plaintiffs of $43 million, of which the Company's portion
was $20 million.

The CNX Gas shareholder settlement was the result of an agreement
for resolution of the class actions brought by shareholders of CNX
Gas challenging the tender offer by CONSOL Energy to acquire all
of the shares of CNX Gas common stock that CONSOL Energy did not
already own for $38.25 per share in May 2010. The total settlement
provided for payment to the plaintiffs of $43 million, of which
the Company paid $20 million.


CONSOL ENERGY: 4th Cir. Flips Certification Order in "Hale" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Fourth Circuit
reversed the Order certifying the class in the Hale Litigation and
remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings
consistent with the decision.

The class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in the
U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class
consists of forced-pooled unleased gas owners whose ownership of
the coalbed methane (CBM) gas was declared to be in conflict with
rights of others. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of
ownership of the CBM and damages based on allegations CNX Gas
Company failed to either pay royalties due to conflicting
claimants, or deemed lessors or paid them less than required
because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales
and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 19, 2014, the
Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas Company, reversed the Order
certifying the class and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with the decision.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously.


CONSOL ENERGY: 4th Cir. Flips Cert. Ruling in "Addison" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Fourth Circuit
reversed the Order certifying the class in the Addison Litigation
and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings
consistent with the decision.

This class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in the
United States District Court in Abingdon, Virginia.  The putative
class consists of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in conflict.
The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM
and damages based on the allegations that CNX Gas Company failed
to either pay royalties due these conflicting claimant lessors or
paid them less than required because of the alleged practice of
improper below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-
production deductions.

On September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order
certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

On August 19, 2014, the Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas
Company, reversed the Order certifying the class and remanded the
case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
the decision. CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action
cannot properly proceed as a class action in any form, believes
the case has meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it
vigorously.


DAIRY FARMERS: Court Awards Atty. Fees in Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC. CHEESE ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, MASTER FILE NO. 09-CV-3690, MDL NO. 2031, (N.D. Ill.),
before the Court were Class Counsel's petition for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, Schreiber Foods,
Inc.'s sealed motion for Rule 11 sanctions, and Schreiber's
amended bill of costs. Ancillary to these motions are Defendant
Dairy Farmers of America's (DFA) motion for leave to file a
response to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' reply memorandum in
further support of Class Counsel's fee petition, and Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs' motions for leave to file a surreply in
further opposition to Schreiber's motion for Rule 11 sanctions and
to seal exhibit 1 to that motion.

In a memorandum opinion and order entered February 20, 2015,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/q2NbLbfrom
Leagle.com, District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr., granted Class
Counsel's fee petition, awarding them one-third of the $46 million
common fund ($15,333,333.33) with interest thereon at the same
rate paid on the Settlement Fund, plus $488,491.24 in costs and
expenses. The Court granted DFA's motion for leave to file a
response to Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' reply memorandum in
further support of Class Counsel's fee petition. The Court denied
Schreiber's motion for Rule 11 sanctions. The Court granted in
part and denied in part Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion to
file a surreply and Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' motion to file
exhibit 1 to their surreply under seal, granting Plaintiffs leave
to file only the exhibits to their motion to file a surreply,
which will remain under seal on the Court's docket as currently
filed. Finally, the Court granted Schreiber's bill of costs, and
awarded it $32,215.23 plus interest, although enforcement of this
award is stayed pending resolution of Plaintiffs' appeal of this
Court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Schreiber.

This ruling relates to direct purchaser actions.


DELAWARE MANUFACTURED: Del. Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John H. Noble of the Court of Chancery of Delaware ruled on
the parties' motions for summary judgment in the case entitled
Ridgewood Manor II, Inc. v. The Delaware Manufactured Home
Relocation Authority, C.A. No. 8528-VCN (Del. Ch.)

The defendant Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority
(DMHRA) collected a monthly assessment of $3 per rented
manufactured home lot in Delaware pursuant to a resolution adopted
by its board on February 19, 2004. The assessments have been
deposited in the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Trust Fund
(the Trust Fund), an account maintained by a co-defendant, the
Division of Revenue of the Delaware Department of Finance.

Various landlords and tenants who have paid the monthly
assessments filed an action seeking declaratory relief, injunctive
relief and disgorgement of monthly assessments collected under the
Manufactured Home Owners and Community Owners Act by the
defendants.  Plaintiffs contend that defendants' continued
collection of the monthly assessments from February 1, 2006, to
April 8, 2014, fell beyond their statutory mandate and that the
money should be returned. They argue that the Board acted
unlawfully, not only by maintaining the dollar amount of the
assessment without meaningful analysis, but also by disregarding
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements for public
bodies and the requirement for notice of fee-related actions in 25
Del. C. Section 7012(f)(1).

The Defendants, on the other hand, argue that the Board complied
with 25 Del. C. Section 7012(f)(1) on January 31, 2006, because
the Board made a reasoned decision to maintain the level of the
assessment under the then-present circumstances. They explain that
their interpretation of the requirement to adopt an adjusted
assessment is correct by invoking the plain language of the
statute, legislative intent, a holistic reading, and subsequent
legislative acts.

The parties have stipulated that there is no dispute of material
fact and have filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Judge Noble granted defendants' motion for summary judgment except
for the possibility that plaintiffs are entitled to some measure
of recovery for the assessments collected between the date they
filed the complaint and April 8, 2014. Plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment is granted as to the failure of the Board "to
adopt an adjusted assessment on or before January 31, 2006," or
eliminate the fee, but it is otherwise denied.

A copy of Judge Noble's decision dated December 31, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/ySJ3GNfrom Leagle.com.

John W. Paradee Esquire, Joseph C. Handlon Esquire, Prickett,
Jones & Elliott, P.A. Scott W. Perkins, Esquire 11 North State
Street Department of Justice Dover, DE 19901 820 North French
Street Wilmington, DE 19801


EBAY INC: Defending Against Data Theft Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
eBay Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2014, that "In May 2014, we publicly announced
that criminals were able to penetrate our network and steal
certain data, including user names, encrypted user passwords and
other non-financial user data, from eBay's Marketplaces business
unit. Upon making this announcement, eBay Marketplaces required
all buyers and sellers on the Marketplaces platform to reset their
passwords in order to login to their account. In addition to
making this public announcement, we proactively approached a
number of regulatory and governmental bodies, including those with
the most direct supervisory authority over our data privacy and
data security programs, to specifically inform them of the
incident and our actions to protect our customers in response.
Certain of those regulatory agencies have requested us to provide
further, more detailed information regarding the incident, and we
believe that we have fully cooperated in all of those requests. To
date, we have not been informed by any regulatory authority of an
intention to bring any enforcement action arising from this
incident; however, in the future we may be subject to fines or
other regulatory action.  In addition, in July 2014, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed against us for alleged violations
and harm resulting from the incident. We are vigorously defending
the lawsuit."


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
John Carter Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-01081 (C.D. Cal., February 13, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making calls on the Plaintiff and class
members' cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC is in the business of consumer debt
buying and recovery and collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


ENERGY CORP: Court Refuses to Junk Claims Over Oil & Gas Royalty
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Corp. of America cannot shake claims that it shorted
Pennsylvania landowners out of more than $1.4 million in
royalties, reports Erin Mcauley at Courthouse News Service, citing
a federal magistrate ruling.

The February 2 decision by U.S. Magistrate Robert Mitchell means a
trial is possible for the class of landowners led by David
Pollock, seeking recovery of deductions for allegedly unlawful
marketing fees and invalid interstate transportation charges.

As previously certified, the class includes two subdivisions made
up of landowners who have oil and gas leases with either Energy
Corp. of America or Eastern American Energy Corp., alleging that
fees and charges were repeatedly unlawfully applied and taken out
of owed royalty payments between November 2006 and March 2012.

Though lease provisions are not identical for every member of the
class, the court decided that each lease generally provided that
the plaintiffs are entitled to a royalty of one-eighth of the net
proceeds received from the sale of gas.

The class has already secured partial summary judgment regarding
deductions for interstate transportation charges that accrued
after a title for gas was sold and transferred to third-party
purchasers.

In that decision, the court decided that, once the gas passes to
third party purchasers and is received into the interstate system,
the gas is "sold" and "ECA cannot recover costs incurred
thereafter."

The court has also dismissed various class claims against ECA,
including claims that the company used wrong gas prices, took
excessive or unauthorized expense deductions and underpaid
royalties.  The company failed, however, to show that marketing
fees are an applicable post-productions cost.

In its latest bid for summary judgment, ECA argued that lease
holders could not prove any actual damages occurred because there
was no evidence that ECA took any deductions from plaintiff's
royalties.

The energy company pointed to plaintiffs' expert testimony for
proof, claiming the expert stated on record that ECA did not take
any deductions for marketing and interstate transportations
charges from plaintiffs' royalties on the sale of gas.

Magistrate Mitchell denied either side judgment on this point
February 2, finding that enough material issues of fact exist "to
conclude that damages were sustained."

"Viewing the evidence of record in its entirety, there is
testimony that ECA takes deductions from plaintiffs' royalties
with respect to interstate transportation charges and marketing
charges," Mitchell wrote.  "Accordingly, ECA's motion for summary
judgment is denied."

The class's unsuccessful cross-motion had asked the court to
"adopt [plaintiffs] 'rendition of the facts' over ECA's and award
them a principal amount of $920,000."

On this point, the court found that issues of material facts
preclude this judgment as well.

The ruling emphasizes the previous determination that gas is
officially sold to third parties when the gas is received into the
interstate pipeline system.

Since ECA could not deduct interstate transportation charges from
plaintiffs' royalties, remaining issues require a determination of
exactly how much ECA deducted from plaintiffs' royalties and
exactly when the interstate-transportation charges were deducted.

Material-fact issues remain as well with regard to marketing
deductions, who incurred the marketing charges, and whether the
charges were deducted post-sale, the court found.

The case is David F. Pollock, et al. v. Energy Corporation of
America, Case No. 2:10-cv-01553-RCM, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.


ENTERGY CORPORATION: Appellate Court Voids Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Evelyn Keyes of the Court of Appeals of Texas, First
District, dismissed the appealed case entitled ENTERGY
CORPORATION, ENTERGY SERVICES, INC., ENTERGY POWER, INC., ENTERGY
POWER MARKETING CORPORATION, ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC., AND ENTERGY
TEXAS, INC., Appellants, v. DAVID JENKINS, GEORGE W. STRONG,
FRANCIS N. GANS, AND GARY M. GANS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF
ALL PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees, NO. 01-12-00470-CV
(Tex. App.)

Entergy Corporation is a public utilities holding company with six
electric utility operating companies: Entergy Gulf States
Louisiana, L.L.C., Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, LLC,
Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., and Entergy
Texas, Inc. (ETI). These six companies, which operate in four
southern states, provide electrical service to approximately 2.6
million retail customers.

On August 5, 2003, David Jenkins, George W. Strong, Francis N.
Gans, and Gary M. Gans, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, filed suit against Entergy alleging that it
had devised and operated an improper energy-purchasing scheme
under which it had selected internally generated, higher-priced
electrical power while rejecting less expensive, available third-
party power, resulting in theft from Texas retail power customers
in violation of the Theft Act. Entergy removed the suit to federal
court alleging federal question jurisdiction. The federal court
remanded the case to state court, concluding that the suit did not
invoke federal law.

Entergy filed a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction,
contending that jurisdiction of Jenkins's claims were preempted by
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Texas
Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and that the claims were also
barred by the filed-rate doctrine. The trial court granted
Entergy's motion to dismiss, finding that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over Jenkins's claims.

Jenkins's appealed the trial court's order dismissing the case, in
which the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals reversed the trial
court's order dismissing the suit for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. Jenkins's filed a motion to certify a class
consisting of Texas retail customers served by ETI who were billed
and paid for electric power from January 1, 1994, to present.

Entergy filed a second motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
and three motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied the
motion to dismiss and the summary judgment motions. The trial
court granted Jenkins's motion for class certification. Entergy
timely filed an interlocutory appeal.

Justice Keyes voided the trial court's order granting the class
certification and reversed the order of the trial court denying
Entergy's motion to dismiss and dismisses all claims against
Entergy.

A copy of Justice Keyes's opinion dated December 30, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/ZeYEiCfrom Leagle.com.


EPLUS INC: Received Payment of $6.2 Million in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
ePlus inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company filed a claim in
a class action suit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

"The suit alleged that ten groups of companies conspired to fix,
raise, maintain or stabilize prices of certain flat panels used in
many flat screen televisions, monitors and notebook computers. On
August 6, 2014, the Claims Administrator issued to us a Notice of
Claim Final Determination. On October 20, 2014, the court issued
an order directing that approved claims be paid, and on October
31, 2014, we received payment in the amount of $6.2 million, which
is presented within other income in our unaudited condensed
consolidated statement of operations," the Company said.

The Company said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, that net
income was $15.5 million, including non-operating income of $6.2
million relating to the Company's claim in a class action lawsuit.
Excluding this class action claim, non-GAAP net income was $11.9
million, up 12.4% from $10.6 million in the third quarter of
fiscal 2014.


EQUITRUST LIFE: 9th Cir. Upholds Summary Judgment in "Eller" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
the district court's grant of summary judgment, but vacated the
order denying costs to EquiTrust Life Insurance Company, and
remanded for the district court either to award costs or explain
its refusal.

The appellate case is, MARY HELEN ELLER, Plaintiff, and PAUL
HARRINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. EQUITRUST LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.  MARY HELEN ELLER, Plaintiff, and
PAUL HARRINGTON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EQUITRUST LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, NOS. 12-17119, 12-17267.

Eller filed a putative class action against EquiTrust, alleging
violations of federal and state law in the sale of annuities. The
district court granted EquiTrust's motion for summary judgment,
but, without explanation, declined to award costs to the
prevailing party.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's opinion dated February 24, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/AoLnQBfrom Leagle.com.

Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- (argued), Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, Washington; Elaine T. Byszewski --
elaine@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Pasadena,
California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Margaret A. Grignon -- magrignon@reedsmith.com -- (argued), Robert
D. Phillips, Jr. -- rphillips@reedsmith.com -- Brandon W.
Corbridge -- bcorbridge@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Los
Angeles, California, for Defendant-Appellee.


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Settlement in "Holman" Suit Wins Final Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of
California granted final approval to the settlement reached in the
case, ROANE HOLMAN, NARCISCO NAVARRO HERNANDEZ and MIGUEL A.
ALVAREZ on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-
0180- CW (DMR) (N.D. Cal.)

Roane Holman filed suit in January 2011 alleging that Experian
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by selling credit
information to Finex, a debt collector, for its use in collecting
towing debts. Miguel Alvarez and Narcisco Navarro Hernandez were
subsequently added as named plaintiffs in an amended complaint.
Plaintiffs alleged that because Experian knew that Finex's
intended use was impermissible, its violation was willful.

The parties reached a settlement just before trial. Each side
litigated vigorously. The Court denied Experian's motion to
dismiss and granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Court subsequently denied Experian's motions to decertify the
class and for summary judgment.

On April 29, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement and
the forms for the Notice and Claim Form.

Pursuant to the parties' agreement, Kurtzman Carson Consultants
LLP was appointed to serve as Settlement Administrator that would
mail the Notices to the putative class members and process the
Claim forms.

After the claim period expired, Class Counsel disputed KCC's
rejection of approximately 800 claims that had been submitted.
They submitted these disputed claims to the Ombudsman, who
approved 112 of the disputed Claims. Because the number of
approved claims is relatively low, there is more than enough money
under the $8 million cap to pay all approved claims at the rate of
$375 and have more than enough money left to pay all of the
unopposed amounts for incentive awards and attorneys' fees and
costs.

The plaintiffs have moved for final approval of a class action
settlement, an award of attorneys' fees and costs to Class
Counsel, and service awards to the named plaintiffs.  Experian has
not opposed plaintiffs' motion.

Judge Wilken granted the motion for final approval of the class
action settlement, award of fees and costs to class counsel, and
the request for service awards to the three named plaintiffs.

The Court awards $10,000 to each named plaintiff for his service
to the class and for his broad release of all claims, known or
unknown, against Experian. The Court awards class counsel
reimbursable expenses in the sum of $138,704 and attorneys' fees
in the sum of $2,111,296, for a total award of $2,250,000.

In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, Experian and the
Settlement Administrator shall provide the following relief to the
class members, class counsel and the named plaintiffs:

     a. Within 10 days after the Effective Date, Experian will pay
the Settlement Administrator sufficient funds to pay $375 for each
approved Claim. The Settlement Administrator shall use these funds
to pay the approved Claims.

     b. No later than 20 days after the Effective Date, the
Settlement Administrator shall mail checks in the amount of $375
each to all eligible Class Members. The checks will be mailed with
instructions that the checks must be cashed within 180 days of
mailing.

     c. No later than 150 days following the mailing of the checks
to eligible Class Members, the Settlement Administrator will
attempt to contact Class Members who have not yet cashed their
payment checks to remind them to do so.

     d. 180 days following the mailing of the payments to the
Class Members, the Settlement Administrator will provide to the
parties and file with the Court a list of those Class Members who
have not cashed their checks. All uncashed payments will escheat
to the State of California.

     e. Experian will wire $2,250,000 for Attorneys' Fees and
Costs to Attorney Andrew J. Ogilvie no later than 10 days after
the Effective Date.

     f. Within 10 days after the Effective Date, Experian will
forward to Attorney Ogilvie checks made out to the three class
representatives in the amount of $10,000 less any required
withholding.

A copy of Judge Wilken's amended order dated December 29, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/j08V2ofrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew J. Ogilvie --
andy@aoblawyers.com -- Carol McLean Brewer -- carol@aoblawyers.com
-- Mark F. Anderson -- mark@aoblawyers.com
-- at Anderson, Ogilvie & Brewer LLP; Balam Osberto Letona -- at
Law Office of Balam O. Letona

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Michael Gregory Morgan -- mgmorgan@jonesday.com -- Daniel John
McLoon -- djmcloon@jonesday.com -- Haley Melisse Mcintosh --
hmmcintosh@jonesday.com -- Jessica McGahie Sawyer --
jsawyer@jonesday.com-- Mattia Victor Murawsk and Sarah G Conway
-- sgconway@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Allows WVAW to Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that
West Virginia American Water has asked a federal judge to let the
company participate in a possible class action lawsuit against
Freedom Industries when it is filed.

WVAW says it filed the motion so it can protect its right to seek
claims.

The motion, which was filed Feb. 4 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, asks federal
Bankruptcy Judge Ronald Pearson to let it participate in the class
action against Freedom that the plaintiffs' attorney intend to
file in federal court.

The water company is seeking the same relief already afford to the
plaintiffs so that in can participate and protect its interest in
the class action lawsuit once that lawsuit is filed, according to
the motion.

"Specifically, WVAWC asks to be permitted to protect its inchoate
contribution claims against Freedom that may, under West Virginia
law, be extinguished by a settlement between Freedom and the
plaintiffs' representatives," the motion states.

Freedom's counsel had agreed in principal for WVAWC to have relief
from the automatic stay in order to move to intervene and
participate in the class action lawsuit, but Freedom's counsel has
refused to endorse an agreed order at this time, according to the
motion.

"It is expected that the Unsecured Creditors Committee will also
seek relief from the automatic stay to intervene and participate
in the class action lawsuit," the motion states.  "Because
Freedom's counsel has not consented to an agreed lift stay order,
WVAWV moves now for relief from the automatic stay so that it may
file an intervention motion and participate in the class action
lawsuit as soon as that lawsuit is filed . . ."

WVAWC claims it is entitled to be reimbursed all money it would
have to pay in any claims plaintiffs have against it and, since
the water company is being sued for a problem allegedly caused by
Freedom, it wants to have the right to assert claims against the
company for whatever it may lose in those lawsuits.

The class action will not be filed until there is resolution to an
objection by former-Freedom president Gary Southern to the
settlement in a previous class action lawsuit against Freedom.

Southern's objection was filed in December and is seeking to have
Southern's defense costs paid from an insurance policy.

Southern's attorneys argued that Southern is insured under a
policy because of his position as president of Freedom and that he
is entitled to coverage benefits.

A preliminary hearing is set for March 4 for WVAWC's hearing.

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
case number: 2:14-bk-20017


GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Obtains Final Approval of Miller Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler issued a final order on February
20, 2015, approving the class action settlement in the case
captioned SCOTT MILLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GHIRARDELLI
CHOCOLATE COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-04936-LB, (N.D.
Cal.).  A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/CQOBxK
from Leagle.com.

The court found the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable. The
court, therefore, certified a Rule 23(b)(3) class and approved the
parties' settlement. The court maintained its previous appointment
of class counsel and representatives, awarded the plaintiffs $5000
each in incentives, and awarded their attorneys $1,575,000 in fees
and $87,572.15 in litigation costs.

The settlement class is defined as: "All persons (other than
Excluded Persons) who, between August 17, 2008 and October 2,
2014, purchased, in the United States, except for purposes of
resale, any of the Products listed in Appendix A to this order."

Excluded Persons means: (1) the Honorable Laurel Beeler and any
member of her immediate family; (2) the Honorable Edward Infante
and any member of his immediate family; (3) any government entity;
(4) any of the Released Parties; and (5) any persons who timely
opted out of the Settlement Class.

The court appointed plaintiffs Scott Miller and Steve Leyton as
class representatives, and Gutride Safier LLP as class counsel.

Scott Miller, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general
public and those similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
Adam Gutride -- adam@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP,
Anthony J Patek -- anthony@gutridesafier.com -- Kristen Gelinas
Simplicio -- Kristen@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP &
Seth Adam Safier -- seth@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP.

Steve Leyton, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Gutride, Gutride
Safier LLP, Anthony J Patek, Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Gutride
Safier LLP & Seth Adam Safier, Gutride Safier LLP.

Ghirardelli Chocolate Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin
Jefferson Sitter -- BSitter@fbm.com -- Farella Braun & Martel LLP,
Deborah Kristina Barron -- dbarron@fbm.com -- Farella Braun and
Martel LLP, Thomas B. Mayhew -- tmayhew@fbm.com -- Farella Braun &
Martel & Christina Rose Hollander -- chollander@fbm.com -- Farella
Braun and Martel LLP.


GNC HOLDINGS: Faces "Dore" Suit in Fla. Over Product Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen Dore, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GNC Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-20618
(S.D. Fla., February 17, 2015), alleges that the Defendants'
Herbal Plus Gingko Biloba, Herbal Plus St. John's Wort, Herbal
Plus Ginseng, Herbal Plus Echinacea and Herbal Plus Saw Palmetto
are mislabeled products because they lacks the integral ingredient
listed on the product label. Instead, each contains contaminants,
substitutes and fillers that are not identified on the product
label.

GNC Holdings, Inc. a Pennsylvania corporation that operates the
world's leading nutritional-supplements retail chain devoted to
items such as vitamins, supplements, minerals, and dietary
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
      Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq.
      Robert J. Neary, Esq.
      Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
      Monica McNulty, Esq.
      KOZYAK, TROPIN, & THROCKMORTON LLP
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 372-1800
      Facsimile: (305) 372-3508
      E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com
              tr@kttlaw.com
              rn@kttlaw.com
              tjl@kttlaw.com
              mmcnulty@kttlaw.com

         - and -

      Jack Scarola, Esq.
      SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY
      2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
      West Palm Beach, FL 33409
      Telephone: (561) 686-6300
      Facsimile: (561) 383-9451
      E-mail: JSX@SearcyLaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick Spellacy, Esq.
      Thomas Glasson, Esq.
      KIRWAN, SPELLACY & DANNER, P.A.
      200 South Andrews Avenue, 8th Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 463-3008
      Facsimile: (954) 463-3010
      E-mail: Spellacy@kirwanspellacy.com
              TGlasson@kirwanspellacy.com


GOOGLE INC: Court Dismisses "Feitelson" Case With Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted a motion to dismiss a
first amended complaint, with leave to amend certain claims, in
the case captioned GARY FEITELSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE
INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-02007-BLF, (N.D. Cal.).

"Plaintiffs shall have leave to amend only their Sherman Act and
California UCL claims. The amended pleading shall be due within
twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order," ruled Judge
Freeman.

Plaintiffs Gary Feitelson and Daniel McKee in this putative class
action antitrust case allege that defendant Google, Inc. restrains
trade in the market for Internet search through confidential
agreements with cell phone manufacturers.

A copy of Judge Freeman's February 20, 2015 is available at
http://is.gd/gaBLtvfrom Leagle.com.

Gary Feitelson, a Kentucky resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D
Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
George W. Sampson -- george@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Patrick Howard -- phoward@smbb.com -- Saltz
Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, Robert F Lopez -- robl@hbsslaw.com
-- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Simon Bahne Paris --
sparis@smbb.com -- Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky & Steve
W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Daniel McKee, an Iowa resident, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D
Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, George W. Sampson,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Patrick Howard, Saltz Mongeluzzi
Barrett & Bendesky, Robert F Lopez, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Simon Bahne Paris, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky &
Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Google Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by
Benjamin Michael Stoll -- bstoll@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly
LLP, Brian C. Rocca -- brocca@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Gregory Forrest Wells --
gregory.wells@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Hill
B Wellford, III -- hill.wellford@bingham.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, James Harris Weingarten -- jweingarten@wc.com --
Williams and Connolly LLP, John Edward Schmidtlein --
jschmidtlein@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, Jon R. Roellke
-- jon.roellke@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Jonathan Bradley Pitt -- jpitt@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly
LLP, Sujal Shah -- sujal.shah@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Susan J. Welch -- susan.welch@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


GOVSIMPLIFIED LLC: Has Tricked Consumers Into Buying Free Tax ID
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Pais at Courthouse News Service reports that Govsimplified
LLC tricked consumers into buying federal tax identification
numbers from its website that are otherwise free of charge from
the IRS, a class action claims.

In a complaint filed in Miami-Dade County, named plaintiff Kelsey
O'Brien claims Govsimplified designed its Web sites with a layout,
color scheme and format exactly like that of the Internal Revenue
Service to mislead consumers into thinking that they are
associated with the U.S. government.

A federal tax identification number or EIN is assigned by the IRS
to identify business entities.  "The EIN allows the IRS to track
wages and other payments from businesses to business' employees
and owners," the complaint states.

O'Brien says that in December 2014 she purchased an EIN through
one of defendant's Web sites, and shortly afterward discovered
that EINs were available at the IRS website at no charge after
completing an online application.

According to the complaint, defendant illegally charged consumers
$129 for an EIN number delivered within three business days, $147
for delivery within one business day and $197 for one-hour
delivery.  Defendant tricks consumers into believing that they are
being offered a premium service, and that obtaining an EIN through
its Web site is faster than through the IRS.

The complaint claims that defendant maintains the following
deceptive Web sites with "gov.us" domains where it charges
consumers for providing them with EIN numbers: www.ein-gov.us,
www.1.ein-gov.us, www.taxid-gov.us, www.1.taxid-gov.us.

"To lure people to its websites, defendant utilizes deceptive
domain names to deceive consumers into believing that it is
affiliated with the United States government, the complaint
states.

During the application process, the complaint says that defendant
gathers private information from the consumers, including their
Social Security numbers.

O'Brien says that defendant's websites do have a purported
"disclaimer" at the bottom of the webpage where it states that it
is not associated with the United States government.  However, the
disclaimer is located in an area that the consumer usually
overlooks, and it has a small font with a color that it's
difficult to read because it blends with the website's background.

The complaint claims that Govsimplified misled plaintiff and other
class members by making them pay a sum of money for a product that
was not as represented.

Plaintiff says that defendant violated the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act or FDUTPA by engaging in the unfair
practice of charging her and other consumers for EINs, and making
them believe that they were associated with the IRS and the US
government.

O'Brien seeks unspecified damages on claims of violation of the
FDUTPA and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew B. Boese, Esq.
          255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 740-1975
          Facsimile: (305) 437-8158
          E-mail: aboese@leoncosgrove.com

               - and -

          Jana Eisinger, Esq.
          THE EISINGER LAW FIRM
          600 17th Street, Suite 2800
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (914) 418-4111


GREENBERG TRAURIG: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Facciola" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal of a putative Arizona securities and negligent
misrepresentation class action.

The case is captioned ROBERT FACCIOLA, Lead Plaintiff on behalf of
Mortgages Ltd. Investor Class; ROBERT MAURICE FACCIOLA TRUST DATED
12/2/94, Lead Plaintiff on behalf of Mortgages Ltd. Investor
Class; HONEYLOU C. REZNIK, Lead Plaintiff on behalf of Mortgages
Ltd. Investor Class; MORRIS REZNIK AND HONEYLOU C. REZNIK TRUST,
Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of Mortgages Ltd. Investor Class; JEWEL
BOX INCORPORATED, Lead Plaintiff on behalf of Mortgages Ltd.
Investor Class; JEWEL BOX LOAN COMPANY INCORPORATED, Lead
Plaintiff on behalf of Mortgages Ltd. Investor Class; H-M
INVESTMENTS LLC, Lead Plaintiff on behalf of Mortgages Ltd.
Investor Class; FRED C. HAGEL AND JACQUELINE M. HAGEL REVOCABLE
LIVING TRUST DATES 3/15/95, Lead Plaintiffs on behalf of Radical
Bunny Investor Class, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GREENBERG TRAURIG
LLP, Defendant, And CBIZ, INC., a Delaware corporation; CBIZ MHM,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; MAYER HOFFMAN McCANN
P.C., a Missouri professional corporation, Defendants-Appellees,
NO. 12-17761.

"Absent a cognizable claim for primary liability against Mayer
Hoffman, Appellants cannot successfully allege a claim for
statutory or common law secondary liability against CBIZ," ruled
the Ninth Circuit in its memorandum dated February 23, 2015, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/dFObLcfrom Leagle.com.


GROUPME INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in TCPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
David Krueger, Esq. -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch, in
an article for JDSupra, reports that in Glauser v. GroupMe, Inc.,
the Northern District California granted summary judgment in favor
of GroupMe, Inc. in a putative class action alleging that GroupMe
sent text messages via an automatic telephone dialing system in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec.
227.

GroupMe offers a "group messaging" application, which allows
individual users to create a "group" and to transmit text messages
to all members of the group at the same time.  In April 2011, the
plaintiff, Brian Glauser, received a text message, reading, in
part: "Hi Brian Glauser, it's Mike L. Welcome to GroupMe!  I just
added you to "Poker" w/Richard L. Text back to join the
conversation."  After receiving several messages from other
"group" members, in May 2011, Mr. Glauser filed a putative class
action against GroupMe under the TCPA.

The TCPA prohibits using an "automatic telephone dialing system"
("ATDS") to make a call, including sending text messages, to a
mobile phone without the prior express consent of the called
party.   An ATDS is statutorily defined as equipment that "has the
capacity (A) to store or produce numbers to be called, using a
random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such
numbers."  GroupMe moved for summary judgment on the grounds that
the platform it used to send text messages does not qualify as an
ATDS under the TCPA because it lacks the capacity to function as
an ATDS.

GroupMe argued that liability under the TCPA requires the dialing
platform to have the "present capacity" (or "actual capacity") to
function as an ATDS, which the GroupMe platform did not have.
Mr. Glauser opposed, arguing that a device that has the "potential
capacity" to function as an ATDS qualifies as an ATDS under the
TCPA, even if the device was not actually used as an ATDS in
sending the message at issue.

The District Court rejected Mr. Glauer's argument and also
distinguished two prior decisions from the Ninth Circuit holding
that dialing equipment may quality as an ATDS when it has the
"capacity" to act as an ATDS, even if it was not used as an ATDS
in sending the offending messages.  Specifically, the District
Court held that there was a distinction between the issues of
"present vs. potential capacity" (i.e., which asks whether the
dialing platform presently could be used as an ATDS) and "capacity
vs. actual use" (i.e., which assumes that the dialing platform
presently could be used as an ATDS and instead asks whether the
offending messages were in fact sent via an ATDS function).

The court concluded that "the relevant inquiry under the TCPA is
whether a defendant's equipment has the present capacity to
perform autodialing functions, even if those functions were not
actually used."  The court also noted that under the plaintiff's
"potential capacity" test, everyday devices such as smartphones
could be misconstrued as an ATDS under the TCPA.

The District Court also held that GroupMe's messaging system did
not have the capacity to send text messages "without human
intervention" (another requirement of an ATDS according to FCC
interpretations).  While Mr. Glauser argued that the messages were
sent "automatically" after group member information was put into
GroupMe's system, the Court noted that messages were only sent "as
a direct response to the intervention" of the individual group
creator who input group members' information, and in response to
other messages written individually by group members.

Accordingly, the District Court entered summary judgment in favor
of GroupMe and denied (as moot) Mr. Glauer's motion for class
certification.


GRUMA CORPORATION: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Matos Hernandez, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216 (b) v. Gruma Corporation - Pueblo a/k/a Mission Food
Pueblo, Case No. 3:15-cv-00541 (N.D. Tex., February 17, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Gruma Corporation - Pueblo owns and operates grocery stores in
Dallas County, Texas.

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


HARBINGER GROUP: Continues to Defend Haverhill Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harbinger Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that HGI is a nominal
defendant, and the members of its Board are named as defendants in
a purported class and derivative action filed in March 2014 by
Haverhill Retirement System in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
Harbinger Capital Partners LLC and certain of its affiliated funds
("HCP") and Leucadia National Corporation ("Leucadia"), each a
stockholder of HGI, are also named as defendants in the complaint.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with transactions
involving Leucadia. The complaint seeks, among other things, an
unspecified award of compensatory damages and costs and
disbursements. The Company believes the allegations are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend this matter.


HARBINGER GROUP: Class Settlement in "Cressy" Case Has Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harbinger Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court entered the
Final Order and Judgement, finally certifying the class for
settlement purposes, and finally approving the class settlement in
the class action filed by Eddie L. Cressy.

On July 5, 2013, a putative class action Complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the
"Court"), captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty Life
Insurance Company, et al. Case No. BC-514340. The state court
Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of
the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in purchasing
unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies.

On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two
defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL
Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5.3 million to settle the
claims of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions,
of all persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance
indexed universal life insurance policy issued from January 1,
2007 through March 31, 2014, inclusive. As part of the settlement,
FGL Insurance agreed to certification of the nationwide class for
settlement purposes only. An amended Settlement Agreement was
filed with the Court on June 5, 2014. On November 18, 2014, the
Court granted final approval for the class settlement, subject to
entry of a Final Order and Judgement.

At December 31, 2014, FGL estimated the total cost for the
settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class
action would be $9.0 million and established a liability for the
unpaid portion of the estimate of $3.4 million. Based on the
information currently available, FGL does not expect the actual
cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to differ
materially from the amount accrued. FGL is seeking indemnification
from OMGUK under the F&G Stock Purchase Agreement between FGL
(formerly, Harbinger F&G, LLC) and OMGUK related to the settlement
and the costs and fees in defending the Cressy litigation in both
the federal and state courts. FGL has established an amount
recoverable from OMGUK for the amount of $4.4 million, the
collection of which FGL believes is probable. The actual amount
recovered from OMGUK could be greater or less than FGL's estimate,
but FGL anticipates that the amount recovered will not be
materially different than its current estimate. The settlement,
legal fees and other costs related to this class action and the
amount recoverable from OMGUK is presented net on the accompanying
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations in the caption
"Benefits and other changes in policy reserves."

On January 2, 2015, the Court entered the Final Order and
Judgement, finally certifying the class for settlement purposes,
and finally approving the class settlement. According to the class
settlement, the final settlement date means the date on which the
Final Order and Judgement becomes final for all purposes,
including appeal.


HOME LOAN: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions,
Ltd., William C. Erbey, John P. Van Vlack, and James E. Lauter,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01063 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 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.

Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. is headquartered and
incorporated in the Cayman Islands and engages in the acquisition
of mortgage servicing assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian G. Isaacson, Esq.
      ISAACSON LAW FIRM PLLC
      701 5th Ave. Ste. 4200
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 448-1011
      Facsimile: (206) 448-1022
      E-mail: briani@isaacsonlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
      Jennifer Traystman, Esq.
      C. William Margrabe, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
      16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212)490-9550
      Facsimile: (212)986-0158
      E-mail: Ctrinko@trinko.com
              jtraystman@trinko.com
              Cmargrabe@trinko.com


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Plaintiffs Won't Appeal 9th Cir. Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs in a
purported shareholder class action lawsuit filed August 6, 2010,
declined to seek any further review of the decision of the Ninth
Circuit and the matter is now at an end.

On August 6, 2010, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Perlmutter v. Intuitive Surgical et al., No. CV10-3451, was filed
against 7 of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. The lawsuit sought unspecified damages on
behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between February 1, 2008, and
January 7, 2009. The complaint alleged that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making allegedly false and
misleading statements and omitting certain material facts in
filings with the SEC.

On February 15, 2011, the Police Retirement System of St. Louis
was appointed lead plaintiff in the case pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  An amended complaint
was filed on April 15, 2011, making allegations substantially
similar to the allegations.

On May 23, 2011, a motion was filed to dismiss the amended
complaint. On August 10, 2011, that motion was granted and the
action was dismissed; the plaintiffs were given 30 days to file an
amended complaint.  On September 12, 2011, plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint.  The allegations contained therein were
substantially similar to the allegations in the prior complaint.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
October 13, 2011. A hearing occurred on February 16, 2012, and on
May 22, 2012, the court granted the Company's motion.  The
complaint was dismissed with prejudice and a final judgment was
entered in the Company's favor on June 1, 2012.

On June 20, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The appeal
was styled Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Intuitive
Surgical, Inc. et al., No. 12-16430.  Plaintiffs filed their
opening brief on September 28, 2012. The Company filed an
answering brief on November 13, 2012, and plaintiffs filed a reply
brief on December 17, 2012.

Oral argument was held on March 14, 2014, and the matter was taken
under submission. On July 16, 2014, the Ninth Circuit published an
opinion affirming the district court's order dismissing the
amended complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiffs declined to seek any
further review of the decision and the matter is now at an end.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: "Adel" Class Action Lawsuit Ends
----------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Adel class
action case is now at an end.

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed
against several of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. A substantially identical complaint,
entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365,
was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24,
2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on
August 20, 2013. The matter is now at an end.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: No Trial Date Yet in "Abrams" Case
------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Abrams class
action case will move forward on the claims that remain, and no
trial date has been set.

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed
against several of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an
amended complaint. The case has since been re-titled In re
Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public
statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC.

On November 18, 2013, the Court appointed Employees' Retirement
System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead
counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and
denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs have elected not
to further amend their complaint.

On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion for
leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's August
21, 2014, order. The Company filed its motion for reconsideration
on November 5, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition on
November 19, 2014, and the Company filed its reply on November 26,
2014. The court denied the motion for reconsideration on December
15, 2014. The case will move forward on the claims that remain. No
trial date has been set.

Based on currently available information, the Company does not
believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, financial position or future
results of operations.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Defendant in 102 Product Liability Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is
currently named as a defendant in approximately 102 individual
product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal
courts by plaintiffs who allege that they or a family member
underwent surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci Surgical
System and sustained a variety of personal injuries and, in some
cases, death as a result of such surgery. The Company has also
received a large number of product liability claims from
plaintiffs' attorneys that are part of certain tolling agreements.
The Company has also been named as a defendant in a multi-
plaintiff lawsuit filed in Missouri state court.

On November 26, 2014, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add
three additional plaintiffs. In total, plaintiffs seek damages on
behalf of 20 patients who had da Vinci Surgeries in 13 different
states.

The cases raise a variety of allegations including, to varying
degrees, that plaintiffs' injuries resulted from purported defects
in the da Vinci Surgical System and/or failure on the Company's
part to provide adequate training resources to the healthcare
professionals who performed plaintiffs' surgeries.  The cases
further allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose
and/or misrepresented the potential risks and/or benefits of the
da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs also assert a variety of
causes of action, including for example, strict liability based on
purported design defects, negligence, fraud, breach of express and
implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and loss of consortium.
Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged personal injuries and, in
many cases, punitive damages.

The Company has reached confidential settlements in many of the
filed cases. With certain exceptions, including the Taylor case,
the remaining filed cases generally are in the early stages of
pretrial activity.

The Company previously reported that it was named as a defendant
in a purported class action filed in Louisiana state court, and
removed to federal court, seeking damages on behalf of all
patients who were allegedly injured by the da Vinci Surgical
System at a single hospital in Louisiana. The Company settled this
case and it was dismissed with prejudice on October 20, 2014. The
settlement did not have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial position or results of operations.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have engaged in well-funded national
advertising efforts seeking patients dissatisfied with da Vinci
surgery. Among the allegations, a substantial number of claims
relate to alleged complications from surgeries performed with
certain versions of Monopolar Curved Scissor ("MCS") instruments
that included an MCS tip cover accessory that was the subject of a
market withdrawal in 2012 and MCS instruments that were the
subject of a recall in 2013. The Company has received a
significant number of claims from plaintiffs' attorneys that it
believes are as a result of these advertising efforts. In an
effort to avoid the expense and distraction of defending multiple
lawsuits, the Company entered into tolling agreements to pause the
applicable statutes of limitations for these claims and engaged in
confidential mediation efforts. The attorneys for the patients
agreed to collect and supply medical records, operative notes and
other necessary information from these patients to the Company.
Each claim was individually investigated. The collection and
evaluation of the patients' medical information was laborious. For
hundreds of the asserted claims, the Company has never received
medical records. As patient records related to these claims were
received, the Company, assisted by independent medical
consultants, reviewed and analyzed the large volumes of medical
information that began to arrive in the fall of 2013. The
completion of the legal and medical evaluation of a significant
number of these claims occurred during the first quarter of 2014
and continued throughout the remainder of 2014.

After an extended confidential mediation process with legal
counsel for many of the claimants covered by the tolling
agreements, the Company determined during the first quarter of
2014 that, while it denies any and all liability, in light of the
costs and risks of litigation, settlement of certain claims may be
appropriate.

During the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company recorded pre-
tax charges of $82.4 million to reflect the estimated cost of
settling a number of the product liability claims covered by the
tolling agreements. The Company's estimate of the anticipated cost
of resolving these claims is based on negotiations with attorneys
for patients who have participated in the mediation process.  To
date, approximately 4,800 claims have been added to the tolling
agreements and/or submitted into the mediation program. Of those,
however, over 3,100 claims have voluntarily been removed from the
tolling agreements and/or mediation program and plaintiffs'
counsels have indicated to the Company that they no longer intend
to pursue these claims.

Nonetheless, the claimants that have been removed from the tolling
agreement remain free to pursue lawsuits against the Company and
it is also possible that more claims will be made by additional
individuals who have undergone da Vinci surgery and allege that
they suffered injuries. It is further possible that the claimants
who participate in the mediations, as well as those claimants who
have not participated in negotiations, will choose to pursue
greater amounts in a court of law.  Consequently, the final
outcome of these claims is dependent on many variables that are
difficult to predict and the ultimate cost associated with these
product liability claims may be materially different than the
amount of the current estimate and accruals and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, and future results of operations.  Although there is a
reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of the amount
recognized exists, the Company is unable to estimate the possible
loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this
time.

As of December 31, 2014, a total of $49.5 million of the charges
recorded during 2014 was included in other accrued liabilities in
the accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets related to the tolled
product liability claims.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Plaintiff in "Taylor" Case to Appeal Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiff in the
"Taylor" case has filed a notice of appeal.

In February 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a
product liability action that had originally been filed in
Washington State Superior Court for Kitsap County against the
healthcare providers and hospital involved in plaintiff's
decedent's surgery (Josette Taylor, as Personal Representative of
the Estate of Fred E. Taylor, deceased; and on behalf of the
Estate of Fred E. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 09-2-
03136-5).  In Taylor, plaintiff asserted wrongful death and
product liability claims against the Company, generally alleging
that the decedent died four years after surgery as a result of
injuries purportedly suffered during the surgery, which was
conducted with the use of the da Vinci Surgical System. The
plaintiff in Taylor asserted that such injuries were caused, in
whole or in part, by the Company's purported failure to properly
train, warn, and instruct the surgeon. The lawsuit sought
unspecified damages for past medical expenses, pain and suffering,
loss of consortium as well as punitive damages.

A trial commenced in the action on April 15, 2013. On May 23,
2013, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the
Company was not negligent. Judgment was entered in the Company's
favor on June 7, 2013.  Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal.


JACK IN THE BOX: Dismissal of "Pratt" Suit Upheld
-------------------------------------------------
Presiding Justice William R. McGuiness of the California Court of
Appeals, First District, Division Three, affirmed the judgment of
dismissal of the trial court in the appealed case, captioned as
KENNETH PRATT et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JACK IN THE
BOX, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. A139960 (Cal.
App.)

Kenneth Pratt and Cleo Dixon filed a putative class action
complaint against Jack in the Box, Inc., for overcharging them for
a small combination meal that was upgraded to include large fries
and a large drink. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for a
violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code,
Section 17200), violation of the false advertising law (Bus. &
Prof. Code, Section 17500), fraud, deceit, and unjust enrichment.

The Defendant filed a demurrer and motion to strike, in which the
court rejected the pleading on the ground that it was filed on
behalf of entities that were not named as defendants in the
complaint.  Before any further activity occurred, the plaintiffs
filed a first amended complaint in early December 2012. Among
other things, the plaintiffs named as the defendants the entities
that owned particular restaurant franchises, omitted the cause of
action for unjust enrichment, and added causes of action under the
California Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, Section 17500 et
seq.) and for a breach of the "duty of care" under the UCL.

On January 3, 2013, the defendants filed a demurrer to the first
amended complaint or, in the alternative, moved to strike class
allegations contained in the first amended complaint.

The trial court granted the motion to strike and sustained the
demurrer with leave to amend.  After noting that the plaintiff is
not qualified to represent others and cannot adequately represent
a class, the court agreed to strike class claims and allegations
from the first amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. Despite the
court's ruling that the plaintiffs would not be permitted to
pursue class claims until they had obtained legal representation,
they once again included class-wide allegations and sought relief
on behalf of a putative class.  The second amended complaint
includes causes of action for (1) violation of the UCL (Bus. &
Prof. Code, Section 17200), (2) violation of the CLRA (Civ. Code,
Section 1750 et seq.), (3) violation of the false advertising law
(Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17500), (4) fraud, (5) deceit, (6)
negligence, and (7) declaratory relief.

The Defendants filed a demurrer to the second amended complaint
or, in the alternative, a motion to strike class and punitive
damage allegations. The court dismissed the entire action with
prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed the judgment of dismissal.

Presiding Justice McGuiness affirmed the judgment of the trial
court and concluded that plaintiffs' contentions lack merit.

A copy of Judge McGuiness unpublished opinion dated December 31,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/cZpKtWfrom Leagle.com.

The panel for the Court of Appeals of California for the First
District, Division Three, consists of Presiding Justice William R.
McGuiness, and Justices Peter J. Siggins and Martin Jenkins.


KAISER FOUNDATION: Judge Rejects Bid to Remand "Estrada" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
ESTRADA ET AL., Plaintiff(s), v. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS ET
AL., Defendant(s), NO. C-14-04465 DMR (N.D. Cal.), stays in
federal district court following a ruling by Magistrate Judge
Donna M. Ryu of the Northern District of California.

The plaintiffs are California employees of the defendants Kaiser
Foundation Hospitals (KFH), The Permanente Medical Group (TPMG),
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan (KFHP), and Southern California
Permanente Medical Group ("SCPMG").

In 1996, 26 union locals representing Kaiser employees agreed to
engage in coordinated national collective bargaining and for that
purpose formed the Coalition of Kaiser Unions. Several months
after the formation of the Coalition, labor leaders and Kaiser
executives formed the Kaiser Permanente National Labor Management
Partnership (LMP), which is governed by the Labor Management
Partnership Strategy Group (Strategy Group), which in turn
appoints trustees to control the Kaiser Permanente Labor
Management Partnership Trust (Partnership Trust).

Plaintiffs allege that the employee contributions contemplated by
Section 1.B.3 of each National Agreement are illegal payroll
deductions from the putative class members' agreed-upon gross
wages which were not individually authorized in writing by the
members of the putative class. According to Plaintiffs, this
amounts to a violation of California Labor Code Section 222.
Furthermore, the putative class members' wage statements did not
include an itemized disclosure of the deduction of $.09 per hour,
and were therefore inaccurate and in violation of California Labor
Code Section 226.

In addition to these two causes of action for violation of
California Labor Code Section 222 and Section 226, plaintiffs also
allege a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"), codified at California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200, et seq.

Plaintiffs filed the action in California state court.  Defendants
later removed the suit to the federal district court, asserting
that the district court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1331 because some or all of plaintiffs' causes of action
arise under and are completely preempted by Section 301 of the
Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. Section 185.

Plaintiffs move to remand the case back to California state court.
Plaintiffs contend that none of their claims are substantially
dependent on the terms of the CBA, and as such they are not
preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA.  Defendants, on the other
hand, filed a motion to dismiss.

Judge Ryu denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand because the
plaintiffs' claims are preempted by Section 301, and the claims as
alleged cannot survive. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)
establishes that leave to amend shall be freely given when justice
so requires. Therefore plaintiffs were granted leave to file an
amended complaint to re-allege their claims as Section 301 claims.

Kaiser's motion to dismiss, held in abeyance during the
determination of this motion, is denied as moot.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Ryu's order dated December 29, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/cLfga7from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Charles K. Seavey --
seavey@corpjust.com -- at Law Offices of Charles K. Seavey

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Defendant, represented by Erin Jean
Holyoke, Nixon Peabody LLp, Michael Rao Lindsay, Nixon Peabody LLP
& Michael Paul Curtis, Nixon Peabody LLP

Permante Medical Group, Inc., Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
and Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Defendants,
represented by Erin Jean Holyoke -- eholyoke@nixonpeabody.com --
Michael Rao Lindsay -- mlindsay@nixonpeabody.com -- Michael Paul
Curtis -- mcurtis@nixonpeabody.com -- at Nixon Peabody LLP


KINRAY INC: Court Okays Amendment to "Velasquez" Overtime Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold of the Eastern District of New
York ruled on the parties' motions in the case FREDDY FERNANDEZ,
LUIS VELASQUEZ, and GIOVANNY GONZALEZ, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, and v. KINRAY, INC. and
CARDINAL HEALTH, INC., Defendants, NO. 13-CV-4938 (ARR) (E.D.N.Y.)

Kinray, Inc. and Cardinal Health, Inc. are two large wholesaler
and distributor of pharmaceuticals, but the former was purchased
by the latter.

Freddy Fernandez, Luis Velasquez, and Giovanny Gonzalez are
drivers and helpers who helped pharmaceutical products sold by
Kinray, Inc. and Cardinal Health, Inc. to defendants' customers.
They bring this action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and New York Labor Law (NYLL),
alleging that they and other similarly situated employees of the
defendants were misclassified as independent contractors, earned
but were not paid overtime wages, and had expenses improperly
deducted from their wages.

Plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint.
Defendants both oppose plaintiffs' motion and cross-move for
judgment on the pleadings.

Magistrate Judge Gold granted plaintiffs' motion to amend the
complaint and denied defendants' cross-motion for judgment on the
pleadings.  A copy of Magistrate Judge Gold's memorandum order
dated December 30, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/tNpJMJfrom
Leagle.com.

Freddy Fernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon
Kirschenbaum, Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP, Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP & Matthew David Kadushin, Joseph
Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum

Luis Velasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon
Kirschenbaum, Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP, Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP & Matthew David Kadushin, Joseph
Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum

Giovanny Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon
Kirschenbaum, Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP, Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP & Matthew David Kadushin, Joseph
Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum

Andres Mora, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Angelo Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Arturo Coello, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Carlos Fernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Carlos San Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Carlos Santamario, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Cesar Fernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Claudia Coll, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Donald Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Edgar Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Eduardo Renferia, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Eguberto Silva, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Esmeralda Amaya, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Franky Dorado, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Gerardo Correa, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Hamerson Orozco, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Henry Narvaez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Henry Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Javier Munoz, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Jessica Gia, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Jorge Henao, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Juan Carlos Meneses Escobar, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP
Juan Daniel Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Julio Lozada, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Kevin Tarfur-Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Ligia Becerra, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Lucy Villamarin, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Luis H. Arbolero, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Luis Navarrete, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Maria Elena Romero, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Maria Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Marian Puerto, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Mario Tello, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Martha Pena, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Martha Totore, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Maximino Pique, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Midia Quiceno, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Miguel Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Norma Amaya, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Ramon Buitrago, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Rigoberto Villalvir, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP
Roberto Calero, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Rubeu Espinoza, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Sosimo Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Victor Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

William Orozco, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Maria Lozano, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Alejandro Huidobro, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Alexis Franco, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Amin Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Angel Guifarro, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Angel Robles, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Carlos Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Cristian Solorzano, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Cristobal Solorzano, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

David Villareto, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Douglas Montano, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Edgar Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Edilberto Funes, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Edwin Villamarin, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Fabian Mendoza, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Feliciano Tello, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Fred Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Freddy Vasquez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Gabriel Navarette, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Harold Arboleda, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Henry Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Hugo Reyes, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Iliana Femero, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Jorge Gamarra, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Jorge Mena, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Jorge Veraga, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Jose Robalino, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Juler Solozano, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Marcos Posada, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Maria Lonzano, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Milton Quinouez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Nevil Bazurto, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Osvaldo Betancourt, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP
Perry Hutchins, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Pompeyo Moreno, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Raquel Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Roberto Amaya, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Roger Fernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Roger Tinoco, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Santiago Escobar, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Solanda Sornoza, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph
& Kirschenbaum LLP

Wilson Mesia, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Nevil Bazurto, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Myriam Paredes, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Weiner, Joseph &
Kirschenbaum LLP

Digna Lupacchini, Plaintiff, represented by Digna Lupacchini

Alvaro Salazar, Plaintiff, represented by Alvaro Salaza

Andres Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Andres Lopez

Angel Yndigoyen, Plaintiff, represented by Angel Yndigoyen

David Coello, Plaintiff, represented by David Coello

Edison Paz y Mino, Plaintiff, represented by Edison Paz y Mino

Guillermo Galondo, Plaintiff, represented by Guillermo Galondo

Hector Araya, Plaintiff, represented by Hector Araya

Jaime A Burneo, Plaintiff, represented by Jaime A Burneo

Jaime L Burneo, Plaintiff, represented by Jaime L Burneo

James Hamilton Regan, Plaintiff, represented by James Hamilton
Regan

Jared Fernandes, Plaintiff, represented by Jared Fernandes

Jesus Villamizor, Plaintiff, represented by Jesus Villamizor

Jose Arias, Plaintiff, represented by Jose Arias

Jose Insuela, Plaintiff, represented by Jose Insuela

Julian Suaza, Plaintiff, represented by Julian Suaza

Luis F Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Luis F Perez

Maria A Huidobro, Plaintiff, represented by Maria A Huidobro

Marjorie Gutierrez, Plaintiff, represented by Marjorie Gutierrez

Miguel Bautista, Plaintiff, represented by Miguel Bautista

Natalia Sauza, Plaintiff, represented by Natalia Sauza

Neil Guzman, Plaintiff, represented by Neil Guzman

Omar Lordono, Plaintiff, represented by Omar Lordono

Pauta A Dorado, Plaintiff, represented by Pauta A Dorado

Rafael A Casasola, Plaintiff, represented by Rafael A Casasola

Rafael Casasola, Plaintiff, represented by Rafael Casasola

Roberto Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by Roberto Gomez

Rocio Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Rocio Gonzalez

Rolando Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Rolando Gonzalez

Sandra Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Sandra Ramirez

Segundo H. Diestra, Plaintiff, represented by Segundo H. Diestra

Temistocles Disla, Plaintiff, represented by Temistocles Disla.
William R Sanchinelli, Plaintiff, represented by William R
Sanchinelli

Antonio Mite-Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Antonio Mite-Cruz

Frank Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Frank Rodriguez

Franklin Castro, Plaintiff, represented by Franklin Castro

Luciano A Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Luciano A Cruz

Michel Guevara, Plaintiff, represented by Michel Guevara

Isabel Berkel, Plaintiff, represented by Isabel Berkel

Fernando Borges, Plaintiff, represented by Fernando Borges

Piedad Aristizabal, Plaintiff, represented by Piedad Aristizabal

Enrique Valencia, Plaintiff, represented by Enrique Valencia

Jose Malagon, Plaintiff, represented by Jose Malagon

Carlos Lazo, Plaintiff, represented by Carlos Lazo

Diana Diaz, Plaintiff, represented by Diana Diaz

Arthur Fernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur Fernandez

Julio Gomez, Plaintiff, represented by Julio Gomez

Kinray, Inc., Defendant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman, Jackson
Lewis, P.C. & Noel P Tripp, Jackson Lewis, P.C.

Cardinal Health, Inc., Defendant, represented by Felice B.
Ekelman, Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Noel P Tripp, Jackson Lewis, P.C.

Stewart Rahr, Defendant, represented by Harris Michael Mufson,
Proskauer Rose LLP, Joseph Baumgarten, Proskauer Rose, LLP, Felice
B. Ekelman, Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Noel P Tripp, Jackson Lewis,
P.C.

Howard Hirsch, Defendant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman,
Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Noel P Tripp, Jackson Lewis, P.C.

William Bodinger, Defendant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman,
Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Noel P Tripp, Jackson Lewis, P.C.

Kerry Clark, Defendant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman, Jackson
Lewis, P.C. & Noel P Tripp, Jackson Lewis, P.C.

Kinray, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman,
Jackson Lewis, P.C. & Noel P Tripp, Jackson Lewis, P.C.

Roberto Amaya, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Luis H. Arbolero, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Nevil Bazurto, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Ligia Becerra, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Ramon Buitrago, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Roberto Calero, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Arturo Coello, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Gerardo Correa, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Donald Cruz, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Santiago Escobar, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Rubeu Espinoza, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Carlos Fernandez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Cesar Fernandez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Alexis Franco, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Henry Garcia, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Jessica Gia, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Carlos Gomez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Victor Gomez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Giovanny Gonzalez, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Maimon
Kirschenbaum, Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP, Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP & Matthew David Kadushin, Joseph
Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum

Alejandro Huidobro, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Perry Hutchins, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Juan Daniel Lopez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Maria Lopez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Fred Martinez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Jorge Mena, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Fabian Mendoza, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Wilson Mesia, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Pompeyo Moreno, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Javier Munoz, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Luis Navarrete, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Myriam Paredes, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Martha Pena, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Maximino Pique, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Marcos Posada, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Eduardo Renferia, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Hugo Reyes, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Jose Robalino, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Edgar Rodriguez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Maria Elena Romero, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Carlos San Martin, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Amin Sanchez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Angelo Sanchez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Carlos Santamario, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Cristian Solorzano, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Juler Solozano, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Kevin Tarfur-Gonzalez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Feliciano Tello, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Mario Tello, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Miguel Torres, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Martha Totore, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Freddy Vasquez, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Luis Velasquez, Counter Defendant, represented by Daniel Maimon
Kirschenbaum, Joseph Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum LLP, Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP & Matthew David Kadushin, Joseph
Herzfeld Hester & Kirschenbaum

Jorge Veraga, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Rigoberto Villalvir, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Edwin Villamarin, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas
Weiner, Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP

Lucy Villamarin, Counter Defendant, represented by Douglas Weiner,
Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP


KNOCKOUT LOCKOUTS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hinderliter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Knockout Lockouts, Inc., James E. Battleson,
Jason Battleson, and Krista Kindelan, Case No. 1:15-cv-00146
(W.D.N.Y., February 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Knockout Lockouts, Inc. provides roadside tire changing, jump
starts, fuel delivery, lockout services with its principal place
of business located in Walnut Creek, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


LAREDO PETROLEUM: April 30 Final Hearing on $6.65MM Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti of the Western District of
Oklahoma granted preliminary approval of a settlement reached in
the case, Chieftain Royalty Company, on Behalf of Itself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Laredo Petroleum, Inc.,
Defendant, CASE NO.  CIV-12-1319-D (W.D. Okla.)

Chieftain Royalty, on behalf of itself and as representative of a
class of royalty owners, filed a class action lawsuit against
Laredo for alleged underpayment of gas royalties. Plaintiff and
the settling parties have reached an agreement to settle the
action for a total cash payment of $6,651,997.95.

On November 20, 2014, the Settling Parties executed a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement, finalizing the terms of the
Settlement. The Settlement Agreement, together with the exhibits
thereto, sets forth the terms and conditions for the proposed
Settlement of the claims alleged in plaintiff's petition.
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Certify the Settlement Class for
Settlement Purposes, Preliminarily Approve Class Action
Settlement, Approve Form and Manner of Notice and Set Date for
Approval Hearing.

Judge DeGiusti preliminarily finds (i) the proposed Settlement
resulted from extensive arm's-length negotiations; (ii) the
proposed Settlement was agreed to only after Class Counsel had
conducted legal research and discovery regarding the strengths and
weakness of Class Representative and the Class' claims; (iii)
Class Representative and Class Counsel have concluded that the
proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (iv)
the proposed Settlement is sufficiently fair, reasonable, and
adequate to warrant sending notice of the proposed Settlement to
the Class.

The Court appoints Rust Consulting, Inc., as Settlement
Administrator to receive and process any Requests for Exclusion or
inquiries submitted by Class Members and such other matters as the
Settling Parties may call upon the Settlement Administrator rather
than other personnel to perform in connection with the proposed
settlement and, if the Settlement is finally approved by the
Court, to supervise and administer the Settlement in accordance
with the Settlement Agreement and the Court's Plan of Allocation
Order(s) authorizing distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to
Class Members. The Settling Parties and their counsel shall not be
liable for any act or omission of the Settlement Administrator.

The Court appoints Wells Fargo, N.A., as the Escrow Agent. The
Escrow Agent is authorized and directed to act in accordance with
the Escrow Agreement to be entered into by the Settling Parties.
The Settling Parties and their counsel shall not be liable for any
act or omission of the Escrow Agent or investment loss for the
funds placed in Escrow.

A Final Fairness Hearing shall be held on April 30, 2015 at 1:30
p.m. in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma, before Judge DeGiusti.

Class Members wishing to exclude themselves from the Settlement
Class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(4) must
submit to the Settlement Administrator a valid and timely Request
for Exclusion. Requests for Exclusion must include: (i) the Class
Member's name, address, telephone number, and notarized signature;
(ii) a statement that the Class Member wishes to be excluded from
the Class in Chieftain Royalty Company v. Laredo Petroleum, Inc.,
Case No. CIV-12-1319-D; and (iii) a description of the Class
Member's interest in any Class Well(s), including the name, Laredo
and/or the Settling Parties' well number, and legal location of
such Class Well(s). Requests for Exclusion must be mailed to and
received into the hands of the Settlement Administrator no later
than 5 p.m. CDT on April 9, 2015 at:

     Chieftain Royalty Co. v. Laredo Petroleum, Inc. Settlement
     c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., Settlement Administrator
     P. O. Box 2211
     Faribault, MN 55021-1611

Requests for Exclusion may not be submitted through the website or
by phone, facsimile, or email. Any Class Member that has not
timely and properly requested exclusion from the Class shall be
included in the Settlement and shall be bound by the terms of the
Settlement Agreement in the event it is finally approved by the
Court. Copies of all Requests for Exclusion, including supporting
documentation submitted therewith, if any, that are submitted to
and received by the Settlement Administrator shall be delivered to
Class Counsel and Laredo and Settling Parties' Counsel within one
business day of receipt.

Written objections must be filed with and received by the Court
and served into the hands of Class Counsel and Laredo and Settling
Parties' Counsel no later 5 p.m. CDT on April 9, 2015.

Any Class Member who does not timely file and serve a written
objection shall be foreclosed from raising any such objection to
the Settlement, and any untimely objection shall be barred absent
an Order from the Court. Class Counsel and/or Laredo and the
Settling Parties' Counsel may file any reply or response to any
objections no later than 5:00 p.m. CDT on April 23, 2015. The
procedures set forth in this paragraph do not supplant, but are in
addition to, any procedures required by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

No later than 5:00 p.m. CDT on March 26, 2015, Class
Representative and Class Counsel shall file any requests for
approval of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of Litigation Expenses,
and a Case Contribution Award. Any objections to Class
Representative's and Class Counsel's requests for approval of
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, and a Case
Contribution Award shall be filed no later than 5:00 p.m. CDT on
April 9, 2015.

A copy of Judge DeGiusti's order dated December 29, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/b3wkc4from Leagle.com.

Chieftain Royalty Company, Plaintiff, represented by:

Bradley Earl Beckworth, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON & ROACH LLP
205 Linda Drive
Daingerfield, TX 7563
Telephone: 903-645-7333
Facsimile: 903-645-5389

     - and -

Mark D Christiansen, Esq.
MCAFEE & TAFT
Tenth Floor
Two Leadership Square
211 N. Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7103
Telephone: 405-552-2235
Facsimile: 405-228-7435
Email: mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com

     - and -

Patranell Britten Lewis, Esq.
Robert N Barnes, Esq.
BARNES & LEWIS LLP
720 NW 50th St #200B
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Telephone: 405-843-0363

Laredo Petroleum Inc, Defendant, represented by:

Mark D Christiansen, Esq.
MCAFEE & TAFT
Two Leadership Square, Tenth Floor
211 N. Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7103
Telephone: 405-552-2235
Facsimile: 405-228-7435
Email: mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com

     - and -

Bradley Earl Beckworth, Esq.
NIX PATTERSON & ROACH LLP
205 Linda Drive
Daingerfield, TX 7563
Telephone: 903-645-7333
Facsimile: 903-645-5389


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Court Allows Debt FDCPA Class Suit to Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a divided
federal appeals court in New York allowed more than 100,000
potential plaintiffs to pursue class action litigation accusing
Leucadia National Corp and a law firm of fraudulently cutting
corners to win default judgments in debt collection cases.

The Feb. 10 2-1 decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
came after the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and
Federal Trade Commission warned that a contrary ruling could
undermine the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, a 1977 law
designed by Congress to police unscrupulous debt collectors.

The lawsuit focused on "sewer service," a long-running practice
where debt collectors fail to serve complaints on debtors, and
later falsely certify to courts that service was made and that the
cases have merit.

Sewer service often ends in default judgments because debtors do
not know to appear in court.  It can lead to bank account
seizures, wage garnishments and ruined credit scores.

Four New York City residents, led by Monique Sykes of the Bronx,
challenged lawsuits filed from 2006 to 2009 in New York City civil
courts on behalf of Leucadia, which like rivals buys consumer debt
at pennies on the dollar and tries to collect in full.

Leucadia was represented in more than 99 percent of the collection
lawsuits by the Mel S. Harris law firm, a debt collection
specialist that the plaintiffs called a "default judgment mill."
A process server, Samserv Inc, was also sued.

In September 2012, Circuit Judge Denny Chin certified class
actions arising from the Harris firm's lawsuits.

Writing for the 2nd Circuit majority, Circuit Judge Rosemary
Pooler agreed that the plaintiffs' claims had enough in common to
allow a class action.

Pointing to allegations that one Harris employee supposedly
certified the merits of 20 lawsuits per hour, Judge Pooler said it
was "undisputed" that he did not review the underlying documents.

Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs dissented.  He said there were too
many individual issues to justify a "unwieldy" class action where
"hungry lawyers" might earn a big payday.

"This is class litigation for the sake of nothing but class
litigation," Judge Jacobs wrote.

Leucadia also owns the Jefferies Group investment banking and
securities firm.  The company, its lawyer Miguel Estrada, the
Harris firm's lawyer Paul Clement, and a Samserv lawyer did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

The plaintiffs' lawyer Matthew Brinckerhoff welcomed the decision.

"The problem of unscrupulous debt collectors is nationwide," he
said in an interview.  "This class action provides a framework to
obtain relief for a large number of victims."

In a brief supporting the debtors, the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau and FTC said the 1977 debt protection law was
meant to curb abuses that could cause bankruptcies, marital
instability, job losses and privacy invasions.

They said "the act's purposes would be disserved" by accepting
defense arguments that debtors could not recover because any false
statements were directed at the civil court, not the debtors
themselves.

The AARP and the National Consumer Law Center also supported the
plaintiffs.

The case is Sykes et al v. Mel S. Harris and Associates LLC et al,
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 13-2742.


LG ELECTRONICS: Suit Over Defective Plasma and LCD TVs Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge dismissed
with prejudice a March 2012 class action accusing LG Electronics
of selling defective plasma and LCD televisions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          8 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405)235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Dennis L. Kennedy, Esq.
          Joseph A. Liebman, Esq.
          8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue
          Las Vegas, NV 89148-1302
          Telephone: (702) 562-8820
          Facsimile: (701) 562-9921
          E-mail: dkennedy@baileykennedy.com
                  jliebman@baileykennedy.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Pat Lundvall, Esq.
          Kristen T. Gallagher, Esq.
          McDONALD CARANO WILSON LLP
          2300 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 1000
          Las Vegas, NV 89102
          Telephone: (702) 873-4100
          Facsimile: (702) 873-9966
          E-mail: lundvall@mcdonaldcarano.com
                  kgallagher@mcdonaldcarano.com

               - and -

          Sandra C. McCallion, Esq.
          S.C. Sohn, Esq.
          Thomas E. Bezanson, Esq.
          Christopher M.P. Jackson, Esq.
          Matthew V. Povolny, Esq.
          COHEN & GRESSER LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 957-7600
          Facsimile: (212) 957-4514
          E-mail: smccallion@cohengresser.com
                  scsohn@cohengresser.com
                  tbezanson@cohengresser.com
                  cjackson@cohengresser.com
                  mpovolny@cohengresser.com

The case is Kevin Drover, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. LG Electronics USA, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-
00510-JCM-VCF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada.


MARION, FL: Court Refuses to Junk Suit Over Bailiff Intrusion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Deshayla Strachan reports
that a federal judge refused to dismiss claims connected to a
Florida court bailiff who allegedly accessed the confidential
records of 42,000 people.

Kellean Truesdell hopes to represent a class allegedly owed
damages by Marion County Sheriff Chris Blair and Clayton Thomas, a
former bailiff.

Truesdell says Thomas used the county's Driver and Vehicle
Identification Database, nicknamed DAVID, to access information on
residents of Marion County.

From 2010 to 2013, Thomas allegedly accessed DAVID to view more
than 42,000 people's personal information, "out of personal
curiosity."

Truesdell says she received a letter from Blair in August 2013,
coming clean about the breach.  All of the individuals whom Blair
contacted are women, and Thomas allegedly "only accessed
information on DAVID relating to female citizens," the court
noted.

Blair's letters emphasized that the unidentified employee who
inappropriately accessed DAVID did not sell the information he
found, and did not use it for identity theft or other criminal
purpose, according to the complaint.  The letters further
explained that the employee had been fired and they could call the
sheriff's office with any questions.

Truesdell says Thomas' duties as a bailiff did not encompass any
function or investigative police work, yet he had full access to
DAVID.  She says the database gave Thomas access to each person's
home address, color photograph or image, Social Security number,
date of birth, state of birth, detailed vehicle registration
information and description, prior and current home and mailing
address, driving record, insurance carrier, emergency contacts,
and the personal information of those contacts.

Truesdell also alleged that other unnamed employees illegally
accessed information along with Thomas.

U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hodges refused on Jan. 30 to dismiss
the claims against Blair and Thomas under the Driver's Privacy
Protection Act of 1994, or DPPA, which regulates the disclosure
and use of certain personal information contained in state motor
vehicle records.

Truesdell claims the sheriff's office had full control of the
DAVID system and should have ensured it was not being accessed for
improper purposes.  She also alleged that Blair knew of the
employees' improper use but took no steps to prevent it.

The defendants failed to sway the court that the DPPA is an
unconstitutional exercise of Congress' commerce powers because
Thomas' alleged conduct did not include an economic event.

Citing precedent, Hodges likewise saw no violation of the 10th
Amendment.

"The DPPA does not violate the Tenth Amendment because it does not
mandate the states in their sovereign capacity to regulate their
own citizens, to enact laws or regulations, or to enforce a
federal regulation," the ruling states.  "Instead, the DPPA
regulates states as 'owners of data bases.'"

Hodges also decided Truesdell pleaded a sufficient claim against
Blair.

"Contrary to Sheriff Blair's arguments, the court finds that Ms.
Truesdell's complaint alleges more than enough factual detail of
both purported customs, policies, and practices by the Marion
County Sheriff's Office concerning the regulation (or lack
thereof) of access to the DAVID database, as well as a known and
obvious failure to train employees on how and when to access
DAVID," Hodges wrote (parentheses in original.)

The case is Kellean K. Truesdell v. Clayton Thomas, et al., Case
No. 5:13-cv-00552-WTH-PRL, in the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division.


MATANUSKA-SUSITNA: Bid to Strike Jury Demand Gets Partial OK
------------------------------------------------------------
In Andrea Richey, Plaintiff, v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough,
Defendant, NO. 3:14-CV-170 JWS, (D. Alaska), Matanuska-Susitna
Borough (MSB) moved to strike the jury demand filed by plaintiff.

The case was originally filed January 17, 2014, in state court. In
July 2014, plaintiff moved to file an amended complaint adding,
for the first time, a claim arising under federal law. The state
court judge granted the motion in an order signed August 11, 2014.
Thereafter, MSB timely removed the case to the District of Alaska
court.  The plaintiff did not file a demand for a jury trial in
federal court after removal. Thus, the issue presented in the
defendant's motion is whether the plaintiff properly filed a jury
demand under state law before removal.

In an order and opinion dated February 20, 2015, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/dRcUYzfrom Leagle.com, Senior
District Judge John w. Sedwick granted in part and denied in part
the motion to strike.  "Factual issues related to the immunity
defense and the exhaustion of remedies defense will be tried by a
jury. All other issues will be tried by the court," ruled Judge
Sedwick.

Andrea Richey, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald A. Offret --
raoffret@yahoo.com -- Aglietti, Offret & Woofter.

Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Defendant, represented by Sarah Jane
Shine -- SShine@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP & Thomas M.
Daniel -- TDaniel@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP.


MICHIGAN: Mag. Judge's Recommendation Adopted in "Wayne" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terrance Wayne, currently a Michigan Department of Corrections'
prisoner, filed a lawsuit against Defendants Daniel Heyns, Brad
Purves, and Lloyd Rapelje claiming violations of his civil rights
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 based on the diet provided to
inmates. The matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Mona K.
Majzoub for all pretrial proceedings, including a hearing and
determination of all non-dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 636(b)(1)(A) and/or a report and recommendation(R&R) on
all dispositive matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
636(b)(1)(B). Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on
June 26, 2014. The motion has been fully briefed. The parties have
filed additional pretrial motions which currently remain pending.

On January 16, 2015, Magistrate Judge Majzoub issued an R&R in
which she recommends that the Court grant Defendants' summary
judgment motion and deny the remaining pending motions as moot.
Magistrate Judge Majzoub concluded that the diet provided to
inmates does not violate Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights
because the evidence shows that it affords adequate nutrition to
maintain normal health.  She found Plaintiff's assertion that he
cannot "exercise vigorously off" the calories provided
insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim. And while
Plaintiff claims that the diet is high in sodium and sugar which
causes high cholesterol and is dangerous to diabetics, the
magistrate judge noted that Plaintiff is not diabetic and provides
no evidence to suggest that he has high cholesterol or that the
foods on the menu are high in cholesterol.

At the conclusion of her R&R, Magistrate Judge Majzoub advised the
parties that they may object to and seek review of the R&R within
fourteen days of service upon them.  She further specifically
advised the parties that "[f]ailure to file specific objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal." Neither
party filed objections to the R&R.

After carefully reviewing the R&R, District Judge Linda V. Parker
concurred with the conclusions reached by Magistrate Judge
Majzoub.

Judge Parker ordered that the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment is granted.  The Defendants' outstanding motion and
Plaintiff's outstanding motions are denied as moot.

A copy of Judge Parker's February 20, 2015 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/qoAotwfrom Leagle.com.

The case is TERRANCE WAYNE, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL HEYNS, BRAD
PURVES, and LLOYD RAPELJE, Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 13-14495,
(E.D. Mich.).

Terrance Wayne, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Daniel Heyns, Director, Defendant, represented by Allan J. Soros,
Michigan Department of Attorney General.

Brad Purves, Food Service Program Manager, Defendant, represented
by Allan J. Soros, Michigan Department of Attorney General.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arie Halberstam, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland
Funding, LLC, An Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00807 (E.D.N.Y., February 16, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants'
abusive, deceptive and unfair practices of collecting debt.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of collecting or
attempting to collect debts, doing business in San Diego,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Maxim Maximov, Esq.
       MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
       1701 Avenue P
       Brooklyn, NY 11229
       Telephone: (718) 395-3459
       Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
       E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


MISSOURI: Sued for Retaliating Against Medicaid Challenger
----------------------------------------------------------
A dentist claims in a class action that Missouri retaliated
against him for challenging its denial of Medicaid claims for
dentures -- and that one state official claimed that "teeth are
not necessary to eat," reports Deb Hipp, writing for Courthouse
News Service.

James Dye, DDS, sued Missouri Department of Social Services
Director Brian Kinkade, the director of its Medicaid Audit and
Compliance Unit Jessica Dresner, and Dresner's "subordinate,"
Cindy Lenger, on February 4 in Federal Court.

Dye sued Kinkade in his official capacity, Dresner and Lenger as
individuals and as officials.

Dye claims he incurred "massive legal bills and expenses" after an
audit of 500 patient files conducted with less than 24 hours
notice.

He claims, among other things, that Lenger "made up the term
'adults with limited benefits'" to reject Medicaid claims for
dentures; that there are "no exceptions" to this; that Lenger said
"teeth are not necessary to eat," and that she said all this in
"sworn testimony in a deposition and at an administrative
hearing."

He claims that Langer and/or Dresner also stated that "letters
from the physicians stating that dentures were a medical necessity
for plaintiffs' patients were not 'letters from a physician
stating the medical necessity of the dentures.'"

Dye claims he was forced to close two of his dental offices as a
result of the denials and retaliation.

Dye says that Lenger referred him for investigation of unethical
billing when he submitted Medicaid denture claims which were
ineligible under rules of a "new," unauthorized manual Social
Services uses to determine Medicaid benefits.  He claims that
Social Services is using the new manual instead of an earlier,
state-authorized version so that it can deny Medicaid
reimbursement for adult dentures as a way to trim costs.

Dye claims the new manual contains inconsistent provisions on
dental services and has a "chilling effect" on dentists, who will
choose not to provide denture services to qualified Medicaid
recipients out of fear that the state will deny "all medically
necessary denture claims, no matter what."

Under federal Medicaid laws, states must provide dental benefits
to children covered by Medicaid but individual states can choose
whether to provide dental benefits to adults.  Missouri provides
dental services to adult Medicaid recipients under "limited
circumstances" outlined by the Missouri Department of Social
Services.

Dye calls the defendants' actions arbitrary and capricious and
claims that he and other Missouri dentists have been denied more
than $1 million in claims.

Dye seeks class certification, declaratory judgment that the
unauthorized dental manual cannot be used to determine Missouri
denture claims, and an injunction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig Heidemann, Esq.
          DOUGLAS, HAUN & HEIDEMANN P.C.
          111 West Broadway
          Bolivar, MO 65613
          Telephone: (417) 326-5261
          Facsimile: (417) 326-2845
          E-mail: cheidemann@bolivarlaw.com


MOHAMMAD AFRAKHTEH: Faces "Zelaya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Zelaya, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Mohammad Afrakhteh t/a Sina Tile, Case No. 8:15-cv-00438 (D.
Md., February 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendant sells and installs tiles for residential and
commercial customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roberto N. Allen, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN LLC
      11002 Veirs Mill Rd Ste 700
      Wheaton, MD 20902
      Telephone: (301) 861-0202
      Facsimile: (301) 861-4354
      E-mail: rallen@robertoallenlaw.com


MONTEREY, CA: Class of Inmates in Overcrowded Jail Certified
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge certified a class of inmates at the Monterey
County Jail who claim the jail is unconstitutionally unsafe,
overcrowded and understaffed, reports Katherine Proctor, writing
for Courthouse News Service.

In a 135-page amended complaint, lead plaintiff Jesse Hernandez
and 20 other named inmates sued Monterey County, the sheriff's
office and the California Forensic Medical Group, which provides
medical services at the jail.  The inmates claim that the jail
houses 1,100 prisoners -- more than 33 percent above its rated
capacity.

The inmates make numerous claims about the inadequacies of the
jail's safety infrastructure, its medical and mental health care
and its disability accommodations.  It refers to thousands of
pages of documents, including interviews with current and former
inmates, inmates' medical and custody records and incident reports
from the sheriff's office.

Among the issues listed are understaffed facilities that are
difficult to monitor, causing regularly occurring violence;
insufficient health care staff; failure to provide adequate, clean
and confidential clinical spaces; failure to eliminate suicide
hazards; and failure to accommodate inmates with disabilities.

In his Jan. 29 order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal defined
the class as "all adult men and women who are now, or will be in
the future, incarcerated in Monterey County Jail."

James Egar, the county's public defender, represents the
plaintiffs.

"We never wanted to bring this case to begin with," Egar said in a
telephone interview.  "We have been making these problems known to
county officials for many years and had hoped during the course of
the progression of the case that it could be resolved with a
federal consent decree.

"But the county has chosen to litigate rather than remediate and
provide a means of enforcement."

But the Monterey County Sheriff's Office said in a statement that
"plaintiffs' counsel has chosen to force the county to spend
extensive resources on litigation rather than work
collaboratively."

The sheriff's statement said the county has spent $8.9 million on
its "Jail Housing Addition Project" and that "the county has
welcomed constructive criticism on how to improve its facilities
in a fiscally sound manner."

Egar said the inmates have not received the remediating plans that
the county said it would provide a year and a half ago.

"Egar hope that the county will save its money and use it to
remediate the problem," he said.

A trial is set for Sept. 8.

The case is Jesse Hernandez, et al. v. County of Monterey, et al.,
Case No. 5:13-cv-02354-PSG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division.


MWI VETERINARY: Faces Class Suit Over Sale to AmerisourceBergen
---------------------------------------------------------------
Winners Circle Investment Club, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc., James F.
Cleary, Jr., Bruce C. Bruckmann, Keith Alessi, A. Craig Olson,
William J. Robison, Robert Rebholtz, Jr., D. Mark Durcan,
Amerisourcebergen Corporation, and Roscoe Acquisition Corp., Case
No. 10608-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct., February 4, 2015) is brought on
behalf of public stockholders of MWI to enjoin a proposed
transaction, pursuant to which MWI will be acquired by
AmerisourceBergen Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Roscoe Acquisition Corp.

The Proposed Transaction is the product of a flawed process and
deprives MWI's public stockholders of the ability to participate
in the Company's long-term prospects, the Plaintiff alleges.

Founded in 1976, MWI and its subsidiaries distribute animal health
products to veterinarians in the United States and the United
Kingdom.  The Company offers pharmaceuticals, vaccines,
diagnostics, parasiticides, micro feed ingredients, supplies, and
other products used to enhance the health and performance of
companion and production animals.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295-5310
          Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
          E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
                  bdl@rl-legal.com
                  gms@rl-legal.com
                  jjr@rl-legal.com

               - and -

          Donald J. Enright, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: (202) 524-4290
          Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
          E-mail: denright@zlk.com

Defendant MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc., and the Individual
Defendants are represented by:

          P. Clarkson Collins, Jr.
          Meghan A. Adams, Esq.
          MORRIS JAMES LLP
          500 Delaware Ave., Suite 1500
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 888-6990
          Facsimile: (302) 571-1750
          E-mail: pcollins@morrisjames.com
                  madams@morrisjames.com

Defendants AmerisourceBergen Corp. and Roscoe Acquisition Corp.
are represented by:

          Gregory P. Williams, Esq.
          RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, PA
          One Rodney Square
          920 North King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 651-7700
          Facsimile: (302) 651-7701
          E-mail: williams@rlf.com
                  werrett@rlf.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Accused of Giving 'Sham' Classes to Athletes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise McAllister at Courthouse News Service reports that the NCAA
and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill fail to
provide a meaningful education to scholarship athletes who attend
UNC, two former student-athletes claim in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Rashanda McCants attended UNC from 2005 to 2009 on
an athletic scholarship and played for the women's basketball
team.  Co-plaintiff Devon Ramsay attended UNC from 2007 to 2012 on
an athletic scholarship and played on UNC's football team.

Both students say they took classes in the African and Afro-
American Studies Department (AFAM) that have been determined by
independent investigators to be academically unsound.

They claim that UNC and the NCAA broke their promises to provide
student-athletes a meaningful education by steering them into
"sham 'paper classes' that they were not required to attend, that
required little to no work, that were not taught by a faculty
member, and that involved no interaction with a faculty member."

These "sham" classes were provided to hundreds of students over
two decades, McCants and Ramsay say.

AFAM Student Services Manager Deborah Crowder, an administrator
who was not a member of the faculty, created the paper classes
under the supervision of AFAM Chair Julius Nyang'oro, according to
the 100-page complaint.

Crowder is not named as a defendant; only the NCAA and UNC-Chapel
Hill are.

Around 1989, Crowder initiated a series of independent studies
courses and invited student-athletes to enroll.  Unlike
traditional independent studies classes, however, no faculty
member was involved in the courses nor did any faculty member
supervise students' research and writing, according to the
lawsuit. Student-athletes only interacted with Crowder, who graded
their papers with inflated grades, the complaint states.

According to the lawsuit and independent investigations, Crowder
did not work alone.  Academic counselors steered student-athletes,
many of whom were African-American, into these sham classes.  The
counselors -- many of whom were aware that there was no faculty
involvement in the classes -- "were under constant pressure to
maintain eligibility of student-athletes," the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs claim that UNC women's basketball academic
counselor Jan Boxill also helped steer student-athletes into paper
classes.  "During the Class Periods, Boxill would email Crowder
with specific grade suggestions for women's basketball payers,"
the lawsuit states.

The AFAM paper classes were so important to keeping football
players eligible that "the UNC Athletic Department outlined the
crisis posed by Crowder's retirement in an internal slide
presentation" that was presented to the coaching staff, the
plaintiffs say.

They claim that this "academic debacle" could have come as no
surprise to the NCAA.

"It had ample warning, including empirical evidence from numerous
academic experts, that many college athletes were not receiving a
meaningful education, including -- disproportionally -- African-
American college athletes in revenue-producing sports," the
lawsuit states.  "Although the NCAA's rules prohibit academic
fraud, the NCAA knew of dozens of instances of academic fraud in
its member schools' athletic programs over the last century, and
it nevertheless refused to implement adequate monitoring systems
to detect and prevent these occurrences as its member
institutions."

But the NCAA allowed college sports programs to function as
"diploma mills that compromise education opportunities and the
future job prospects of student-athletes for the sake of wins and
revenues," the students say in the complaint.  They seek class
certification, declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages for
breach of contract, breach of faith, breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence.

Their lead counsel is Robert Orr, Esq., in Raleigh, North
Carolina.


NEW DOMINION: Faces Class Action Over Earthquake Damage
-------------------------------------------------------
Ziva Branstetter, writing for Tulsa World, reports that a Prague
earthquake victim has filed a lawsuit against two energy companies
seeking class-action status for people in nine Oklahoma counties
whose homes have allegedly been damaged by frequent earthquakes.

Jennifer Lin Cooper filed the suit in Lincoln County District
Court on Feb. 10 against New Dominion LLC, a Tulsa-based energy
company, and Spess Oil Company, based in Cleveland, Oklahoma.  The
suit also lists up to 25 John Doe defendants, apparently in
anticipation of additional corporate defendants.

The suit seeks class-action status for residents damaged by
earthquakes in Lincoln, Payne, Logan, Oklahoma, Cleveland,
Pottawatomie, Seminole, Okfuskee and Creek counties. The suit
states the class would consist of people in those counties who
have owned homes or business properties since Nov. 5, 2011, when
the first of three large earthquakes struck Prague.

The suit states that Cooper's home sustained more than $100,000 in
damage from the 2011 Prague earthquakes.  She purchased the home
in 2010 for $117,000 and spent about $15,000 improving it, the
suit states.

Attorney Scott Poynter, who represents Ms. Cooper, said she is a
single mother who is unable to pay for repairs on the home.
"She can't sell it, she can't repair it and she's just living in
ruins with her son.  One of the quakes warped her door so bad she
couldn't get out of her house."

Frequent earthquakes have also caused a loss of property value in
some areas, Mr. Poynter said.

"There's a stigma on the properties that will exist for time to
come.  Properties just don't have the same value now," he said.
Common issues among the class would be whether the defendants'
operations have caused earthquakes, amount to a nuisance and are
an "ultra-hazardous activity," the suit states.

An employee of Spess Oil declined comment on Feb. 10 on the
lawsuit.

Representatives of New Dominion LLC could not be reached for
comment.  Its president and CEO is Kevin Easley, a former longtime
state lawmaker and former president of the Grand River Dam
Authority.

The company operates the largest injection well in the state,
according to records supplied by the state for 2013, the latest
year available.  The well in Oklahoma County disposed of an
average 1.7 million barrels per month last year.

In filings that are part of a similar lawsuit over the Prague
earthquake, attorneys for New Dominion and Spess have denied the
companies are responsible for triggering earthquakes.

Last year, Oklahoma surpassed California in the number of reported
earthquakes, making it the most seismically active state in the
continental United States.  Oklahoma recorded 585 earthquakes last
year of 3.0 magnitude or greater, more than in the previous 35
years combined.

The lawsuit cites several scientific studies linking earthquakes
in Oklahoma with wastewater injection wells.  A 2013 study in the
journal Geology found a correlation between wastewater injection
wells operated by New Dominion and Spess and the Prague
earthquakes.

On Nov. 5, 6 and 8, three earthquakes of magnitude 5.0, 5.6 and
5.0 shook the town.  According to the Oklahoma Emergency
Management Agency, 178 homes sustained damage of some kind.  Six
homes were destroyed and 20 homes sustained major damage averaging
$80,000 each.

Oklahoma has about 3,200 active disposal wells and combined,
pumping 1.1 billion barrels of wastewater into the ground in 2013,
records show.  That figure represents an increase of about 35
percent over 2010.
Since the 1970s, numerous scientific studies and the U.S.
Geological Survey have linked wastewater injection wells to
"induced" earthquakes.

The wastewater is a mixture of saltwater and toxic chemicals that
surface during oil and gas production.  Wastewater injected deep
into faulted zones can cause pressure to build up, triggering
earthquakes.

A spokesman for the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association has
said there is no broad consensus linking injection wells and
earthquakes. The industry is assisting the state with improving
its fault maps and supplying other information to help agencies
respond to the earthquake increase, the spokesman said.

In a three-part investigative report on Oklahoma's earthquakes,
the Tulsa World reported that the Oklahoma Geological Survey has
failed to finish studies on the 2011 Prague earthquake and other
significant earthquakes.

In one presentation, a state seismologist compared the value of a
closed injection well in Love County to damage to homes caused by
an earthquake there.

A preliminary report from the OGS indicates a correlation between
the injection well and earthquakes. However, that report was never
completed.

Gov. Mary Fallin and other key state leaders continue to recommend
more study of the problem, rejecting conclusions of scientific
studies linking injection wells and earthquakes.  A state
committee appointed by Gov. Fallin is coordinating responses by
state agencies.

However, those meetings are closed to the public and the committee
plans to issue no reports or written recommendations.

The U.S. Geological Survey and Oklahoma Geological Survey warned
last year that chances had increased for a damaging 5.5 or greater
earthquake in central Oklahoma.

The lawsuit is the second filed by Mr. Poynter, an Arkansas-based
attorney, on behalf of another Prague earthquake victim.  A
lawsuit by Sandra Ladra, who was injured in the earthquake, is
currently pending before the state Supreme Court.

An attorney for New Dominion has said such lawsuits, if
successful, would cause energy companies to abandon wastewater
disposal wells across the state.

"These wells will become economic and legal-liability pariahs,"
attorney Robert Gum told a Lincoln County judge during an October
hearing in Ms. Ladra's lawsuit.

The lawsuits are among dozens filed in the past several years
across the country alleging oil and gas companies are responsible
for earthquakes.  Similar lawsuits seeking class-action status
have been filed against energy companies in Arkansas and Texas.

In Ms. Ladra's lawsuit, a Lincoln County judge dismissed the case
for lack of jurisdiction in October.

The Supreme Court opted Dec. 2 to decide her appeal instead of
referring it to the state Civil Appeals Court.  Attorneys for both
sides view that as a sign the court wants to weigh in on issues
raised by the lawsuit.

Mr. Poynter also represented plaintiffs in lawsuits against energy
companies for earthquakes in Arkansas.  Those lawsuits were
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in March.

Court records show the eight Arkansas plaintiffs were in
settlement talks with the defendants, which included Chesapeake
Operating Inc., before they dismissed the case.

While noting earthquakes can be triggered by fluid injection, the
Oklahoma Geological Survey has been less willing to link oil and
gas operations to specific earthquakes.  It found the Prague
earthquake was likely the result of natural causes and urged more
study.

"We consider a rush to judgment about earthquakes being triggered
to be harmful to state, public and industry interests," the Survey
states on its website.


NEW YORK: Gov. Cuomo Asked to Immediately Replace Rep. Grimm
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito at Courthouse News Service reports that about 750,000
New Yorkers lack representation in Congress after last month's
resignation of U.S. Rep. Michael Grimm, a federal class action
alleges.

Grimm tendered his resignation to Speaker of the House John Boeher
last month after pleading guilty to a federal tax-evasion charge.

About 750,000 people live in the 11th Congressional District that
Grimm previously represented, encompassing Staten Island and the
southern tip of Brooklyn.

Rosie Rossito-Canty and others filed suit February 5 against Gov.
Andrew Cuomo, claiming that his failure to issue the proclamation
of election that, under state law, would have triggered a special
election within 80 days.

"Cuomo failed to exercise his constitutional duty" and left New
Yorkers without representation, the complaint alleges.

The governor's refusal is a "violation of the right of suffrage,"
they say.

They want the governor to issue the proclamation in order for
there to be a special election.

Also named as plaintiffs are Rosie Rossito-Canty, Diana Sepulveda,
Frank Morano, Matthew Mari, Erik Pistek, Lawrence Gilder, David
Pascarella and Michael Reilly.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ronald Castorina, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF RONALD CASTORINA, JR.
          4308 Richmond Avenue
          Staten Island, NY 10312
          Telephone: (718) 701-3100


PAE GROUP: "Yocupicio" Wage & Hour Suit Stays in Dist. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George H. Wu of the Central District of California
denied plaintiff's motion to remand in the case Porfiria Yocupicio
v. PAE Group, LLC. et al., Case No. CV 14-8958-GW (JEMX) (C.D.
Cal.)

Plaintiff Porfiria Yocupicio worked for Arch Resources Group LLC
(Arch), a staffing company as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee
from October 18, 2012 until September 30, 2013.  Plaintiff filed a
putative class action in state court against Arch asserting claims
for: (1) missed meal periods, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 226.7, 512;
(2) missed rest breaks, Sections 226.7; (3) unpaid minimum wages,
Section 1194; (4) unpaid overtime, Sections 1194, 1198; (5) unpaid
vacation time, Section 227.3; (6) failure to timely pay temporary
employees,  Section 201.3; (7) waiting-time penalties, Sections
201-03; (8) inaccurate itemized wage statements, Section 226; (9)
unfair competition, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200; and (10)
related penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
("PAGA"), Cal. Lab. Code Section 2698 et seq.

Arch removed the case to the federal district court under
authority conferred by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
(CAFA).  Shortly after removal, plaintiff filed a motion to remand
and request for attorney's fees.

Judge Wu denied plaintiff's motion to remand request for
attorney's fees and costs.  The Court said Arch has carried its
burden to support removal.  A copy of Judge Wu's decision dated
December 29, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/NRtBVHfrom
Leagle.com.

Until April 2014, Arch was known as PAE Group, LLC.  In April
2014, PAE filed a certificate of amendment, changing its name from
PAE Group, LLC to Arch Resources Group, LLC.

Justin F. Marquez -- justin@rastegarlawgroup.com -- at Rastegar
Law Group, APC, Attorney for Plaintiff

Michael E. Chase -- mchase@boutinjones.com -- at Boutin Jones
Inc., Attorney for Defendants


PF CHANG'S: Celiac Disease Foundation Won't Back Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a national
organization that advocates for sufferers of celiac disease does
not seem to agree with a recent class action lawsuit filed by one
such individual.

Anna Marie Phillips sued P.F. Chang's in December in a California
state court, alleging that extra charges on the restaurant's
gluten-free menu violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Celiac disease is a disability, Phillips claims, and it is
unlawful for a restaurant to force her to pay higher prices for
gluten-free dishes.

Marilyn G. Geller, the CEO of the Celiac Disease Foundation, was
asked by Legal Newsline if she had a comment on the claim.

"Celiac Disease Foundation recognizes that restaurants bear a
financial burden for the employee training and other
accommodations that are required to serve meals that are safe for
those with celiac disease," Ms. Geller said.

The class action suit states that because a gluten-free diet is
medically necessary for individuals with celiac disease, gluten-
free patrons have no choice but to order at the higher price.

Surcharges for gluten-free items are claimed to occur even where
the items at issue may naturally be gluten free, such as vegetable
dishes, the complaint says.

Asserting arbitrary and unequal treatment, the plaintiff contends
that P.F. Chang's discriminates against consumers with celiac
disease and gluten intolerance; and that by adding a surcharge,
violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Ms. Phillips brings suit on behalf of persons with celiac disease
or gluten intolerance who ordered items from P.F. Chang's gluten-
free menu in California within four years prior to the suit.

In response to the lawsuit, P.F. Chang's removed the case to
federal court in San Jose, Calif., under the Class Action Fairness
Act.

Under CAFA, a defendant may remove a class action to federal court
if it can argue the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

P.F. Chang's wrote that there are approximately 36 of its
restaurants in California, and the plaintiff's attorneys have
requested a penalty of $4,000 for each violation.

The company estimates there are 3,833 class members, with only
1,250 needed to reach the $5 million figure.

Ms. Phillips is represented by Anthony J. Orshansky and Justin
Kachadoorian of Counselone, P.C. in Beverly Hills, Calif. The
defendant is represented by Jon P. Karbassakis and Michael K.
Grimaldi -- Michael.Grimaldi@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, of Los Angeles.


PGA TOUR: Faces Class Suit by 83 Caddies Over Antitrust Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that 83 caddies
sued the PGA Tour in an antitrust class action, seeking some of
the $50 million in ad revenue the Tour makes from the corporate
logos caddies must wear without being paid for it.

Lead plaintiff William Michael Hicks has caddied for more than 30
years, and has worked for Payne Stewart, Greg Norman, Steve
Stricker and Justin Leonard.

In the Feb. 3 federal lawsuit, Hicks claims that the PGA Tour
makes caddies wear bibs with ads on them, and keeps the
approximately $50 million in revenue generated by the ads
annually.

"Caddies receive none of the revenue and never have consented to
(the PGA Tour's) commercial use of their likenesses and images,"
Hicks says in the lawsuit.

While PGA Tour regulations permit caddies to endorse their own
sponsors' products and services, caddies continue to wear the bibs
because of threats, Hicks says.  He claims the Tour has threatened
to prohibit caddies from working, and contacted golfers to see if
they'd be willing to fire caddies who refuse to wear the bib.

The PGA Tour also said it would prohibit caddies from receiving
endorsement money from any sponsor that competes with the tour's
sponsors, Hicks says.  He claims that caddies are treated poorly
in general.

"Despite the caddies' contribution to professional golf, (the PGA
Tour) has treated caddies as second-class participants of the
game," and has denied caddies "basic health care coverage and
access to pension plans," Hicks says.

He adds: "During tournament play, defendant forces caddies to use
portable lavatories that lack running water and denies caddies
access to areas of tournament venues necessary for caddies to
perform their duties fully.  The list goes on."

The plaintiffs seek class certification, an injunction and
punitive damages for antitrust violations, misappropriation of
likeness and right of publicity, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, trademark violations, duress, and unfair competition.

The caddies are represented by:

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


PHH MORTGAGE: NJ Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Finch" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Noel L. Hillman of the District of New Jersey
denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case KEVIN FINCH, MARC
WERNER, and DONNA WERNER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION,
Defendant, CIVIL NO. 14-1694 (NLH/KMW) (D.N.J.)

Kevin Finch, Marc Werner and Donna Werner filed a putative class
action suit against PHH Mortgage Corporation, claiming that if a
borrower fails to carry hazard insurance on the mortgaged property
and to provide evidence of insurance to PHH, PHH is authorized to
force place insurance on the property, whereby PHH independently
obtains insurance and then charges borrowers amounts to
purportedly pay for such insurance by diverting the borrowers'
monthly mortgage payments or debiting the borrowers' escrow
accounts.

The Plaintiffs claim that this practice violates numerous federal
and state laws because, among other things: borrowers have no say
in the selection of the force-placed insurance carrier or the
terms of the force-placed insurance policies; such policies
provide less coverage and are substantially more costly than the
borrowers' original policies, while providing improper,
undisclosed and lucrative financial benefits to PHH which are
unrelated to the provision of force-placed hazard insurance;
borrowers are charged retroactively for coverage before the
borrowers are notified of the force-placement of the coverage; and
such policies often provide unnecessary or duplicative coverage in
that they are improperly backdated to collect premiums.

PHH moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims, arguing, among other
things, that recent decisions in the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals and the Central District of California, which are
applicable in this case because Finch's property is located in
Illinois and the Werners' property is located in California, have
dismissed identical claims as advanced in this case.

Judge Hillman ordered that defendant's motion to dismiss/amended
motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice.  The Court was
slated to hold a hearing on the motion for February 11, 2015, at
which time the motion to dismiss was to be reinstated.

A copy of the Court's Dec. 30, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order
is available at http://is.gd/N67HySfrom Leagle.com.

PETER A. MUHIC -- pmuhic@ktmc.com -- SAMANTHA E. JONES --
sjones@ktmc.com -- TYLER STEPHEN GRADEN -- tgraden@ktmc.com -- at
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, On behalf of plaintiffs

PETER J. LEYH -- pleyh@braverlaw.com -- at BRAVERMAN KASKEY P.C.,
On behalf of defendant


PROMPT MEDICAL: Faces "Cross" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Cross, on behalf of herself and all other similarly-situated
employees, known and unknown v. Prompt Medical Transportation,
Inc. d/b/a Prompt Ambulance Service and Indiana EMS, Gary Miller,
Shar Miller, and Joseph Merry, Case No. 2:15-cv-00058 (N.D. Ind.,
February 16, 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 private, for-profit ambulance
service that contracts with municipalities in Northwest Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul E. Luka, Esq,
      LAW OFFICE OF PAUL LUKA PC
      120 S State St Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 971-7309
      Facsimile: (312) 236-9826
      E-mail: paul@lukapc.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Sued for Monopolizing Medical Testing in NoCal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics monopolizes medical testing in Northern
California by paying kickbacks to doctors and paying insurers to
get rid of competition, a class action claims in Federal Court,
reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Colleen Eastman sued Quest Diagnostics on Jan. 29,
claiming it overcharges patients for inferior service.

Eastman claims Quest dominates two markets: medical testing billed
directly to health insurance plans and patients, and testing
billed directly to medical providers. It controls at least 70
percent of both markets in Northern California, according to the
complaint.

Quest built the monopoly by discounting the price of tests billed
to medical providers by 50 percent or more, in exchange for
commitments by physicians to exclusively refer patients to Quest,
Eastman says.  She claims Quest also paid major insurers Blue
Shield of California and Aetna to exclude competitors.

"Quest induced Aetna to kick 400 of Quest's competitors out of the
Aetna network nationwide," the complaint states.  "In 2008, Quest
gave California Blue Shield a 10 percent discount on test pricing
in exchange for its agreement to kick two of Quest's competitors
out of the California Blue Shield Network."

Quest also acquires its competitors "aggressively," Eastman says.

Quest's 2003 buyout of Unilab Corp., its main competitor in
Northern California, led the Federal Trade Commission to intervene
and force Quest to make "substantial divestitures," the complaint
states.  But even this did not preserve competition, as the Unilab
acquisition tripled Quest's market power, according to the
complaint.

What's more, Eastman claims, Quest's test results often are
flawed.

"For example, in April 2009, Quest pled guilty to a criminal
felony for incorrect parathyroid test results and paid a criminal
fine of $40 million and civil fines of $262 million to the federal
government," the complaint states.  "For many patients these
faulty test results led to unnecessary and life-changing surgeries
to remove their parathyroid glands.  Further, in January 2009,
regulatory agencies forced Quest to issue the largest recall in
industry history because of inaccurate Vitamin D test results."

Eastman seeks class certification, an injunction, restitution and
disgorgement and treble damages for unfair competition, unfair
business practices and state and federal antitrust violations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Colleen Duffy-Smith, Esq.
          MORGAN DUFFY-SMITH & TIDALGO LLP
          1960 The Alameda, Suite 220
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 244-4570
          Facsimile: (408) 423-8830
          E-mail: cduffysmith@mdstlaw.com


RADIOSHACK 401(K): Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Workers Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Wolpin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Radioshack 401(K) Plan Administrative Committee, et
al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00117 (N.D. Tex., February 13, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for breached in their fiduciary
duties, specifically by allowing and encouraging the imprudent
investment of the Plans' assets in RadioShack Corporation equity
despite the fact that they knew or should have known that such
investment was imprudent as a retirement vehicle and exposed the
Plans to unreasonable risk of loss and injury.

Radioshack 401(K) Plan Administrative Committee is a defined
contribution plan covering approximately 2,632 employees or ex-
employees of the RadioShack Corporation and its subsidiaries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Kendall, Esq.
      Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
      KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
      3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Telephone: (214) 744-3000
      Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
      E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
              jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      George C. Aguilar, Esq.
      Ashley R. Rifkin, Esq.
      Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com
              arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com
              lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com

         - and -

      Richard J. Vita, Esq.
      VITA LAW OFFICES P.C.
      100 State Street, 9th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 426-6566
      Facsimile: (617) 249-2119
      E-mail: rjv@vitalaw.com


REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION: Court Tosses Bid to Dismiss Reiskin Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE REISKIN, JON JAMIE LEWIS, WILLIAM JOE BEAVER, DOUGLAS HOWEY,
COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-03111-REB-KLM, (D.
Col.) came before the Court on defendant RTD's motion to dismiss
or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, and plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file an amended class action complaint.

Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix held that "[a]s an initial matter,
the Motion to Amend does not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1,
which requires that a party who either amends as a matter of
course or files a motion seeking leave to amend "shall attach as
an exhibit a copy of the amended pleading which strikes through
. . . the text to be deleted and underlines . . . the text to be
added."  The Motion to Amend is subject to denial on this basis
alone, she said.

Accordingly, in an order entered February 19, 2015, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/i5CV3hfrom Leagle.com,
Magistrate Judge Mix denied the Motion to Amend.

The Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint is deemed to be the
operative complaint as of Feb. 19, 2015.

The Court ordered the Plaintiffs to file the notice and redline
required by D.C.COLO.LCivR 15.1(a), and for the Defendant to
answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action
Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(3).

Defendants' motion to dismiss was denied as moot.

Julie Reiskin, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams --
kwilliams@ccdconline.org -- Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition &
Andrew Christopher Montoya -- amontoya@ccdconline.org -- Colorado
Cross-Disability Coalition.

Jon Jamie Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams,
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition & Andrew Christopher Montoya,
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

William Joe Beaver, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William
Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition & Andrew Christopher
Montoya, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

Douglas Howey, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams,
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition & Andrew Christopher Montoya,
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

Diana Milne, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams,
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

Tina McDonald, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams,
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

Jose Torres-Vega, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William
Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

Randy Kilbourn, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams,
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

John Babcock, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin William Williams,
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Plaintiff, represented by
Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition &
Andrew Christopher Montoya, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

Regional Transportation District, Defendant, represented by
Jenifer M. Ross-Amato, Regional Transportation District & Mindy
Marie Swaney, Regional Transportation District.

Regional Transportation District, Counter Claimant, represented by
Jenifer M. Ross-Amato, Regional Transportation District & Mindy
Marie Swaney, Regional Transportation District.

Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Defendant, represented by
Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition &
Andrew Christopher Montoya, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

Douglas Howey, Counter Defendant, represented by Kevin William
Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition & Andrew Christopher
Montoya, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

Jon Jamie Lewis, Counter Defendant, represented by Kevin William
Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition & Andrew Christopher
Montoya, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

Julie Reiskin, Counter Defendant, represented by Kevin William
Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition & Andrew Christopher
Montoya, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Customer Questions Extra Fee for HVAC Installation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that when Sears
customers pay extra for installation, Sears "simply pocket[s] the
money" without doing the work, a class action in Los Angeles
alleges.

Edwin Ruano, who bought an HVAC system from Sears, including
installation, for his home in Los Angeles, hopes to represent a
class of the thousands of other customers in his position.  He
filed the complaint against Sears Roebuck & Co. in Los Angeles
County Superior Court on Jan. 29.

In the action, Ruano outlines eight, allegedly untrue, statements
by Sears about its HVAC installation, including the performance of
an "installation analysis."

Sears charges $195 for this service, which "is purportedly for the
installer to assess the equipment that will be needed to complete
the HVAC installation on the installation date."

"However, the installation analysis is never performed by Sears or
its designated installers," the complaint states.  "Rather, Sears
and the designated installer simply pocket the money with no such
installation analysis ever being performed."

Ruano also targets the claim that consumers are "required" to buy
a UV light in plenum or evaporator coil, which "will be installed
during the installation of the Sears HVAC system."

"Defendant regularly charges a fee for installation analysis which
it never performs and for UV lights which are never installed,"
the complaint states.

Alleging breach of warranty, violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, and other wrongs, the class seeks an injunction and
punitive damages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Terry R. Bailey, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER, LLP
          Engine Company No. 28 Building
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 217-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 217-5010
          E-mail: trb@kbklawyers.com


SISTERS OF CHARITY: Prime Healthcare Must Face "Geiger" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Patricia Geiger and Michelle Hunget, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a class action
suit against defendants Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health
System, Inc. ("SCLHS"), Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health
System Separation Benefit Plan, Plan Administrator of the Sisters
of Charity of Leavenworth Health System Separation Benefit Plan,
Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. ("Prime"), Prime Healthcare
Services-Saint John Leavenworth, LLC, and Prime Healthcare
Services-Providence, LLC (collectively, the "Prime Defendants").
Plaintiffs allege three counts: (1) claim for benefits against
SCLHS, (2) tortious interference with contract and/or tortious
interference with prospective business relationship against the
Prime Defendants, and (3) punitive damages against the Prime
Defendants. The matter before the court is the Prime Defendants'
renewed motion to dismiss.  The Prime Defendants contend they
should be dismissed from this case, arguing that plaintiffs'
complaint does not meet the pleading requirements of Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

Defendants also argued that plaintiffs have not pleaded facts
showing malice. Malice is defined as "a state of mind
characterized by an intent to do a harmful act without a
reasonable justification or excuse."

In a memorandum and order entered February 23, 2015, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/4tuFb2from Leagle.com,
District Judge Carlos Murguia disagreed with the Defendants saying
Plaintiffs have pleaded facts supporting several, if not all, of
the factors for demonstrating malice in the context of a tortious
interference claim.  For these reasons, the Prime Defendants'
motion is denied, ruled Judge Murguia.

The case is PATRICIA GEIGER, and MICHELLE HUNGET, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SISTERS OF CHARITY OF LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-2378, (D. Kan.).

Patricia Geiger, Plaintiff, represented by Craig F. Simon --
csimon@srwlawfirm.com -- Simon Ray & Winikka, LLP, James J. Cramer
-- jcramer@paynejones.com -- Payne & Jones, Chartered, Matthew W.
Ray -- mattray@srwlawfirm.com -- Simon Ray & Winikka, LLP & Tyler
Peters, Payne & Jones, Chartered.

Michelle Hunget, Plaintiff, represented by Craig F. Simon, Simon
Ray & Winikka, LLP, James J. Cramer, Payne & Jones, Chartered,
Matthew W. Ray, Simon Ray & Winikka, LLP & Tyler Peters, Payne &
Jones, Chartered.

Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Andrea M. Kimball -- andrea.kimball@dentons.com --
Dentons US, LLP & Carly Diane Duvall -- carly.duvall@dentons.com
-- Dentons US, LLP.

Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System Separation Benefit
Plan, Defendant, represented by Andrea M. Kimball, Dentons US, LLP
& Carly Diane Duvall, Dentons US, LLP.

Plan Administrator of the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health
System Separation Benefit Plan, Defendant, represented by Andrea
M. Kimball, Dentons US, LLP & Carly Diane Duvall, Dentons US, LLP.

Prime Healthcare Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carrie
E. Josserand -- cjosserand@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP,
Curtis L. Tideman -- ctideman@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage,
LLP & Jennifer M. Gibson Hannah -- jhannah@lathropgage.com --
Lathrop & Gage, LLP.

Prime Healthcare Services-Saint John Leavenworth, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Carrie E. Josserand, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Curtis L.
Tideman, Lathrop & Gage, LLP & Jennifer M. Gibson Hannah, Lathrop
& Gage, LLP.

Prime Healthcare Services-Providence, LLC, Defendant, represented
by Carrie E. Josserand, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Curtis L. Tideman,
Lathrop & Gage, LLP & Jennifer M. Gibson Hannah, Lathrop & Gage,
LLP.

Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc., Cross
Claimant, represented by Andrea M. Kimball, Dentons US, LLP &
Carly Diane Duvall, Dentons US, LLP.

Prime Healthcare Services, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Carrie E. Josserand, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Curtis L. Tideman,
Lathrop & Gage, LLP & Jennifer M. Gibson Hannah, Lathrop & Gage,
LLP.

Prime Healthcare Services, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by
Carrie E. Josserand, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Curtis L. Tideman,
Lathrop & Gage, LLP & Jennifer M. Gibson Hannah, Lathrop & Gage,
LLP.

Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc., Cross
Defendant, represented by Andrea M. Kimball, Dentons US, LLP &
Carly Diane Duvall, Dentons US, LLP.

Prime Healthcare Services, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by
Carrie E. Josserand, Lathrop & Gage, LLP, Curtis L. Tideman,
Lathrop & Gage, LLP & Jennifer M. Gibson Hannah, Lathrop & Gage,
LLP.

Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc., Counter
Defendant, represented by Andrea M. Kimball, Dentons US, LLP &
Carly Diane Duvall, Dentons US, LLP.


SONY PICTURES: Seeks Dismissal of Hacking Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Ted Johnson, writing for Variety, reports that as expected, Sony
Pictures Entertainment is seeking to have the first batch of class
action lawsuits over the hacking attack dismissed, arguing that
two ex-employees had failed to show that they suffered "concrete
injury" from the data breach.

In a response to one class action lawsuit filed by former
employees Michael Corona and Christina Mathis, the studio called
the breach "massive and unprecedented," and even included an FBI
press release attributing it to North Korea.

But in its effort to have the claim quickly dismissed the studio
is not arguing that the attack was unforeseen.  Rather, it is
arguing that the plaintiffs do not have standing.

"There are no allegations of identity theft, no allegations of
fraudulent charges, and no allegations of misappropriation of
medical information," Sony said in a brief filed in U.S. District
Court in Los Angeles.  "Instead, the plaintiffs assert a broad
range of common-law and statutory cases of action based on their
alleged fear of an increased risk of future harm, as well as
expenses they claim to have incurred to prevent that future harm."

Sony contends that the plaintiffs fall short of the requirement
that they suffer "some concrete and particularized injury" before
a lawsuit is filed.  The studio, represented by David C. Marcus --
david.marcus@wilmerhale.com -- and Christopher Casamassima --
chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com -- of Wilmer Hale, also contends
that the plaintiffs' failure to show an injury means they have
insufficient grounds to state a claim for negligence.

The plaintiffs are seeking to have their lawsuit and six other
similar class action claims, all filed by ex-employees in the wake
of the hacking attack, consolidated. U.S. District Judge Gary
Klausner has scheduled a hearing on Feb. 23.

In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argue that Sony failed to take
adequate safeguards to protect their personal information from a
cyber-attack.


STAPLES INC: Delivery Driver Files Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reports that
a Texas delivery driver for Staples has brought a proposed
national class action against the Fortune 500 Company for alleged
overtime and minimum wage violations.

Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
James McCutcheon filed suit against Staples Inc. on Feb. 5 in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division.  In his suit, Mr. McCutcheon alleges Staples forces its
delivery drivers to show up for work at specific times without
having any intention of paying them for time spent waiting for
their trucks to be loaded at the beginning of shifts.

"Plaintiff James McCutcheon files the instant suit on behalf of
all of Staples' Delivery Drivers that have fallen victim to
Staples' wrongful payment practices," the suit states.

"During the past three years, Staples paid Delivery Drivers on an
hourly basis and required Delivery Drivers to report to work at a
specific time each working day.  Staples, however, regularly did
not pay Delivery Drivers minimum or overtime wages for time spent
waiting for trucks to be loaded at the beginning of scheduled work
shifts.  This waiting time occurred frequently and typically
ranged from 10 minutes to 1 hour."

Mr. McCutcheon accuses Staples of "recklessly" failing to
investigate whether its payment practices complied with the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  He is demanding an issuance of notice to all
Staples delivery drivers who were employed the last three years; a
judgment awarding unpaid back wages; and all court costs,
including attorney's fees.

Dallas attorney Jack Siegel of the Sigel Law Group represents him.

Case No. 3:15-cv-00365-N


SUN-TEC INSTALLATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro R. Fernandez and Pedro J. M. Hurtado, on their own
behalf and others similarly situated v. Sun-Tec Installation, Inc.
and Richard Treadwell, Case No. 9:15-cv-80197 (S.D. Fla., February
16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sun-Tec Installation, Inc. is a Florida Profit Corporation that is
in the business of home and commercial solar panel installation
and repair.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maguene Dieudonne Cadet, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A.
      2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
      Boynton Beach, FL 33426
      Telephone: (561) 853-2212
      Facsimile: (561) 853-2213
      E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com


TAKATA CORP: ARA Files Class Action Over Defective Airbags
----------------------------------------------------------
The Automotive Recyclers Association on Feb. 10 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit against Takata Corporation, its
subsidiaries TK Holdings, Inc. and Highland Industries, Inc., and
numerous automotive manufacturers relating to the massive recall
of vehicles containing defective airbags manufactured by Takata.

The ARA brought the class action on behalf of all persons and
entities who operate professional automotive recycling facilities
in the United States who have purchased for resale any of the
vehicles containing undeployed and allegedly defective airbags
manufactured by Takata.  The complaint alleges that Takata and the
Auto Manufacturers withheld and/or misled Automotive Recyclers
about the safety and reliability of the allegedly defective
airbags, which led recyclers to over pay for now worthless
airbags.

According to the complaint, Takata was aware of the airbag defect
as far back as 2004 when it conducted secret tests on several
airbags.

The complaint further alleges that following the disclosure of the
airbag defect, the Automotive Recyclers are not able to sell or
trade these airbags because they are valueless.  The ARA alleges
that it and the Automotive Recyclers had an expectation that
Takata and the Auto Manufacturers would disclose known defects in
a timely manner pursuant to federal, state and common law.  The
failure to properly disclose the defect caused the Automotive
Recyclers to purchase vehicles containing the Takata airbags for
amounts greater than their worth.

The ARA is represented by Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check, LLP.
The complaint was filed in the United State District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

Since 1943, the ARA is an international trade association which
has represented an industry dedicated to the efficient removal and
reuse of automotive parts, and the safe disposal of inoperable
motor vehicles.  The ARA services over 1,000 member companies in
the United States through direct membership and an additional
2,500 other companies in the United States through affiliated
automotive recycling organizations.  The ARA aims to further the
automotive recycling industry through various services and
programs to increase public awareness of the industry's role in
conserving the future through automotive recycling and to foster
awareness of the industry's value as a high quality, low cost
alternative for the automotive consumer. For more information
about the ARA, please visit http://www.a-r-a.org

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country.  The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government
and share in the recovery of government dollars).  The law firm is
a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has
recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors as well as consumers from the United States
and around the world.  For more information about the law firm, or
for additional information about participating in this action,
please visit http://www.ktmc.com

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
(James Maro, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706, or via
e-mail at info@ktmc.com

Alternatively, you may view a list of the vehicles that are
potentially affected by Takata-manufactured airbags and request
more information about the class action online at
http://www.ktmc.com/takata-airbag-recall


TRAILER TRANSIT: Court Dismisses "Walker" Case With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
HUBERT E. WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TRAILER TRANSIT, INC., Defendant, CASE NO.
1:13-CV-00124-TWP-DKL, (S.D. Ind.) is before the court on a motion
for judgment on the pleadings filed by Trailer Transit pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c).

Plaintiff Hubert Walker filed this breach of contract action
against Trailer Transit on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, alleging that Trailer Transit failed to pay
him and other employees the full amount of compensation due under
the terms of equipment lease agreements.

District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt, in an order dated February 19,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/DsQw5bfrom
Leagle.com, granted Trailer Transit's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings.

The Court found that Mr. Walker cannot prove any set of any facts
that would support his claim for relief based upon the allegations
set forth in his Complaint. Mr. Walker's Class Action Complaint is
dismissed with prejudice.

HUBERT E. WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Irwin B. Levin --
ilevin@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP, Richard E. Shevitz
-- rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP & Vess Allen
Miller -- vmiller@cohenandmalad.com -- COHEN & MALAD LLP.

TRAILER TRANSIT, INC., Defendant, represented by Christopher J.
Eckhart -- CECKHART@SCOPELITIS.COM -- SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT
HANSON & FEARY PC, James H. Hanson -- JHANSON@SCOPELITIS.COM --
SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY PC & Robert L. Browning --
RBROWNING@SCOPELITIS.COM -- SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY
PC.


UBER TECH: For-Hire Drivers File Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Roger Lohse, writing for Local10.com, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against the ride sharing apps Uber and Lyft
by a cross section of for-hire drivers who work in Miami-Dade
County.

An attorney representing limousine, taxi shuttle and tour bus
drivers, and their customers claims that when people hop in the
backseat of an Uber or Lyft car, they're putting their lives in
danger.

"We are entitled to get into a car and be safe," said attorney
Ralph Patino.

At a news conference on Feb. 10, Mr. Patino said his clients --
the traditional drivers for-hire -- can't compete with the
ride-sharing apps because they have county licensing, insurance
and inspection costs that Uber and Lyft drivers do not.

"What happens in a situation where there's an accident and that
individual is sitting in the front seat? What recourse do they
have?" Mr. Patino said.

Uber and Lyft provide an umbrella insurance policy covering its
passengers, but Mr. Patino said it's much less coverage than the
county requires his clients to carry.

Cab driver Robert Puente, who is part of the lawsuit, told Local
10 that he put two kids through college driving a taxi but said
the ride-sharing apps have taken a big bite out of his income.

"Uber suddenly shows up and destroys my life," Mr. Puente said.

The lawsuit asks a federal judge to prohibit Uber and Lyft drivers
from providing service in Miami-Dade County and seeks an
unspecified amount of damages.

Uber driver Carlos Vega told Local 10 News that he makes $650
week.  He said he thinks his competitors should focus on improving
their service instead of taking his company to court.

"You have to compete, adapt to the technology.  Do the same and
compete," Mr. Vega said.


UBS AG: Court Dismisses Class Suit Involving Ex-Indonesian VP
-------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge dismissed a class action claiming Swiss banking giant UBS
made billions of dollars by improperly closing accounts of secret
account-holders, including those of a former Indonesian vice
president.

Lead plaintiff AM Trust, the trust of former Indonesian Vice
President Adam Malik, accused Zurich-based UBS in September 2014
of shutting down the accounts of people who died or were absent
for prolonged periods, and of "withholding or destroying internal
records pertaining to these accounts and converting the proceeds
to their own use while wrongfully denying requests for information
and accounting."

The trust also sued the bank's predecessors, Union Bank of
Switzerland and Swiss Bank Corporation.  UBS was formed in 1998
from the merger of the other two banks.

Before his death in 1984, Malik, who was also the 26th president
of the United Nations General Assembly, had more than $5 million
in cash and gold in Union Bank of Switzerland and UBS bank
accounts, the trust said.

Defendant UBS submitted a motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction in November 2014.

In her Jan. 29 order, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled
that the court has no general jurisdiction over a bank that is
incorporated and primarily does business in Switzerland.

"The claims asserted by AM Trust have no connection to the United
States, let alone this forum," the judge said, adding that an
attempt to perform jurisdictional discovery would "be nothing but
a fishing expedition."

She found that the claims of the unnamed class members "are
irrelevant to the specific jurisdiction analysis."

The case was dismissed with prejudice.

The case is AM Trust v. UBS AG, Case No. C 14-4125 PJH, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.


UNION PACIFIC: Supplemental Expert Report Due April 1
-----------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit may file a supplemental expert report to
support their motion for class certification on or before April 1,
2015.

The Company said, "20 rail shippers (many of whom are represented
by the same law firms) filed virtually identical antitrust
lawsuits in various federal district courts against us and four
other Class I railroads in the U.S. Currently, UPRR and three
other Class I railroads are the named defendants in the lawsuit.
The original plaintiff filed the first of these claims in the U.S.
District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007. The number of
complaints reached a total of 30. These suits allege that the
named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing common
fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic.

In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation services, a few of the suits involved plaintiffs
alleging that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail
transportation and sought to represent a purported class of
indirect purchasers of rail transportation services that paid fuel
surcharges. These complaints added allegations under state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.

On November 6, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered that all of the rail fuel surcharge cases be
transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court in
the District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. Following numerous hearings and rulings, Judge
Friedman dismissed the complaints of the indirect purchasers,
which the indirect purchasers appealed.

On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling dismissing the indirect
purchasers' claims based on various state laws.

With respect to the direct purchasers' complaint, Judge Friedman
conducted a two-day hearing on October 6 and 7, 2010, on the class
certification issue and the railroad defendants' motion to exclude
evidence of interline communications. On April 7, 2011, Judge
Friedman issued an order deferring any decision on class
certification until the Supreme Court issued its decision in the
Wal-Mart employment discrimination case.

On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued his decision, which
certified a class of plaintiffs with eight named plaintiff
representatives. The decision included in the class all shippers
that paid a rate-based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant
railroads for rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1,
2003, through December 31, 2008. This was a procedural ruling,
which did not affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs
and does not affect the ability of the railroad defendants to
disprove the allegations made by the plaintiffs. On July 5, 2012,
the defendant railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia requesting that the court
review the class certification ruling. On August 28, 2012, a panel
of the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia referred the
petition to a merits panel of the court to address the issues in
the petition and to address whether the district court properly
granted class certification. The Circuit Court heard oral
arguments on May 3, 2013.

On August 9, 2013, the Circuit Court vacated the class
certification decision and remanded the case to the district court
to reconsider the class certification decision in light of a
recent Supreme Court case and incomplete consideration of errors
in the expert report of the plaintiffs. On October 31, 2013, Judge
Friedman approved a schedule agreed to by all parties for
consideration of the class certification issue on remand.

On October 2, 2014, the plaintiffs informed Judge Friedman that
their economic expert had a previously undisclosed conflict of
interest. Judge Friedman ruled on November 26, 2014, that the
plaintiffs may file a supplemental expert report to support their
motion for class certification. The plaintiffs must file their
supplemental expert report on or before April 1, 2015. The
defendant railroads will then have the opportunity to respond to
the plaintiffs' supplement report. Judge Friedman has not yet set
a new date to hear oral arguments on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.


UNITED STATES: FDA Failed to Act on Risperdal Effects, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thompson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
regulators failed to act on signs that the popular antipsychotic
Risperdal causes teenage boys to grow breasts, a federal complaint
from the law firm Sheller PC alleges.

Sheller notes in the Jan. 29 action that it represents hundreds of
children suing Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary Janssen in
Pennsylvania over serious side effects attributed to the use of
Risperdal, or its generic versions, as well as the newer
schizophrenia treatment Invega.

Claiming that the drugs can cause adolescent males to grow
abnormal breasts, a condition known as gynecomastia, and other
adverse effects on sexual maturation, the law firm says it
petitioned the Food and Drug Administration in 2012 to remove the
pediatric approval of Risperdal or apply a black-box warning about
on the drugs.

Sheller notes that, during the course of its representation of
consumers suing the makers of Risperdal, it acquired certain
confidential documents that establish the drug's danger.

It allegedly cannot produce these documents to the FDA, however,
"because they are subject to confidentiality and protective orders
in those cases."

Sheller said its citizen petition to the FDA implored the agency
to obtain those confidential documents directly from Johnson &
Johnson and Janssen, or to have the drugmakers release Sheller
from the confidentiality orders.  The firm wanted the FDA to hold
a hearing in 2013 on the confidential documents, but the agency
shot down that request in June 2013.

Sheller said the answer "fundamentally" misunderstood the relief
that the firm requested since "the FDA invited Sheller to submit
the Confidential Documents to the FDA by filing them on the public
docket."

In November 2014, after having never given Sheller a reason about
why it would not provide a hearing, the FDA denied the petition
for removal of pediatric indication or a black-box warning.

Sheller says the FDA's arbitrary actions amount to a violation of
the Administrative Procedures Act.  It wants a federal judge to
issue one injunction that either revokes the pediatric indication
of Risperdal or requires the addition of a black-box warning to
the drug's labeling.  The firm wants another injunction granting
it relief with respect to the confidential documents.

Sheller notes that side effects associated with Risperdal cause
pediatric patients to "avoid peers, miss school and forego social
opportunities."

"Having to change clothes for gym class becomes a regularly
schedule torture session," the complaint says.

The sealed documents "describe the risks associated with the
Risperdal Drugs and contradict, complicate, and/or substantially
call into question safety data provided by J&J and/or Janssen to
the FDA," Sheller says.  "The documents are in J&J and/or
Janssen's possession and control, and in many instances were
generated by J&J, Janssen and/or J&J's predecessor or subsidiary
companies."

Risperdal was approved in 2006 for treatment of schizophrenia and
bipolar disorder in children and adolescents.

In a November 2013 guilty plea, Janssen agreed to pay the Justice
Department more than $2.2 billion over its promotion of Risperdal,
Invega and another prescription drug, Natrecor, for uses not
approved as safe and effective by the FDA.

Of that amount, $1.391 billion resolved Risperdal-Invega claims,
Sheller notes, adding that the drugmaker also faced a $400 million
criminal fine.

Johnson and Johnson and Janssen also paid $327 million to South
Carolina 2011, and $158 million to Texas, Sheller says.

The firm is represented in it federal action by

          Robert Palumbos, Esq.
          Andrew Sperl, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          30 South 17th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196
          Telephone: (215) 979-1111
          Facsimile: (215) 689-4940
          E-mail: RMPalumbos@duanemorris.com
                  ARSperl@duanemorris.com


VERITY PARTNERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Barrido, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Verity Partners, Inc. and Robert J. Friezo,
Case No. 9:15-cv-80202 (S.D. Fla., February 17, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount in
liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and to recover reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing computer
network technological services including building, servicing and
maintaining computerized networks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn Logan Birken, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SHAWN L. BIRKEN
      100 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 1300
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
      Telephone: (954) 990-4459
      Facsimile: (954) 990-4469
      E-mail: sbirken@birken-law.com


W.W. GRAINGER: E.D. Cal. Judge Approves Deal in "Torchia" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the Eastern District of
California granted the parties' motion in the case KATHY TORCHIA,
Plaintiff, v. W.W. GRAINGER, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-
01427-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal.)

Kathy Torchia initially filed the action in Kern County Superior
Court but the case was removed by W.W. Grainger, Inc., to this
court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, because the
parties are diverse and the matter in controversy exceeded $5
million.

The Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, in which she
asserts that defendant is liable for (1) failure to pay minimum
wages in violation of Cal. Labor Code Sections 1197, 1194 and
1194.2; (2) failure to pay overtime in violation of Cal. Labor
Code Section 510; (3) failure to provide meal periods or
additional wages in lieu thereof; (4) failure to provide rest
periods or additional wages in lieu thereof; (5) failure to issue
accurate wage statements in violation of Cal. Labor Code Section
226; (6) failure to reimburse employees for business related
expenses in violation of Cal. Labor Code Section 2802; (7) failure
to timely pay wages due to upon termination in violation of Cal.
Labor Code Sections 201, 202 and 203; (8) and violations of
California's unfair competition laws, as set forth in Cal. Bus &
Prof. Code Sec. 17200, et seq. Further, Plaintiff sought penalties
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) for the
alleged Labor Code violations.

The parties engaged in private mediation, which resulted to the
filing of plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
the class settlement and conditional certification of the
settlement class.

The Court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement,
appointed plaintiff as the Class Representative, and authorized
plaintiff to seek an award enhancement up to $20,000 for her
representation of the class. In addition, the Court appointed S.
Brett Sutton and Jared Hague as the Class Counsel, and authorized
Class Counsel to seek fees that did not exceed 33 1/3% of the
gross settlement amount and costs up to $10,000.

The parties seek certification of the Settlement Class and final
approval of the settlement terms. In addition, plaintiff seeks an
award of attorney's fees from the Settlement fund; costs in the
amount of $10,000; and a class representative enhancement.
Defendant does not oppose these requests, and no objections were
filed by class members..

Magistrate Judge Thurston granted final approval of the
settlement.  The plaintiff's request for attorney fees is granted
in the modified amount of 20% of the gross settlement and her
request for an incentive payment is granted in the modified amount
of $7,500.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Thurston's order dated December 29,
2014, is available at http://is.gd/lFUGNafrom Leagle.com.

Kathy Torchia, Plaintiff, represented by Jared Hague --
jared@suttonhague.com -- S Brett Sutton -- brett@suttonhague.com
-- at Sutton Hague Law Corp.

W.W. Grainger, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Ahearn -- chris.ahearn@odnss.com -- Douglas J. Farmer --
douglas.farmer@ogletreedeakins.com  -- at Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart, PC; Henry F. Galatz -- at W.W. Grainger, Inc.

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.c., Douglas J. Farmer,
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC & Henry F. Galatz, W.W.
Grainger, Inc.


WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Herbal Supplement False Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that two women filed a class action lawsuit
against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. on Feb. 4, alleging unfair
competition, false advertising and unfair trade practices related
to the sale of herbal supplements.

Mercedes Taketa, of Livermore, Calif., and Michelle Fine, of
Cooper City, Fla., alleged the labeling on the generic brand name
Spring Valley Brand Gingko Biloba and St. John's Wort supplments,
which are sold at Walmart, do not improve emotional balance and
"mood" health as advertised on their labeling.  The plaintiffs
also alleged that the supplements do not actually contain any
Gingko Biloba or St. John's Wort, and are adulterated with harmful
substances.

The suit was filed during the same week that the New York Attorney
General's Office requested that Wamart stop selling the
supplements.

Arguing that the herbal ingredients' supposed benefits are
unproven, Taketa and Fine seek a corrective advertising campaign,
restitution, damages in the amount of the actual cost to
consumers, attorneys fees and costs.

The plaintiffs and proposed class are represented by Ronald Marron
-- ron@consumersadvocates.com -- and Skye Resendes --
skye@consumersadvocates.com -- of the Law Offices of Ronald A.
Marron, APLC, in San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
No. 4:15-cv-00542


WAL-MART STORES: Sued for Not Paying Assistant Store Managers' OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Wal-Mart stiffs its assistant
store managers for overtime, a class action claims in Alameda
County Court.


WEISS & WEISS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Turner" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Shari Turner and Stuart Turner, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Law Offices of Weiss & Weiss and
John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:15-cv-01070 (S.D.N.Y., February 13,
2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' abusive, deceptive and unfair
practices of collecting debt.

Law Offices of Weiss & Weiss is a law firm with its principle
place of business located at 1 Barker Ave, Third Floor, White
Plains, NY 10601.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Awaits Court Decision on Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
World Acceptance Corporation is awaiting a decision from the Court
on its motion to dismiss a shareholder class action, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 6, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended December 31, 2014.

On April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et
al., in the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606), against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014. The complaint
alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements in
various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of
federal securities laws preceding the Company's disclosure in a
Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received CID from the
CFPB. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified
monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believes
the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend
itself in the matter.

On June 25, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On August 12, 2014, lead plaintiff Operating Engineers
Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund filed an
amended complaint. The amended complaint contains similar
allegations to the original complaint, but expands the class
period and includes additional allegations that the Company's loan
growth and volume figures were inflated because of a weakness in
the Company's internal controls relating to its accounting
treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-financings. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on September 16,
2014.

On October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a response in opposition
to the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The
Company filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss on
November 17, 2014 and is awaiting a decisions from the Court on
its motion to dismiss.


WYANDOTTE, KANSAS: Dist. Court Approves Deal in "Jackson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrell Jackson, Randall Chapman, and Mable Estes filed a class
action asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for
declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant Donald Ash, in
his official capacity as Sheriff of Wyandotte County, Kansas.
Plaintiffs, individually and respectively on behalf of other
inmates or their outside correspondents similarly situated, allege
that Defendant's postcard-only mail policy violates the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Court
preliminarily approved the parties' proposed Settlement Agreement
and Consent Decree.

After notice to class members and a fairness hearing, District
Judge Eric F. Melgren considered the Agreement for final approval
and entry. Because the Court found the Agreement to be fair,
reasonable, and adequate, Judge Melgren approved and adopted the
Agreement.

The Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed with prejudice, Judge Melgren
further ruled.

A copy of the Court's February 20, 2015 memorandum and order is
available at http://is.gd/QtG7qKfrom Leagle.com.

TYRELL JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD ASH, in his official
capacity as Sheriff for Wyandotte County, Kansas, Defendant, CASE
NO. 13-2504-EFM-JPO, (D. Kan.)

Tyrell Jackson, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua A.
Glickman -- josh@sjlawcollective.com -- Social Justice Law
Collective, PL & Stephen D. Bonney -- dbonney@aclukswmo.org --
ACLU Foundation of Kansas.

Randall Chapman, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua A.
Glickman, Social Justice Law Collective, PL & Stephen D. Bonney,
ACLU Foundation of Kansas.

Mable Estes, on behalf of herself and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Joshua A.
Glickman, Social Justice Law Collective, PL & Stephen D. Bonney,
ACLU Foundation of Kansas.

Donald Ash, in his official capacity as Sheriff for Wyandotte
County, Kansas, Defendant, represented by Henry E. Couchman, Jr.,
Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Patrick M.
Waters, Unified Government of Wyandotte County & Ryan Patrick
Haga, Unified Government of Wyandotte County.


YAVONE LLC: Sued in D. Oregon Over Illegal Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kassie Merritt, individually and behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Yavone LLC, Healthy Choice Labs, LLC, and Global
Pro System, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00269 (D. Or., February 16,
2015), arises out of the Defendants deceptive practice of
enrolling consumers in a monthly subscription their supplement so
that they can impose recurring and sometimes endless monthly
charges onto their credit card or bank statements.

The Defendants manufacture and distribute nutraceutical supplement
under the name Simply Garcinia Cambogia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darian A. Stanford, Esq.
      R. Hunter Bitner II, Esq.
      SLINDE NELSON STANFORD
      111 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1940
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 417-7777
      Facsimile: (503) 417-4250
      E-mail: darian@slindenelson.com
              hunter@slindenelson.com


ZIPCAR INC: Court Refuses to Junk Suit Over Excessive Late Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge refused to dismiss a class action accusing Zipcar
of charging excessive late fees of $50 an hour, reports Katherine
Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Gabriela Bayol claimed that the company's late fee of $50 per
hour, up to $150, violates the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the
Unfair Competition Law because it sets liquidated damages in a
consumer contract.

She claims that the fees are unconscionable and unfair, because
"they are included in a contract of adhesion and are unreasonably
favorable to Zipcar."

She also claims that "it would not be impracticable to calculate
Zipcar's actual damages when a car is returned late, that Zipcar
did not conduct a reasonable endeavor to estimate its actual
damages, and that the late fees imposed bear no reasonable
relation to Zipcar's actual damages."

U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson on Jan. 29 denied Zipcar's
motion to dismiss.

Zipcar claimed that its late fees are not liquidated damages and
that Bayol's factual allegations are insufficient.

But Henderson found that Bayol had demonstrated that the late fees
are liquidated damages and said that "it will be Zipcar's burden,
going forward, to demonstrate the validity of these fees."

Henderson said that Bayol's allegations are "plausible enough to
proceed to discovery."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William P. Donovan Jr., Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          1333 2nd Street, Suite 400
          Santa Monica, CA 90401
          Telephone: (310) 883-6435
          E-mail: wdonovan@cooley.com

The case is Gabriela Bayol v. Zipcar, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-
02483-TEH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


* New York Court Allows Debt Collection Lawsuits to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
lawsuits aimed at stopping debt collectors from using fraudulent
means to collect money can proceed on behalf of a larger class of
potential victims, a federal appeals court said on Feb. 10 in a
case watched closely by consumer groups.

The decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan
came on a 2-to-1 vote.  Judge Dennis Jacobs dissented, saying
class-action status will benefit lawyers but leave trivial
benefits for consumers.

The lawsuits pertain to consumers who were subjected to nearly
50,000 default judgments from a New York City court during a
three-year period.  The lawsuits claim that a debt collection
company, a law firm and a process-serving company created a
"default judgment mill" that relied on fraud to obtain favorable
court rulings.

Lawyers for defendants did not immediately comment.

Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, an attorney for plaintiffs, called the
ruling a "significant victory for our clients and for all low-
income New Yorkers victimized by abusive debt collection
lawsuits."

He said the appeals decision would provide "a blueprint" for
others who bring similar lawsuits nationwide.

Meanwhile, Mr. Brinckerhoff said, attorneys in New York were
looking "forward to securing real relief for hundreds of thousands
of New Yorkers who have suffered as a result of defendants'
unscrupulous practices."

The appeals decision stemmed from a series of lawsuits brought by
individuals who were sued by debt collection businesses in New
York City Civil Court between 2006 and 2010.

The 2nd Circuit noted that the plaintiffs said the defendants
obtained default judgments even though none of the defendants was
ever notified that a debt was being pursued in court.

The lawsuits maintained that default judgments were obtained
through false claims that the plaintiffs were notified of a
pending court case and fraudulent documents submitted to back up
the claims.

A lower-court ruling had found common injuries to plaintiffs --
including the freezing of personal bank accounts and the incurring
of legal costs to challenge default judgments -- supported their
right to proceed as a class on behalf of others who might come
forward to say they were victimized.

Among legal papers supporting the plaintiffs filed with the 2nd
Circuit were arguments by AARP, the National Association of
Consumer Advocates and the National Consumer Law Center also
submitted arguments.

AARP said it was "greatly concerned about fraudulent and abusive
practices being used to collect stale and invalid debt, to which
older people are especially vulnerable."

"Many older people believe they will go to jail if summoned to
court on an alleged debt," the group's lawyers wrote.

"Older people are more easily distressed by the threat of a court
judgment against them, and many believe that they will lose their
homes, pensions or bank accounts if they are sued by a debt
collector.  As a result, older people often feel coerced into
paying debts they had already paid in full or never owed in the
first place, such as debts of a deceased loved one," they added.


                       Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Football Hero Fears Cancer Due to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------
Warren Manger, writing for Mirror.co.uk, reported that football
hero Stuart Pearce fears he may get lung cancer from asbestos
exposure when he worked as an electrician.

The ex-England star spent four years re-wiring homes, schools and
factories before turning pro.  But he was never told asbestos,
then common in buildings, can cause incurable mesothelioma if
inhaled.

"The chances I worked with asbestos while an apprentice are high,"
said the Nottingham Forest manager, 52.

"We were briefed on safety hats and boots but I don't recall
asbestos mentioned once. It's chilling to think of the risks we
were exposed to.

Sending workers into a building with asbestos without warning of
the dangers was asking for trouble."

On average 20 workers die from asbestos-related diseases each
week, yet 1.3 million tradespeople are still at risk of exposure
to the dust.

Pearce was an apprentice electrician with Brent council, London,
in the early 1980s before he became a professional footballer at
21.  He is now backing the Health and Safety Executive campaign
Every Job Beware Asbestos.

"It's shocking that people are still being exposed to asbestos
today without realising it," he said.

"Many people think it's a thing of the past. It's not -- it's
still here. There's no excuse for that."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Loose-Fill Fibro Home Identified in NSW Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that the first house to test positive for
potentially deadly loose-fill asbestos as part of the New South
Wales Government's free testing program has been identified.  The
house is located in the southern Riverina, within the Berrigan
Shire Council area.

In a statement, the NSW Government said a free independent
technical assessment by a licensed asbestos assessor had been
offered to the property owners.

"[This] will advise if living spaces are well sealed and the
asbestos pathways appropriately controlled," the statement said.

More than 1,000 houses across Canberra, and an unknown number of
properties in NSW, were pumped with loose-fill asbestos by up to
three companies, including the operator known as Mr Fluffy.

The NSW Government has been offering free asbestos testing for
homeowners across 26 local government areas, with more than 630
properties tested.  Another 1,100 properties have been registered
to be tested.

Between 300 and 1,000 homes in New South Wales were thought to
have been contaminated with loose-fill asbestos.  The Queanbeyan
City Council has estimated about 60 houses in the area could
contain loose-fill asbestos.  Late last year the NSW Government
followed the ACT's lead by announcing it would knock down all
buildings insulated with loose fill asbestos.  The clean-up cost
in the ACT was expected to be around $1 billion, and hundreds of
millions of dollars in NSW.

The NSW Government has promised financial assistance for affected
families, at the same level of assistance available for those in
the ACT.  The Loose Fill Asbestos Insulation Taskforce has also
been established to look at the best way of tackling the clean up,
and will its findings in May.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firefighters Repeat Fibro Warning After Fire
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Eve, writing for Plymouth Herald, reported that firefighters
have repeated their warning about derelict buildings contaminated
with asbestos after a fire at a West Hoe hotel, in England.  Crews
from Greenbank and Crownhill had to force their way into the
Quality Hotel after reports of a fire in the escape stairwell.
Witnesses said they saw flames on the ground floor and smoke
billowing from several floors.

Witness Rob Jones said he spoke to two other men who claimed they
had heard a loud bang before seeing the flames.  Rob, aged 36,
from Plymouth said: "I was on the Hoe and I smelled smoke. I
thought it was unusual so I came over and saw orange flames.

"I saw smoke billowing out the front right hand corner, all the
way up to the seventh floor. The bottom windows were boarded up
and it took the firefighters a few minutes to smash their way
through with sledgehammers. They were then searching the rooms --
you could see the flashlights inside, scanning each room.

"It's a worry, because it's derelict. If the firefighters hadn't
got in when they did the whole building could have gone up."

Station Manager Mark O'Kane, Hazmat (hazardous materials) officer
repeated the warning the fire service issued just week about the
West Hoe hotel after a 16-year-old girl was stuck on the first
floor roof canopy which covers the entrance lobby. It is believed
she had got into the building via a broken window. Firefighters
from Greenbank fire station had to use a ladder to help her to
safety.

At the time, a senior firefighter said the girl had been "exposed
to asbestos particles which have been released into the
atmosphere. Asbestos has a very serious health risks to anyone
coming into contact with the substance."

At the fire, three fire appliances, plus the aerial platform was
deployed along with lighting rigs. Police blocked off both ends of
Leigham Street as fire crews carried out their work.

Station manager O'Kane said: "We sent in BA [breathing apparatus]
teams who searched the premises to make sure there was nobody in
there. All of our crews had to be decontaminated afterwards due to
asbestos.

"When we arrived the fire was going pretty well on the ground
floor and had spread to the first floor. There was significant
smoke-logging up the centre of the building.

"We would strongly advice against entering the building. There's a
risk due to the asbestos which we only recently hightlighted."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Clarifies Cutoff for Fibro Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Forward, writing for WisBar.com, reported that Donald Peter
was "exposed" to asbestos decades before the exposure manifested
itself through mesothelioma. Recently, a state appeals court ruled
that Peter's claims for "damages" would be too late under the
state's statute of repose, but can continue since the defendant
was not engaged in improvements to real property.

Donald was a maintenance machinist at Pabst Brewery in Milwaukee
and worked at Pabst's Bottle House for more than 36 years,
starting in 1959.

Until 1979, Pabst contracted with Sprinkmann Sons Corporation to
install, maintain, and repair asbestos insulation at the facility.
After Donald was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2012, he sued
Sprinkmann, alleging exposure to Sprinkmann's asbestos products
caused the injury. Donald died in 2013, and his estate added a
wrongful death claim.

Sprinkmann filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming
Sprinkmann's products did not cause the injuries and Wisconsin's
construction statute of repose, Wis. Stat. section 893.89, barred
the claims because Donald's alleged "damages" accrued too late.

Under the construction statute of repose, a plaintiff has 10 years
after substantial completion of the real property improvement
project to commence an action to recover damages for injuries
against persons involved in the improvement to real property.

The time bar doesn't apply to "damages" that were sustained before
April 29, 1994, the effective date of Wisconsin's construction
statute of repose. Donald argued that his "damages" -- exposure to
asbestos -- were sustained long before 1994.

But in in Peter v. Sprinkmann Sons Corp., 2014AP923 (Jan. 27,
2014), a three-judge panel for the District I Court of Appeals
interpreted "damages" to mean "legally actionable damages." The
panel ruled that "exposure" to asbestos did not give rise to
"damages," his mesothelioma diagnosis did, and that did not occur
until 2012.

The panel noted that some circuits in Wisconsin have ruled that
"exposure" is the triggering event, so pre-1994 exposure, if
proven, gives rise to claims that are not barred. But other
circuits have ruled that "damages" means "legally actionable
damages." The panel adopted the latter interpretation of the word
"damages."

The panel, in an opinion by Reserve Judge Thomas Cane, explained
that "this interpretation may seem harsh to asbestos plaintiffs
who will not even know they have a claim until long after the
statute of repose has barred their action," but noted that
crafting asbestos-related exceptions to time bars is the function
of the legislature.

Case Lives On: No Improvement to Real Property

Although Donald's "legally actionable damages" would be time
barred, the panel ruled that summary judgment was not appropriate
because Sprinkmann was not engaged in the improvement of real
property, which is necessary for the statute of repose to apply.

Section 893.89 puts a 10-year time limitation on actions against
persons involved in the improvement of real property. The clock
starts when the real property project is substantially complete.
But the panel explained why the statute doesn't apply here.

"Here, the evidence shows that Sprinkmann had an employee working
at Pabst on a daily basis doing regular, daily repairs to the
insulation on the machinery pipes," wrote Judge Cane wrote for the
panel. "These repairs were not permanent additions. Rather, they
were maintenance done to keep the pipes in proper condition."

The panel noted that the initial installation of insulation may
have been an improvement to real property, but Donald claimed
exposure to asbestos that was disturbed through daily maintenance
of insulated pipes and equipment by Sprinkmann employees.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Strengthens Rejection of Exposure Theory
---------------------------------------------------------------
James J.A. Mulhall and Cara N. Parcell, writing for The National
Law Review, reported that an en banc panel of the Pennsylvania
Superior Court recently rejected a $14.5 million jury verdict
because the trial court improperly admitted testimony in support
of the so-called "every breath" theory of asbestos exposure.

A jury had awarded the $14.5 million verdict to Darlene Nelson,
executrix of the estate of James Nelson, in 2010.  The defendants
appealed the case on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to meet
a standard of causation. While the case was on appeal, the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided the landmark 2012 decision in
Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC, which rejected the theory that "every
breath" of exposure to asbestos was a cause of mesothelioma.

Based on Betz, the en banc majority determined that expert
testimony in the Nelson case asserting that every exposure to
asbestos must be considered a cause of mesothelioma was improperly
admitted.  The en banc majority ordered a new trial on the
question of liability.

A dissenting opinion argued that Betz and the Nelson case differed
in that the plaintiffs in Nelson could establish exposure even
without the "any exposure" theory.  The dissent observed that the
court's holding in Nelson could spell the end for a considerable
portion of asbestos cases involving more than a de minimis
exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found by Police Union Clears Office
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Nickerson, writing for Stamford Advocate, reported that
asbestos tests paid for by the police union membership in
Stamford, Connecticut, have led to the evacuation of the first-
floor offices of the Narcotics and Organized Crime Unit inside
police headquarters.

The tests performed earlier in January found asbestos fibers in
each of the five locations tested in different parts of the
building, according to a report by the testing service Big East
Environmental of Norwalk.

But none of the other samples compared to the numbers found in the
Narcotics and Organized Crime Unit's office, the report said. The
report said 88,200 asbestos fibers per square centimeter were
found on a five-inch by five-inch area on a shelf behind a
television in the drug squad's offices.

Assistant Chief Timothy Shaw said after the test results were
received, the department voluntarily moved the dozen or so
officers in the unit out of their offices, and squad members are
using other parts of the building.

"Based on results, we are speaking to experts in the state to
better understand what they mean and remedy the situation," Shaw
said. He added that as long as the results of air testing in the
building remain stable, the federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration has deemed the building safe for occupancy.

The last round of tests measuring the amount of asbestos in the
air showed little if any was airborne. Of the 12 to 15 locations
tested, only one area in the firearms room was found to have any
particles in the air, and the amount was so low that it did not
meet the abatement clearance criteria, Shaw said. OSHA has ordered
quarterly testing of the air in the building.

For the past couple of months since the severity of the asbestos
problem came to light, city officials have begun looking for a new
location for the department. A contractor updating the heating and
ventilation system in the department found asbestos in May 2014,
calling a halt to the project for months. Federal regulators have
since fined the city and demanded it clean up exposed debris.

Chief Jon Fontneau has said remediation would be "throwing good
money after bad," and the department has long ago outgrown the
building anyway, regardless of the health and other problems with
it.

Shaw, who worked in the narcotics and organized crime office for
years when he headed the squad, said he is working with the city
on a work order so the offices can be professionally cleaned.

Stamford police union President Todd Lobraico said that his
membership was so concerned about the amount of dust around their
work stations and knowing that there was an asbestos problem in
the building, they decided to spend $1,200 themselves to get the
independent tests completed by Big East.

"We were very surprised at the positive test results and even more
concerned with how the (particles) got into our work space,"
Lobraico said. He said that asbestos-containing plaster used to
make the ceilings in the older part of the 59-year-old building
appears to be flaking off and falling onto the newer drop ceilings
below, and some of that asbestos is migrating through the tiles
and into the work areas.

OSHA has prohibited anyone from raising or getting into any of the
drop-ceiling tiles in the older part of the building.

Steve DiNapoli, environmental professional for Big East, said the
levels of asbestos contamination in the narcotics office is almost
high enough to indicate that some asbestos building materials have
been disturbed sometime in the past, at least since that area was
cleaned last. During a telephone interview, DiNapoli said the area
behind the television where the sample was taken did not look
excessively dirty or abandoned.

In his report on the testing at police headquarters, DiNapoli
suggested getting an asbestos abatement contractor into the
building to decontaminate the narcotics office.

Four other tests in different parts of the building -- Youth
Services, the west male locker room, the extra duty office and
crimes against persons office -- also turned up asbestos, but not
in any alarming quantity, DiNapoli said. The asbestos fiber
concentrations in those offices were below state Department of
Public Health's guidelines for background concentrations, his
report said.

"For a building of that age, with known asbestos containing
materials in it, it is not a surprise whatsoever," said DiNapoli,
adding that the EPA says there is no safe level of exposure to
asbestos.

Shaw, said that the department is developing an asbestos
management program for the structure, built in 1995.

"We are taking this very seriously for the membership, and we are
keeping everyone informed as best we can," Shaw said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Forces Closure of Childcare Center
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Pereyra Garcia, writing for One News, reported that a
childcare center in Upper Hutt, New Zealand, has closed and
neighbours are concerned after asbestos was discovered in a
building being demolished on their street.

The 1976 building was sold in December and is being demolished to
make way for a five property subdivision.

Upper Hutt City Council spokesman Richard Harbord says the
demolition did not require a consent and the onus of public safety
falls on the building's owner.

Owner, Phil Delaney, says his staff checked council records and
there was no mention of asbestos.  He says he's sorry for what has
happened.

Parents and staff of the Marlborough Street Childcare Centre next
door to Mr Delaney's development are concerned about the asbestos
risk.  Demolition began on Jan. 25.  WorkSafe visited the site on
Jan. 29 and issued a prohibition notice.

Tests came back positive for asbestos.

Work on the site has stopped until the asbestos can be safely
cleared away and children from the centre have been sent home.
But Jessica Venning-Bryan, whose three-year-old attends the
centre, is disappointed this could happen.

And she's frustrated it took so long for testing to be done.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Garlock Reaches $358-Mil. Fibro Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that a
$358 million asbestos settlement has been announced by a company
that was facing bankruptcy. The settlement involves future
asbestos claimants with claims against Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC. Of the amount provided, $250 million will be
contributed when the company's reorganization plan is put into
effect and $77.5 million will be contributed over the next seven
years.

The settlement was reportedly negotiated with Joe Grier, who was
appointed by the courts to represent future asbestos claimants.
According to Forbes (1/14/15), current plaintiffs are seeking more
than $1 billion from Garlock. The settlement could represent an
issue between current and future asbestos claimants. Current
plaintiffs are those who have already become ill and filed a
lawsuit. Future claimants -- those affected by this settlement --
are those who may not yet be ill but will be and will file a
lawsuit once they are diagnosed. Claims made in the future can be
affected by the results of current lawsuits.

Money has also been set aside to cover claimants who refuse the
settlement offer and file a lawsuit instead.

Forbes reports that Garlock has filed a lawsuit against five
asbestos law firms, alleging plaintiffs' lawyers hid evidence that
their clients were exposed to asbestos from other sources so they
could obtain higher awards and settlements from Garlock,
especially since the other companies had already declared
bankruptcy. According to Reuters (1/21/15), one plaintiff told his
lawyer he was exposed to 14 different asbestos products, but
presented contradictory evidence in his lawsuit.

Plaintiffs' lawyers have denied any wrongdoing.

Asbestos litigation is typically long and complicated for a
variety of reasons. First, it can take decades for illnesses
associated with asbestos exposure -- including mesothelioma and
asbestosis -- to develop. Second, plaintiffs who were exposed to
asbestos may have been exposed in a variety of settings and
situations. Those who worked as plumbers or as mechanics, for
example, may have worked a variety of jobs hired by multiple
employers where they were exposed to asbestos. They may also have
been exposed to different types of asbestos from different
manufacturers, making it difficult to pinpoint which exposure was
the most significant cause of the asbestos-related illness.

Asbestos lawsuits filed by some plaintiffs have named dozens of
defendants including employers and manufacturers.

The current asbestos claimants' lawsuit is In re: Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC, case number 3:10-bk-31607, in US Bankruptcy
Court for the Western District of North Carolina.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Harrowsmith Business, Supervisor Fined $29,000
---------------------------------------------------------------
Recovery Abatement & Insulation Ltd., a Harrowsmith, Ontario,
business that conducts asbestos abatement, has pleaded guilty and
has been fined $25,000 after workers were exposed to asbestos dust
on a job site. A supervisor, Gregory Simpson, pleaded guilty to
failing to ensure workers used protective clothing and equipment,
and was fined $4,000.

On May 15, 2014, three workers were on the site of a single-family
home at 150 Harvard Place in Amherstview. The work was an asbestos
abatement project and the area where the abatement work was being
conducted was enclosed. In the enclosed area, removal of certain
asbestos containing materials had occurred and there was an
asbestos dust hazard present.

That afternoon a Ministry of Labour inspector attended at the
location to conduct an inspection.  During the inspection the
inspector found one of the workers exiting the enclosed area of
the project wearing street clothing. The inspector subsequently
found another worker inside the enclosed area, securing bags
filled with asbestos-containing material; that worker was also not
wearing protective clothing. The third worker was also observed in
the enclosed area performing clean-up work while not wearing
protective clothing.

Asbestos can cause respiratory illness and cancers if inhaled or
ingested. Asbestos-containing material is not generally considered
harmful unless it is disturbed and released into the air. There is
potential for harm when workers and others are exposed to even
small amounts of asbestos.

Recovery Abatement & Insulation Ltd. pleaded guilty to
contravening Section 15.14 of Ontario Regulation 278/05
(Designated Substance -- Asbestos on Construction Projects and in
Buildings and Repair Operations). The regulation states that only
persons wearing protective clothing and equipment should enter a
work area where there is an asbestos dust hazard. The business was
fined $25,000 by Justice of the Peace Deanne L. Chappell in
Provincial Offences Court in Napanee on January 21, 2015.

Supervisor Gregory Simpson pleaded guilty to failing as a
supervisor to ensure that a worker worked in the manner and with
the protective devices, measures and procedures required by the
regulation, was fined $4,000.

In addition to the fines, the court imposed a 25-per-cent victim
fine surcharge as required by the Provincial Offences Act. The
surcharge is credited to a special provincial government fund to
assist victims of crime.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenn. Court Sentences 5 for Fibro Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
E. Lynn Grayson, writing for Association of Corporate Counsel,
reported that U.S. District Judge Ronnie Greer sentenced five
people to prison terms in federal court in Greeneville, Tennessee,
for conspiring to commit Clean Air Act offenses in connection with
the illegal removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials
at the former Liberty Fibers Plant in Hamblen County, Tennessee,
the Justice Department announced. A&E Salvage had purchased the
plant out of bankruptcy in order to salvage metals which remained
in the plant after it ceased operations.

U.S. District Judge Greer sentenced Mark Sawyer, 55, of
Morristown, Tennessee, a former manager of A&E Salvage, to the
statutory maximum of five years in prison, to be followed by two
years of supervised release. A&E Salvage manager Newell Lynn
Smith, 59, of Miami, Florida, was sentenced to 37 months and two
years of supervised release. A&E Salvage Manager Eric Gruenberg,
50, of Lebanon, Tennessee, received a 28-month sentence. Armida,
56, and Milto DiSanti, 54, of Miami, Florida, each received
sentences of six months in prison, to be followed by six months of
home confinement. The judge ordered all the defendants to pay
restitution of more than $10.3 million, which will be returned to
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund, which was used
to clean up the plant site contamination.

According to court documents, all the defendants pleaded guilty to
one criminal felony count for conspiring to violate the Clean Air
Act's "work practice standards" salient to the proper stripping,
bagging, removal and disposal of asbestos. According to the EPA,
the individuals engaged in a multi-year scheme in which
substantial amounts of regulated asbestos containing materials
were removed the former Liberty Fibers plant without removing all
asbestos prior to demolition and stripping, bagging, removing and
disposing of such asbestos in illegal manners and without
providing workers the necessary protective equipment.

While managing asbestos in renovations and demolition projects can
be challenging from an environmental and worker safety
perspective, there clearly is a right way to do it and a wrong
way. This case serves as a good reminder that taking shortcuts to
save time and/or money has significant consequences.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manager Pleads Guilty in Fibro Removal from Bldg
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne-Kathryn Flanagan, writing for Myrtle Beach Online, reported
that a New Jersey project manager pleaded guilty in federal court
in Charleston to lying to inspectors about asbestos removal from a
former federal building.

Albert Dickson, 61, entered a guilty plea to making a false
statement under the Clean Water Act, according to Assistant U.S.
Attorney Winston David Holliday Jr.

Dickson was the project manager overseeing renovation of the L.
Mendel River Federal Building in Charleston during the spring and
early summer of 2011, Holliday said. SC Department of Health and
Environmental Control (DHEC) inspectors visited the site in June
and notices asbestos violations, including sweeping asbestos-
containing materials down open drains.

Dickson indicated that a filtration system had been in place at
the time of inspections, according to Holliday. Evidence showed
that it had not been installed until after June 6, 2011, when the
violations were observed.

The maximum plenalty for making a false statement under the Clean
Water Act is two year in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers to Remove Fibro Tiles at Miller Library
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Ramunni, writing for New Haven Register, reported that as
part of the ongoing renovations at Miller Memorial Library, in
Hamden, Connecticut, work is expected to begin as to remove tiling
that contains asbestos, though it likely won't be done while the
library is open and the area will be partitioned off from the
public.

As part of the renovation project, the town had a firm go in and
inspect the floors, Chief Administrative Officer Curt Balzano Leng
said, and in that inspection it was found that tiles in a few
areas contained the hazardous materials. But the amount is so low
that it's not required they be removed, Leng said. Testing put the
amount of asbestos in the tiles at about 3 percent, he said.

Initially it was found in three areas off the Children's Room, he
said, and in two adjacent rooms. More was later found in a
custodian storage closet, he said.

When the report on the inspections came back, it showed that 97
percent of the vinyl tile material is asbestos-free, he said,
while 3 percent showed indications of asbestos.

"We will abate these and remove them in a safe and enclosed area,"
he said. "They have protocols for these things."

Though not required, the town decided to do the work now rather
than later. Several decades down the line, when more work could be
done on the building, it could become a bigger issue, Leng said,
so it was decided to remove them now and get it over with.

The tiles that are being removed aren't allowed to be used here
anymore, but they're not banned everywhere, according to Art
Giulietti, the town's risk manager.

"In Canada, they're still using these tiles. They still use what
isn't allowed here," he said. "We are being proactive and doing
more than we have to do."

The work is expected to cost a bit over $7.000, he said.

"We did the test our of our own choice because we wanted to see
what was there," Leng said.

The area will be contained and blocked off from the public, Leng
said. "We want to do the work before or after library hours," he
said.

There's already been a lot of work done at the town's flagship
library, including a new roof that is almost done, a new
Children's Section and renovation of space that the Hamden
Historical Society has moved into. Plans for future improvements
include redoing the information and checkout areas, Leng said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Plead Guilty to Fibro Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
David Wren, writing for The Post and Courier, reported that saying
he was set up by a disgruntled former employee, the project
manager for an asbestos removal project at the former L. Mendel
Rivers Federal Building, in Charleston, South Carolina, admitted
that he lied about whether his company followed strict legal
requirements designed to protect the environment.

Albert Dickson, 61, pleaded guilty in federal court to a charge of
knowingly making a false statement on a document required to be
filed under the Clean Water Act. The charge carries a maximum two-
year prison sentence and a maximum fine of $10,000. Dickson, who
lives in New York, will be sentenced at a later date.

According to information filed in the case, Dickson told
investigators with the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental
Control that a water filtration system had been installed at the
federal building to prevent asbestos from getting into the city's
sewer system. Investigators learned that the filtration system
wasn't installed until after they had questioned Dickson during a
surprise inspection prompted by an anonymous complaint.

Investigators, during the surprise inspection conducted June 6,
2011, found open drains to the sewer system filled with asbestos
material. DHEC issued a stop-work order to Dickson's employer,
Gramercy Group Inc., the next day. Gramercy later was allowed to
return and finished the project that fall.

Dickson told Judge Michael Duffy that while he lied to inspectors,
he ultimately was set up by a subcontractor.

"I do believe the job was sabotaged when the inspector was called
in," Dickson said during the court hearing.

Bart Daniel, Dickson's lawyer, said a subcontractor was fired the
same day the anonymous complaint was filed with DHEC and Dickson
believes the fired employee made the call. Daniel said that when
inspectors showed up to investigate the complaint, Dickson was
surprised to find the top floor of the building "looked like a war
zone," with asbestos ripped off the walls and stuffed into drains.

"That was the first time Mr. Dickson had any knowledge that kind
of conduct was going on," Daniel said. "He was sabotaged by a
subcontractor. It was a set-up."

Duffy said he believes Dickson's story, calling it "an unfortunate
situation," and asked whether DHEC took any action against the
subcontractors.

Daniel told the judge that most of the subcontractors were day
laborers with falsified asbestos removal licenses. Once the stop-
work order was issued, "they scattered," Daniel said.

Dickson said water containing asbestos material previously was
handled properly because it was collected and then filtered before
being poured down the drain. He admitted, however, that there was
no formal filtration process in place until after investigators
questioned him. The investigation report in which Dickson made the
false statement was included in DHEC's file as part of its
oversight of the project.

DHEC spokeswoman Cassandra Harris told The Post and Courier that
the asbestos project did not pose a public health hazard.

"The sewer system where the discharge took place is a closed
system that was not accessible to the public," Harris said, adding
that "the operators of the sanitary sewer system could implement
any necessary precautionary measures."

The building at 334 Meeting St., across from Marion Square, was
shut down in 1999 after Hurricane Floyd flooded the structure,
damaged roofs and disrupted asbestos in the ceilings.

Dewberry Capital, a development firm based in Atlanta, bought the
seven-story structure for $15 million in a government auction in
early 2008, and the city approved plans to convert it into an
upscale hotel in early 2010. Construction of the hotel began last
fall and is expected to be completed by the end of this year.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canadian Ministry Probes Sudbury Fibro Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sudbury Star reported that the Canadian Ministry of Labour is
continuing to investigate an asbestos complaint at Sudbury
Hospital Services that was made earlier in January.

The company, which supplies laundry and dishwashing services for
Health Sciences North, began removing asbestos from the building
that is about 45 years old.

The ministry dispatched an investigator and a hygienist to
investigate, and work is still being done to make the area safe,
said Labour ministry spokesman William Lin.  He wouldn't give more
details about the incident.

The ministry issued a stop work order Jan. 14 to the company,
which employs about 60 people, restricting access to the affected
area.

Jan. 16, it issued an order for the company to establish
procedures for training staff on how to deal with the hazards of
asbestos.

Only workers trained and wearing appropriate personal protective
equipment are allowed to enter the affected area to start the
boiler as required, it says in a second order.

The company was also ordered to inspect material described in the
asbestos management plan at reasonable intervals and to update
that plan.  The company was to complete the orders about
procedures and protective equipment by Feb. 13.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Company Demolishing Plant Fined Over Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that company that's tearing down the
former Bryan Foods complex in West Point, Mississippi, is paying a
civil fine for failing to control for asbestos.

Kohart Surplus and Salvage has agreed to pay $7,500 to the
Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, as well as to
hire a certified contractor to remove or abate debris on the site
that contains asbestos. The department discovered asbestos
problems in a March 2013 inspection at the former meat packing
plant, and says Kohart started work without checking for asbestos

The agreement says Kohart, based in Paulding, Ohio, can't restart
demolition until it takes care of the asbestos. Under the
settlement, Kohart asked to have until the end of 2015 to remove
the asbestos, saying it couldn't afford to meet the original
Dec. 31, 2014, deadline.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Claims Drag on Insurance Industry Earnings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Lerner, writing for Business Insurance, reported that
outstanding asbestos liabilities continue to drag on insurance
industry earnings, although the liabilities are predominantly
well-managed.  In addition, slow and minor positive changes in the
litigation environment have further improved the situation,
insurance analysts say.

In a recent report covering the insurance industry's outstanding
asbestos liabilities, "U.S. Insurers Continue Funding of A&E
Liabilities Despite Elusive End Game," A.M. Best Co. Inc. puts its
estimate of net asbestos losses for the U.S property/casualty
industry at $85.0 billion.

The industry has funded just over 90% of its aggregate asbestos
and environmental liability exposures, according to Best, leaving
an unfunded asbestos liability of $6.7 billion.

This jibes with estimates from Fitch Ratings Inc., which said in
its 2014 U.S. Asbestos Liability

Dashboard that it "estimates U.S. property/casualty industry
statutory asbestos reserves to be deficient by $2 billion to $9
billion at year-end 2013, based on estimated ultimate industry
losses of $85 billion, total paid losses of $53 billion and
current reserves totaling $23 billion."

"Industry reserves are inadequate," said Jim Auden, Chicago-based
managing director of insurance at Fitch.

Mr. Auden added that industry asbestos losses have totaled around
$2 billion per year over the last five years and are likely to
come in at about that level or a little lower for 2014, although
final tallies are not yet available.

At that level, he said, asbestos losses remain a drag on company
earnings for those with asbestos exposures. Most companies,
however, "have the ability to absorb those losses as they flow
through," he said.

"Most of the larger companies remain strongly capitalized and have
the ability to absorb recurring moderate asbestos-related losses,"
Mr. Auden said.

In the early 2000s, there were a few instances of companies
reporting charges in excess of $500 million for asbestos
liabilities, something unlikely to be repeated in today's market,
said Mr. Auden.

Tracy Dolin, New York-based director of North American insurance
financial services ratings for Standard & Poor's Corp., agreed
that the outstanding asbestos liabilities are less of an issue now
than a decade or more ago. "A number of years ago we were
concerned, but our concern has since subsided," she said.

Gerard Altonji, who authored the Best report, pointed out that
some companies with major asbestos liabilities had divested much
or all of those liabilities to Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s Omaha,
Nebraska-based National Indemnity Co. unit, most recently Liberty
Mutual Insurance Co. in August 2014 and CNA before that in 2010.
He added that with several such deals already done, there may be
less room for future divestitures.

Howard Mills, chief adviser at the insurance industry group at
Deloitte Services L.L.P. in New York and the state's former
insurance commissioner, agreed that capital levels are adequate to
meet asbestos losses.

"The industry is extremely well-capitalized," said Mr. Mills.
"Asbestos is still potentially an open-ended issue, but one for
which the industry is prepared."

Mr. Mills added that while some companies may continue adding
reserves, overall capital levels remain good. Additionally, he
said, insurers today benefit from more precise modeling, which
allows them to more precisely model and thus manage losses.  He is
less optimistic about tort reform, which he said is not likely to
see movement under the Obama administration.

However, there has been some positive evolution in the litigation
environment for asbestos claims, according to Mark Behrens,
Washington-based partner with Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. and co-
chair of the firm's public policy group.

He pointed to the introduction of the Furthering Asbestos Claim
Transparency Act, H.R. 526, which would require asbestos trusts to
file a quarterly report that would disclose the names of parties
that filed claims with that trust in that reporting period and
what their claimed exposures are, and enactment of state asbestos
trust transparency legislation.

The legislation "may finally pass in 2015 now that the GOP
controls both houses of Congress," Best said in its report, adding
that developments in litigation against gasket manufacturer
Garlock Sealing Technologies L.L.C. in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in
Charlotte, North Carolina, may help spur movement toward greater
transparency in asbestos litigation.

In that case, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges found that
plaintiffs attorneys had withheld information in asbestos
litigation.

"This recent ruling may pave the way for more transparency and
fairness in current and future litigation," Best said in its
report.

Mr. Behrens agrees.

"In the last year, there is a greater public awareness about the
problems of asbestos bankruptcy abuses," he said, citing both the
ruling in the Garlock case and the introduction of the FACT
legislation.

"The report illustrates that the insurance industry is keeping up
with asbestos claims, with individual insurers adjusting reserves
as needed," David Golden, senior director of commercial lines
policy for the Chicago-based Property Casualty Insurers
Association of America, said in an email. "Annual industry claim
payments have been consistent for several years. While written
about asbestos and environmental losses, the information in the
report also supports general tort reforms that will help balance
the scales of civil justice."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sheldon Silver Arrested for Bribery, Kickbacks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Calder, Carl Campanile, Aaron Short and Bruce Golding,
writing for New York Post, reported that Assembly Speaker Sheldon
Silver lined his pockets with nearly $4 million in bribes and
kickbacks in a stunning abuse of power dating to at least 2000,
federal authorities charged.

The Manhattan Democrat, acknowledged as the second-most powerful
Democrat in the state, was hit with five felony charges involving
fraud, extortion and conspiracy that each carry up to 20 years
behind bars.

Silver, 70, surrendered at FBI headquarters in lower Manhattan at
8 a.m. and later took a ride of shame to the nearby federal
courthouse.  He sat uncomfortably in the back seat surrounded by
federal agents, a black fedora askew on his head and his hands
cuffed behind his back.

The stunning arrest capped a secret grand-jury probe that began in
June 2013, court papers said, and marked the latest in a string of
public-corruption cases spearheaded by crusading Manhattan US
Attorney Preet Bharara.

Asked how the case stacked up against the many other public-
corruption cases he's brought, Bharara summed it up.

"Any time you have an allegation -- especially when it's proven --
against a public official, that is disturbing. And when you have
an allegation against someone who is a public official -- not just
in a random file capacity, but a leader of an entire body who is
known in the politics of Albany to be one of the 'three men in a
room' -- that is especially disturbing," Bharara said.

Among the blockbuster developments:

   * Silver was accused of collecting more than $3 million in
legal fees by steering asbestos-related cancer cases from a
leading Manhattan oncologist to the Weitz & Luxenberg law firm. In
exchange, Silver allegedly funneled two state research grants of
$250,000 each to Dr. Robert Taub, along with other official
favors.

   * Silver was also accused of scheming with his former Assembly
counsel, Jay Arthur Goldberg, to split the fees paid to Goldberg's
tiny tax firm by two real-estate developers, including one
identified by sources as Leonard Litwin, the state's largest
single political donor.

   * Silver pocketed $700,000 from the scam and sold out tenants
during the 2011 renewal of New York City rent regulations, the
feds say.

   * The feds seized $3.8 million in allegedly corrupt payments to
Silver that were stashed in eight accounts spread out among six
banks.

   * Bharara said the charges against Silver demonstrated "the
show-me-the-money culture of Albany has been perpetuated and
promoted at the very top of the political food chain." He also
warned, "Our unfinished fight against public corruption continues.
Stay tuned."

   * Albany lawmakers were left reeling, with one top Democratic
operative telling The Post: "There's a lot of people scared s--
tless because Shelly covered up for a lot of people. Many big
players in the political circles are worried the dominos are going
to fall hard."

   * Silver was charged with two counts of honest-services fraud,
one count of conspiracy to commit honest-services fraud, one count
of extortion under color of official right and one count of
conspiracy to commit extortion under color of official right.

Silver didn't have to enter a plea during his brief, initial court
appearance, after which he was fingerprinted and released on
$200,000 bond. The charges will be referred to a grand jury.
On his way out of the courthouse, Silver told reporters: "The
issues will be addressed, and I am confident I will be
vindicated."

Bharara said Silver's schemes started early in his tenure as
Assembly speaker, when "he quietly and cleverly figured out how to
monetize his position."

Silver was first elected speaker in 1994.

At an afternoon news conference, Bharara said, "The greedy art of
secret self-reward was practiced with particular cleverness and
cynicism by" Silver, who never did "a lick of work" to earn the
buckets of cash he claimed were legal "referral fees."

"For many years, New Yorkers have asked the question: How could
Speaker Silver, one of the most powerful men in all of New York,
earn millions of dollars in outside income without deeply
compromising his ability to honestly serve his constituents?
Today, we provide the answer: He didn't," Bharara said.

"For many years, New Yorkers have also asked the question: What
exactly does Speaker Silver do to earn his substantial outside
income? Well, the head-scratching can come to an end on that
score, too, because we answer that question as well: He does
nothing.

"As alleged, Speaker Silver never did any actual legal work. He
simply sat back and collected millions of dollars by cashing in on
his public office and political influence," Bharara said.

The lawman said Silver tried to cover up his scams with "false and
misleading" entries on financial-disclosure forms and public
statements in which he claimed to represent "plain, ordinary,
simple people."  He also said Silver "thwarted" attempts by the
state Moreland Commission on Public Corruption to investigate his
outside income, first by filing motions to quash its subpoenas and
later by negotiating to get the commission shut down by Gov.
Cuomo.

Bharara said his office "merged" records it subpoenaed from the
Moreland Commission into its own investigation of Silver's outside
income.  He noted that the investigation is ongoing and that the
other "people we're looking at" are potentially "very big."

According to court papers, the probe of Silver was aided by
unidentified cooperating witnesses from previous public-corruption
cases.

Bharara's office also struck a nonprosecution deal with the doctor
in the asbestos-referral case and got grand-jury testimony from
the law partner of Silver's former Assembly counsel under terms of
an immunity order, according to the complaint.

The complaint notes that Silver recently insisted through a
spokesman that "none of his clients have any business before the
state" -- which the feds called a lie.

"In truth and in fact, Silver has obtained millions of dollars in
outside income as a direct result of his corrupt use of his
official position to obtain attorney referral fees for himself,
including from clients with substantial business before the
state," Investigator Robert Ryan wrote.

Assembly Majority Leader Joe Morelle (D-Rochester) said he
continued to support Silver.

"The members overwhelmingly, in the conversation we have just had,
are continuing their support," he said.

Asked if Silver should resign, state Senate Majority Leader Dean
Skelos (R-LI) said: "The Assembly has to make that decision. He's
their leader. They have to make that decision themselves."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BHP Appeals Against $2.2MM Fibro Cancer Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hagemann, writing for Australian Mining, reported that BHP
Billiton has begun an appeal against the multi-million dollar
payment awarded to a dying mesothelioma victim.

Last year the multinational miner was ordered to pay $2.2 million
to former employee Steve Dunning after a four year legal battle.
Dunning, 54, worked at the Newcastle steelworks from 1979 to 1981,
during which time he was exposed to asbestos dust from the blast
furnaces.  Diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2010, Dunning is
terminally ill and has had one of his lungs removed.

In July 2014 BHP was found negligent by the Dust and Diseases
Tribunal, and ordered to pay compensation of $2.2 million to
Dunning, including $500,000 for pain and suffering.

The two-day appeal began on January 2 in the Court of Appeal.

A spokesperson for BHP said the appeal was made on the basis of
"legal principles".

"After careful consideration of the judgement, the company has
concluded that the findings and application of legal principles
made by the trial judge are such that review by the Court of
Appeal is warranted," the spokesperson said.

"As the matter is now before the Court, it is not appropriate for
any party to comment further."Slater and Gordon lawyer Joanne Wade
represented Dunning and said BHP's decision to appeal was unfair
to the Dunning family.

"It's really frustrating that BHP filed an appeal in the case of a
dying man and one of its ex workers," she told ABC.

"The company has argued every available legal point for the
duration of this case and it continues to do so but it is not fair
for Mr Dunning and his family."

Wade conceded it was BHP was legally entitled to bring the appeal,
but said the case had been running for a long time.

"Mr Dunning is and will continue to suffer from mesothelioma and
it will take his life," she said.

"It is a very difficult situation for the family and hopefully it
will come to an end very soon."

An asbestos poisoning case against Rio Tinto was dismissed on the
basis of a legal loophole.

Former Rio Tinto employee Zorko Zabic, a sufferer of malignant
mesothelioma, filed a claim for $425,000 against Rio Tinto after
extensive exposure to asbestos contamination at the Nhulunbuy mine
in the 1970s.  Zabic did not suffer cancer symptoms until January
2014, and was statute-barred from making a claim due to the
Worker's Rehabilitation and Compensation Act which stated his
claim had to be made before 1987.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Finds Suggest Fibro May be Widespread in Nevada
----------------------------------------------------------------
News-Medical.com reported that in 2011, geologists at the
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, began discovering asbestos where
none should be -- in granite rocks with a geologic history not
previously known to produce asbestos.

The discoveries, in Clark County in southern Nevada and across the
border in northwestern Arizona, suggest that asbestos may be more
widespread than previously thought; they also raise questions
about the potential health hazards of naturally occurring asbestos
(NOA).

In 2012, an epidemiologist analyzing cancer data from Clark County
found a higher incidence than expected of mesothelioma -- a fatal
cancer of the lining of the chest cavity that is caused by
inhalation of asbestos. In response, geologists have discovered a
geologically unexpected deposit of asbestos that might be the
source. Disagreements on process between the scientists and the
state have prevented the traditional publishing of those findings.

In Nevada, where some popular off-road recreational vehicle areas
cross through these asbestos-bearing formations, the planned
construction of the new Boulder City Bypass has spurred debate
over how much asbestos is getting into the air, and what that
means for public health.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Report Says Up to 6 Tons of Fibro in Finley
------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that an independent report says there is
anecdotal evidence up to six tonnes of potentially deadly loose
fill asbestos was franchised to a Finley, Australia, business.

A house in the Berrigan Shire became the first in New South Wales
to test positive for the asbestos, as part of a state government
funded inspection program.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has been tasked by the government to
investigate the extent of Mr Fluffy across New South Wales.  Its
interim report delivered in November, says a man who owned an
insulation business in Finley during the 1960s and 70s recalled a
competitor in the region known as 'Asbestosfluf'.

The document also quotes a 1987 New South Wales Health report
where it was said 'five or six tonnes of insulation' was
franchised to a Finley operator.  It is estimated that amount of
asbestos would insulate '60 houses at most.'

The report also identified documents stating a Mr Byer, who owned
the Byer Motel in Holbrook provided loose fill asbestos.

The report says the insulation may also be known as Amoswool,
Asbestosfluf, Byer Asbestos, Holbrook Asbestos and Insulfluf.

As of January 22, more than 1,700 premises across the state had
registered for a free asbestos check.

630 houses have returned a negative reading.

The free testing program will continue until August, and is
available in the Albury, Berrigan, Boorowa, Greater Hume,
Tumbarumba, Wagga and Young local government areas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Removes Ex-Worker's Suit to Fed. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a lawsuit
brought by a former attorney against a major asbestos law firm has
been removed to federal court.

Attorneys for Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik removed plaintiff Marc
Willick's lawsuit to Los Angeles federal court on Jan. 28, arguing
that the complaint crosses a $75,000 amount-in-question threshold
and that there is a diversity of citizenship among the parties.

Willick's original lawsuit was filed Dec. 12 in Los Angeles
Superior Court. It alleges Paul Napoli and Marc Bern owe him a
portion of fees obtained from cases he helped prosecute for the
firm.

After the suit was filed, Napoli told Legal Newsline that he
considers the claims made in the lawsuit "nonsense." He also
called Willick "an opportunist who is apparently not doing well in
his own practice."

But Willick claims the firm has not paid him what he is owed.

In his complaint, Willick alleges that he was in talks with the
defendants regarding the fees he claims to be entitled to before
Napoli had a brief setback while battling leukemia.

Willick also claims that in November, he learned that millions of
dollars in judgments were entered against defendants for the
percentage of attorneys fees they allegedly owed to other lawyers
in similar situations.

"Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges,
that defendants' misconduct, as alleged herein, is part and parcel
of a pervasive scheme in which defendants underpaid, refused to
account to, and have otherwise mistreated their employees and
similarly situated attorneys who entered into similar agreements
with defendants and each of them," Willick alleges.

The removal notice says Willick made a base salary of $15,000 per
month at the time of his termination, plus referral fees and
bonuses.

In his complaint, Willick mentioned a recent power struggle
between Napoli and Bern over alleged irregularities in the firm's
operations.

In a statement previously provided by Paul and Marie Napoli, he
addressed Bern's allegations of irregularities by stating that his
partner attempted to humiliate him, his family and his office.

"As many of you know, Marc (Bern) for inexplicable reasons,
decided once I got sick to try and take over the law firm I have
built over the last 20 years. He quietly waited until I went under
the knife for my transplant before firing key employees who worked
for me in running the firm. At the same time, he fired my 72-year-
old father (the biggest earner in the office in personal injury).
While in ICU Marie had to leave my side and rush to Court to get
the Court to order him to cease," Napoli stated.

Willick, who is founder of the Law Office of Marc I. Willick,
claims that in March 2011 he entered into a written agreement
stating that his law office would act as local counsel for the
defendants in asbestos related cases referred by the defendants.
They agreed that the fees generated from the allotted cases would
be divided 10 percent to Willick and the remaining 90 percent to
the firm, he said.

Then in May 2011, the parties entered into another written
agreement that directed Willick to devote his full time and
attention to the business and affairs of the law firm, he said.

Willick stated that the defendants led him to believe that he
would be provided with full and timely accountings reflecting the
necessary compensation.

"These representations were knowingly false and were made with the
intent of deceiving plaintiff into executing the second agreement,
providing services pursuant to the second agreement and
introducing defendants to plaintiff's referral sources," the
complaint stated.

However, Napoli explained that Willick's agreements included a
"draw provision," which he was required to meet before getting
paid on settlements. Because Willick never met the draw, he was
not entitled to the money he claims to have lost, he said.

Additionally, Willick alleges the defendants filed and prosecuted
multiple cases in his name without his knowledge or consent,
indicating to the court that the plaintiff was the counsel on the
case. As an example, he claims the defendants affixed an
electronic image of the plaintiff's signature on pleadings.

As a result of these written agreements, Willick claims he is
entitled to an award reflecting the fees the defendants received
on cases filed or prosecuted in his name, cases brought to them by
the plaintiff and cases Willick referred to the defendants by his
own referral sources.

The complaint states that Willick ended his employment with the
defendants on or about Dec. 14, 2012.

However, Napoli said the firm had to let him go after he was
frequently absent and continuously missed deadlines. As a result,
Willick was asked to resign subsequent to a performance review,
Napoli said.

The five-count lawsuit also claims the firm misrepresented itself
as an LLP, or having a limited liability partnership, and named
the "Napoli Bern entities" as defendants.

"The Napoli Bern entities are purportedly limited liability
partnerships, but, in reality, are names used by Napoli and Bern
to conduct their personal business," Willick alleges.

Furthermore, Willick takes issue with the number of similar, but
different, names the firm has used when filing cases, stating that
the firm does business as no less than 11 different LLPs and have
a combined 100 bank accounts.

Napoli said the allegations regarding the Napoli Bern entities
aren't true. He explained that the firm changed names as different
partners were employed there over the years, adding that every
name change was legal and appropriate.

Calling the Napoli Bern entities the "alter egos" of Napoli and
Bern, Willick further claims there is a unity of interest,
ownership and operation between the defendants and urges the court
to treat the actions of the law firm as the actions of the two
accused attorneys.

According to the complaint, Willick also claims Napoli and Bern
used assets of each of the entities and withdrew funds from the
bank accounts for their personal use.

"The defendants exercised such complete control and dominance of
the business assets of the Napoli Bern entities and used and
mingled the assets and monies of them such that an individually or
separateness of [the defendants] does not, and at all times herein
mentioned did not, exist," the complaint states.

According to the complaint, Willick urges the court to order the
defendants to provide an accounting that reflects all fees and
costs received by them for matters in which Willick was named as
the counsel of record, asbestos cases Willick brought to the
defendants and cases that came to the defendants through Willick's
referral sources.

He also seeks actual damages, prejudgment interest, punitive
damages, costs of suit and any further relief the court deems just
and proper.

Willick is represented by James L. Goldman of Pircher, Nichols &
Meeks.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FACT Act Introduced in House
---------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that legislation aimed at
reducing fraud in the asbestos bankruptcy trust system has once
again been introduced for debate in the House of Representatives.

Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) introduced the H.R. 526, the Furthering
Asbestos Claim Transparency Act (FACT Act), in the House of
Representatives on Jan. 26.

In a statement, the legislator said that the "FACT Act reduces
fraud in the asbestos bankruptcy trust system through increased
transparency measures. These measures ensure that asbestos
bankruptcy trusts have the tools to combat fraud, which limits
funds available for asbestos victims.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DC Cir. Asked to Rethink Fibro Death Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, writing for Law360, reported that the estate of a man
who died of mesothelioma asked the D.C. Circuit to rehear its
decision upholding that Honeywell International Inc. wasn't
responsible for his death, arguing its sanction of dismissal was
inappropriate despite not finding willfulness, bad faith or fault.

The estate of the late John Tyler, who sued Honeywell in 2010,
told the D.C. Circuit on Jan. 29 that it had erred in affirming a
lower court's dismissal of the case without finding willfulness,
bad faith or fault, contrary to circuit and U.S. Supreme Court
precedent. The panel had held that such a finding wasn't
necessary, according to the rehearing petition, even though that
finding is needed before dismissing a case for a discovery
violation.

"The panel did not make such a finding regarding plaintiff's
conduct and instead stated that bad faith or its equivalent were
not required under Rule 37," the estate said. "However, because
the Rule 37 sanction resulted in dismissal, the panel was required
to provide a thorough review of the conduct that resulted in the
sanction."

The circuit court on Dec. 30 ruled that a lower court correctly
excluded a plaintiff's expert declaration claiming that his
exposure to Honeywell's brakes was sufficient to cause asbestos-
related cancer, saying that the expert's declaration came too
late, the late filing wasn't substantially justified and that it
was harmful to Honeywell, given that the case was on track to go
to trial.

Tyler's estate argued in its petition for an en banc review that
its filing didn't satisfy the willfulness, bad faith or fault
standard as applied by the circuit court. This came after the
Virginia Supreme Court ruled in another Honeywell case that
plaintiffs in asbestos suits must provide evidence that exposure
to a product was enough in and of itself to cause injury.

"Indeed, this court has found that a party must act with 'at least
gross negligence' to meet the 'willfulness, bad faith or fault'
standard," Tyler's estate said. "Here, there was no finding of any
misconduct, improper motives or gross negligence."

Tyler's estate said that the failure to apply this standard
deviates from the case law of several other circuit courts, making
it an "issue of exceptional importance" requiring en banc review.

The appeals panel had agreed that a D.C. federal judge was right
to grant Honeywell summary judgment after excluding new statements
from plaintiff's expert Steven Markowitz.

In the declaration, Markowitz said that Tyler's exposure to
asbestos from brakes made by Honeywell predecessor Bendix Corp.
was "sufficient" to cause his cancer, according to court
documents..

Initially, a lower court denied Honeywell's motion for summary
judgment. But after the Virginia Supreme Court's ruling in two
asbestos cases, one involving Honeywell and plaintiff Walter
Boomer, Honeywell filed for reconsideration, prompting Tyler's
estate to file the new Markowitz document two years after the
close of fact discovery, according to court documents.

Ultimately, the D.C. Circuit agreed with Honeywell that the lower
court didn't abuse its discretion by excluding the declaration and
affirmed summary judgment in Honeywell's favor.

Tyler and his wife sued Honeywell in 2010, but Tyler died in July
of that year from malignant pleural mesothelioma. The
representative of his estate, Stephen Wannall, continued the
litigation, while Tyler's wife dropped out and didn't participate
in the appeal, according to court documents.

Tyler was allegedly exposed to asbestos in at least three ways
over his lifetime, including when he repaired cars using brakes
made by Bendix. Tyler's other alleged exposures to asbestos came
while he served in the Navy and worked on an Army base. He was not
a professional mechanic but repaired cars in his spare time for
family and neighbors.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

Tyler is represented by David Michael Lipman of The Lipman Law
Firm and by Daniel Aaron Brown of Brown & Gould LLP.

Honeywell is represented by Michael R. Shebeleskie and John D.
Epps of Hunton & Williams LLP and Michael A. Brown and Alicia N.
Ritchie of Miles & Stockbridge PC.

The case is Stephen A. Wannall v. Honeywell Inc., case number 13-
7185, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Man Charged with Illegal Fibro Disposal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lois Clermont and Suzanne Moore, writing for Pittsburg Press
Republican, reported that a man from Rouses Point, New York, has
been charged with illegally disposing of asbestos-laden debris in
a wetland.

An investigation by New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation Police resulted in the arrest of Randy P. Bedard, 57.
On Jan. 29, members of the DEC Bureau of Environmental Crimes
Investigation charged him with second-degree endangering the
public health, safety or the environment, which is a felony.

Bedard was also charged with two misdemeanors: unlawful disposal
of solid waste and unpermitted activity in a regulated wetland.

The investigation stemmed from the collapse of the former Drown
Funeral Home on Route 11 in Mooers on Jan. 11, 2014.

Bedard allegedly brought a total 150 cubic yards of asbestos-laden
debris to the Clinton County Solid Waste Management Facility and
to an unpermitted disposal site on North Star Road in the Town of
Mooers.

The site on North Star Road is a regulated wetland.

Town Supervisor Jeff Menard told the Press-Republican last spring
that he had no knowledge that Bedard was dumping debris from the
building illegally.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Matson Man Receives GBP50,000 for Fibro Illness
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gloucester Citizen reported that the gates are open for a man from
Matson, England, to continually sue the Department of Transport if
his health deteriorates further after becoming from his exposure
to asbestos 70 years ago.

Harold White has received GBP50,000 in damages and a court order
which means he can make future financial claims against his former
employers British Rail.  His health deteriorated as a result of
asbestos exposure when he worked for the railway firm, now under
the control of the Secretary of State for Transport, between 1942
and 1949.  His job was to cycle around the Swindon works
delivering post to the various shops, where there was extensive
asbestos.

At the age of 15 he started an apprenticeship where he worked on
locomotives which had asbestos bandages over the pipes to stop
people burning themselves. Asbestos was mixed in drums and then
slapped on like paste over the boilers.  He was in good health
until he started to develop breathlessness in 2012 and was told it
had been triggered from his time with British Rail.

His family's solicitor, Brigitte Chandler of Charles Lucas &
Marshall said it was important in cases where people developed
asbestosis to apply for provisional damages with the right to
return to court to seek further legal redress.

"This case shows how long it can take for asbestos related
illnesses to develop," she said.

"He now has the right to return to claim further damages should he
develop cancer or other illnesses caused by asbestos.

"Anybody who is suffering from breathlessness and has been xposed
to asbestos should seek advice from their GP."

The Swindon and South West Asbestos Group is a regional charity
formed to provide free of charge support groups and information to
asbestos sufferers and their partners.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Attys Face Off at Transparency Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reported that a K&L Gates LLP
partner told House lawmakers that his experience defending Crane
Co. and others shows the Republican-backed measure to increase
transparency in asbestos bankruptcy trust claims is warranted,
while a Caplin & Drysdale Chtd. plaintiffs expert sided with House
Democrats' denouncing the bill as a defense-side intimidation
tactic to limit liability.

K&L Gates partner Nicholas Vari testified in favor of the recently
revived asbestos transparency bill to a House panel considering
the measure, arguing that its requirement for more disclosure from
asbestos trust claimants about their exposure histories will
prevent unjust recoveries from solvent defendants in the tort
system. The bill at issue is H.R. 526, the Furthering Asbestos
Claim Transparency Act of 2015, which was reintroduced in January
by Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas.

Caplin & Drysdale's Elihu Inselbuch, who has worked with the
plaintiffs bar in major asbestos bankruptcies since the Johns-
Manville Corp. reorganization, echoed arguments by Democrats
opposing the measure, saying that the move would needlessly pry
into the private information of mesothelioma victims.  He argued
that defendants exaggerate accounts of plaintiff fraud as a tactic
to limit liability, while Democratic lawmakers including Rep. Hank
Johnson of Georgia argued that defendants would not extend their
own calls for transparency to the asbestos settlements the
defendants insist on keeping confidential.

"You seek increased transparency from victims, but would you, for
the purposes of leveling the playing field, support legislation to
ban confidentiality in settlements?" Johnson asked Vari at the
hearing.

"The plaintiffs also often resist the disclosure of settlement
information," Vari responded.

"Well it seems only fair that if you want transparency from
claimants, you would also seek it from defendants, and one thing
they do is to insist on confidentiality agreements," Johnson
pressed.

"But the plaintiffs already possess their own settlement
information, so nothing is being withheld from them," Vari said.

The tense line of questioning also reflected a sharp partisan
divide on the measure, with Republican lawmakers touting it as a
long-needed reform to prevent abuses of the trust system that
would deprive future mesothelioma claimants of recoveries.
Democrats argued meanwhile that despite North Carolina Bankruptcy
Judge George Hodges' explosive opinion last January in the Garlock
Sealing Technologies LLC case outlining plaintiff fraud, a body of
evidence suggests otherwise.

They cited a 2011 U.S. Government Accountability Office report
that reviewed $17 billion in payouts by asbestos trusts, which
Johnson argued did not show "a scintilla of evidence" of plaintiff
fraud. But experts on the testifying panel disagreed with that
reading, arguing that the GAO report was based on interviews with
trusts.

"The fact that there was no fraud self-reported is not an
indication of lack of fraud," said Marc Scarcella, a principal of
Bates White Economic Consulting who has worked with defendants and
attorneys for asbestos claimants and trustee boards.

The bill, a similar version of which died in a Senate committee
last year, would require trusts to file quarterly reports with
information on claims that were received and paid, including
details on the name and exposure history of the claimants and the
basis for any payments.

"The bill would require the disclosure of sensitive information,
which means victims will be revictimized by allowing their
personal and sensitive information to be irretrievably released to
the public," said Rep. John Conyers, D- Mich. "Just imagine what
insurance companies, prospective employers ... could do with that
information."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New York Man Charged With Illegal Fibro Disposal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WPTZ.com reported that a northern New York man faces felony
charges after the Department of Environmental Conservation
determined he had illegally disposed of asbestos-laden demolition
debris in a wetland.

The DEC charged 57-year-old Randy Bedard of Rouses Point with
endangering the public health, safety or the environment. In
addition to the felony charge, Bedard was also charged with two
related misdemeanors.

The investigation stemmed from the collapse of the former Drown
Funeral Home in Mooers in January 2014. The DEC says Bedard
removed 150 cubic yards of debris and dumped it at the Clinton
County Solid Waste Management Facility and into a regulated
wetland in the town of Mooers, 160 miles north of Albany.

Bedard pleaded not guilty in Town of Mooers Court and was released
pending a court appearance.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Disturb Fibro at Aussie School
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emma Macdonald, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that
students at Berridale Public School, in New South Wales,
Australia, might have been exposed to asbestos as workers cut into
bonded asbestos sheeting during the first week of the new school
year.

The school is on the NSW Government School Asbestos Register and
the room was listed as being presumed to have asbestos present.
WorkCover NSW confirmed it visited the school, located between
Cooma and Jindabyne, after parents raised concerns.

Contractors hired by the NSW Department of Education were
installing airconditioning in a demountable building at the school
when students returned for their first day. They drilled into the
ceiling, which contained bonded asbestos.

WorkCover said that according to its investigations, the workmen
only "discovered potential asbestos-containing material while
drilling into the ceiling".

In 2008, the NSW Department of Education launched a $3 million
asbestos register to reduce risk of exposure to the toxic
substance.  It is not known whether the workmen were aware of the
asbestos before they began drilling. But WorkCover said they
stopped work immediately and attempted to restrict the entry of
children to the site. The demountable building is used as a lunch
room when it is raining and students were inside that day, because
it was raining.

WorkCover said the students were moved to another building and
access to the demountable building was cut off. Asbestos warning
stickers and barriers were then erected.

One parent, who did not wish to be named, said she assumed work
was only halted because WorkCover had been notified.  She said it
was not good enough that children had been in and around the area
while fibres had potentially been released into the atmosphere.
She also questioned why the work was not completed during the
holidays.

"What I don't understand is how work began on this site when it is
listed on a public registry as having presumed asbestos."

A spokesman for WorkCover NSW said a licensed asbestos removalist
undertook testing on the building and the asbestos was removed. A
clearance certificate had been issued by an occupational
hygienist.

"WorkCover is satisfied that the school and contractor have acted
in accordance with work health and safety laws."

A spokesman for the NSW Department of Education said "the work to
install airconditioning in the school's two demountable classrooms
was carried out in accordance with the department's Asbestos
Management Plan and WorkCover NSW requirements".

"The department has received a clearance certificate for the
subject area. WorkCover has inspected the site and will provide a
written report to the school when it is ready. The school
principal is keeping parents informed about the situation."

Meanwhile, work to remediate asbestos contamination at Copper Tom
Point on Lake Jindabyne has been delayed by wet weather.

Work was due to be completed by the end of February, and members
of the public have been asked to avoid the area until the
remediation works are complete.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mass. Business Owner Accused of Fibro Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Kriger and Joel Martinez, writing for WWLP.com, reported
that a property manager in Springfield, Massachusetts has agreed
to pay up to $65,000 for alleged asbestos violations in
Springfield and Agawam.

According to a news release from the state Attorney General's
office, Wei Qiang Ni and his company NI Management improperly
removed, transported and disposed of asbestos during the
renovation of a multi-family building.

"This is a public health issue. Asbestos removal actions should be
conducted only by trained professionals, not unlicensed and
unqualified individuals, especially where tenants could be
exposed," AG Maura Healey said.

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection said they
found asbestos fragments in the basement of a building where
tenants did laundry and their children played. The work was
allegedly done without using a licensed asbestos removal
contractor, and without following removal procedures required by
the asbestos regulations.

"Improper handling of asbestos can expose workers, residents and
potentially others to a health hazard and poses an unnecessary
environmental risk," MassDEP Commissioner Martin Suuberg said.
"With this settlement, we are ensuring that the property owners'
tenants will be protected and the remainder of the properties
safely assessed and abated as necessary."

Below is more information included in the news release regarding
this case:

"Wei Qiang Ni allegedly arranged with his wife Mei Nuan Li and her
company, Dragon Paradise LLC, for the asbestos waste to be loosely
bagged in trash bags and illegally disposed of in a dumpster at an
industrial building on Main Street in Agawam. The bags were
allegedly covered by additional construction debris that ripped
the bags and allowed the exposure of the asbestos-containing
material to the open air. The building and dumpster allegedly are
used by Ni and NI Management routinely for construction debris
disposal.

"Under the settlement, the defendants must pay $40,000 in civil
penalties to the Commonwealth, $25,000 of which is suspended
pending the defendants' compliance with the terms of the consent
judgment

"In addition to the industrial property in Agawam, Ni and Li own
or have a financial interest in 55 single-family and multi-family
residential rental properties in Springfield, Agawam and Holyoke,
with a total of approximately 100 rental units. Under the terms of
the settlement, the defendants must hire a licensed asbestos
inspector to evaluate 40 of those properties for asbestos
violations. If violations are found, the Commonwealth may require
that the remaining properties and any acquired during the next
five years also be assessed. After the inspections, the defendants
must have a certified asbestos management planner compile a plan
for prompt remediation of any asbestos violations.

"The regulation of asbestos handling is exceedingly important to
protect human health.  Airborne friable asbestos taken into the
lungs by breathing may over time cause serious lung diseases,
including asbestosis, lung cancer, or mesothelioma. Asbestosis is
a serious, progressive, long-term, non-cancer disease of the lungs
for which there is no known effective treatment. Lung cancer
causes the largest number of deaths related to asbestos exposure.
Mesothelioma is a rare form of cancer that is found in the thin
membranes of the lung, chest, abdomen, and heart, and may not show
up until many years after asbestos exposure.

"This case has been handled by Assistant Attorney General Fred
Augenstern of Attorney General Healey's Environmental Protection
Division, with assistance from various MassDEP personnel,
including: Christine Lebel of MassDEP's Office of General Counsel,
Joel Rees, Marc Simpson, Gregory Levins, Robert Shultz, and the
late Brian Bordeaux."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in New Mexico Building
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Schwartz, writing for The Daily Times, reported that a
contractor found asbestos in the ventilation system of a building
in Farmington, New Mexico, on Jan. 30, and officials have shut
down the building's air blowers until a third-party expert deems
the workplace safe.

"All of our buildings have asbestos," City Manager Rob Mayes said.

The City Annex building across the street from City Hall where the
contractor found the asbestos is 60 years old, he said. Asbestos
was used in buildings prolifically prior to the 1989, when it was
banned. Normally used as insulation, asbestos is not considered
dangerous if it is contained.

When disturbed, asbestos can crumble into tiny particles and drift
into the air, and it's easily inhaled, according to the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention. The material is a cancer-
causing agent.

But Mayes said he is not concerned. The expert is coming to make
certain the asbestos lining in the air handler, which feeds the
building's air ducts, is intact, he said. Crews shut down the air
handler out of an "abundance of caution," he said.

Officials met with the building's employees in the council
chambers to answer questions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Contractor Ruled Guilty in Abatement Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Kelly, writing for Watertown Daily Times, reported that a
Jefferson County Judge Kim H. Martusewicz ruled that a contractor
from Watertown, New York, was guilty of a lone misdemeanor in
connection with an asbestos abatement project at an Academy Street
duplex in 2013.

Aaron A. Netto, 37, of 23997 County Route 159, was found guilty
following a nonjury trial of fourth-degree endangering public
health, safety or the environment, but was acquitted of counts of
second-degree reckless endangerment, second-degree making an
apparently false sworn statement and tampering with evidence. He
later was sentenced to a 90-day conditional discharge and fined
$2,000.

It had been alleged in an indictment handed up in May that Mr.
Netto was responsible for releasing more than 1,000 pounds of
friable and nonfriable materials containing asbestos into the
environment, potentially endangering workers and neighbors. The
charges came amid an October 2013 renovation of rental property
owned by Mr. Netto at 222 Academy St.

In his ruling from the bench, Judge Martusewicz said "there is no
proof" that the amount of hazardous material released totaled the
1,000 pounds required to sustain a felony public endangerment
charge under state statute. He said under federal law, the weight
of extraneous debris that is included with the hazardous material,
such as wood or concrete, can be calculated toward the 1,000-pound
requirement, but under state law the additional debris cannot be
included in the material's weight.

It also had been alleged that Mr. Netto moved a Bobcat skid steer
that had been used at the renovation project from the site to his
home while knowing that the machine may be evidence in the
abatement case and after a state Department of Environmental
Conservation officer had told one of Mr. Netto's employees not to
move the machine. However, trial testimony showed that Mr. Netto
was on a hunting trip in Idaho at the time and no testimony was
provided that showed he moved the equipment or ever was told by
his employee that it could not be moved.

He was later accused of providing an affidavit that indicated he
possibly intended to live at the Academy Street property at some
point, which would potentially affect asbestos abatement
requirements, as guidelines are less stringent for owner-occupied
structures than commercial properties. No testimony was provided
that refuted his claim that he might choose to live at the
property rather than rent it.

Mr. Netto was represented at trial by attorneys Eric T. Swartz and
Gary W. Miles. Mr. Swartz previously had maintained that Mr.
Netto's prosecution was a vendetta against Mr. Netto, a one-time
DEC officer, but several witnesses testified they had no animosity
toward Mr. Netto and investigated the matter as they would any
alleged illegal abatement matter.

While Mr. Netto was sentenced to a conditional discharge, he still
is serving up to three years' probation imposed in County Court in
November 2013 on six misdemeanor convictions stemming from
allegations that he possessed items that had been stolen from
multiple construction sites. He also resigned his position as a
state corrections officer as part of a plea agreement in that
matter.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Trusts Continue to Deplete, Witness Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Warner, writing for The Huffington Post, reported that the
new Republican-controlled congress rolled up its sleeves and
rolled out its agenda, and along with immigration and budget
issues it turns out "asbestos litigation reform" is an apparent
priority. The powerful House Judiciary Committee held a formal
hearing in Washington in what amounts to a national campaign
targeted at bankruptcy transparency -- but fueled largely by both
a landmark federal case out of North Carolina and the ongoing New
York scandal involving the arrest of state assembly Speaker
Sheldon Silver.

If there was a "newsmaker" revelation, it was from an accounting
firm witness who documented that, since 2009, some 23 bankruptcy
trusts have had to reduce payouts to asbestos disease victims and
that claims today are being paid at about 50 percent of the rate
they were in 2009.

That underscores the urgency of making sure nobody defrauds the
funds, say supporters of the "Furthering Asbestos Claim
Transparency" (FACT) Act. Generally, the measure would require
trust funds, created by bankrupt companies to meet their present
and future asbestos liabilities, to file quarterly information
about claims. The measure would make it easier for corporate
defendants to discover exposures that could not be attributed to
their client.

Opponents of the measure, supported at the hearing by more than
two dozen actual victims of asbestos disease, pretty much held
their own during the House hearings, but stuck to standard
arguments like privacy concerns and asking pro-transparency
speakers if they would support similar disclosure for
corporations. Perhaps it would be even better to offer provisions
that protect cancer victims who who might have become unknowing
"perjury pawns" just by signing and saying what the attorney's
told them to say and sign.

As expected, the "star witness" was a landmark bankruptcy case out
of North Carolina that was cited more than 50 times in written and
verbal testimony. It involves a gasket maker called Garlock
Sealing Technologies and a federal judge ruled that instead of
$1.3 million in future payments sought by victim's lawyers, only
about $125 million was needed because Garlock's settlement history
was inflated by unfair actions from the plaintiff's firms.

That strongly worded judgement and details of 15 specific cases,
each showing some level of evidence withholding in the eyes of the
judge. An NPR report called it a look inside the "murky" world of
asbestos litigation.

One argument for FACT, say supporters, is that victims and their
lawyers can "forget" certain exposures at trial only to file
claims for those exposures later, or even before, court trials.
The Garlock case outlines some fairly outlandish examples.

While the House hearing focused on bankruptcy cases, and as much
as "Garlock" is a game-changer in asbestos circles, it is also
clear that "tort reform" advocates are energized because the very
high-profile arrest of New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver
included an asbestos referral scheme. The resulting scandal
references Speaker Silvers referral fee arrangement from Weitz &
Luxenberg, a major asbestos victims firm, although prosecutors
have said the firm did not know about the other alleged actions.
We should note that referrals are common practice in asbestos
litigation.

But the GOP, perhaps showing restraint or perhaps keeping its
powder dry, did not follow the advice of Wall Street Journal
columnist Kim Strassel, who wrote that "... Republicans
reintroduced [FACT] legislation, and if they were savvy, they'd be
all over the Silver story. The GOP has long complained about the
outsize influence the plaintiffs' bar has on Democrats. What it
has failed to do is to make that influence and funding an outright
political liability."

"It shouldn't be hard," she added. "The left is forever
insinuating that corporate America is awash with crooks and
thieves, yet you'd be hard-pressed to find a business sector in
recent years that has provided more proof of industrywide
malfeasance than the tort bar."

To be sure, nobody believes this FACT legislation has any chance
of becoming law anytime soon. President Obama is not going to sign
a bill being passionately opposed by the plaintiff bar. So mostly
this is about establishing foundations for looming state battles
and courthouse arguments.

A key take-away from the hearing is that Democrats must regain the
momentum. The GOP will not long ignore the WSJ editorial pages.

And also because, with the prosecutor in Speaker Silver's case
saying "stay tuned" and witnesses at the House hearing promising
more formerly sealed Garlock documents being released in two
weeks, the Republican decision to make asbestos reform a priority
is a sign of strength, and Democrats cannot afford to become
positioned as the main reason that trust funds are paying 50 cents
on the dollar.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suffolk Co. in Court for Unsafe Fibro Removal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The England Health and Safety Executive said a Suffolk building
company has been fined after removing asbestos insulation board
without a licence and failing to protect its workers from falls of
up to four metres at a farm building in Waltham, Essex.

Workers were potentially exposed to dangerous asbestos fibres and
only provided with baby wipes or access to a hose for
decontamination.

Chelmsford Magistrates' Court heard the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) was alerted by a member of the public concerned
that unsafe work was being undertaken at the farm building.

HSE's investigation found LJW Cladding Ltd did not have a licence
permitting it to remove asbestos, despite telling the farm owner
it held the necessary approvals. None of the workers were trained
to work with licensed asbestos and were also placed in danger of
falling from height while removing the fragile asbestos boards.

HSE found that the work, carried out between 26 and 28 February
2014, was woefully lacking in safety measures. Asbestos insulating
boards were broken from their fixings with wholly inadequate
attempts to prevent the uncontrolled release of fibres. There was
no use of an enclosure and the respiratory protective equipment
provided to workers offered insufficient protection.

Instead of a full three-stage decontamination unit required for
such work all the workers had access to were baby wipes and the
farm's cold water hose. Contaminated overalls over normal clothing
continued to be worn while the workers took their lunch break on
site and also meant they could have taken asbestos contamination
home with them each night.

The investigation also identified the workers were at risk of
falls of up to four metres owing to absent or inadequately
installed safety netting and a harness and inertia reel being used
inappropriately.

LJW Cladding Ltd of Evesham Close, Ipswich, Suffolk, was fined a
total of GBP10,000 and ordered to pay costs of GBP3365.50 plus a
GBP120 victim surcharge after pleading guilty to separate breaches
of the Work at Height Regulations and the Control of Asbestos
Regulations.

After the hearing, HSE Principal Inspector Dominic Elliss said:

"LJW Cladding's incompetent actions led to its employees being
potentially exposed to asbestos fibres at a much higher level than
would have been possible had a competent licensed contractor been
used.

"In addition there was a serious risk one of them could fall from
or through the fragile roof because of the firm failed to provide
effective safeguards. Too many workers continue to be seriously
injured from falls in exactly this type of refurbishment project."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Justices Snub Appeal From Fibro Claim Limit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reported that the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court shot down an appeal of a decision finding that the
state's 12-year statute of repose could nix asbestos claims
leveled against contractors and other entities involved in the
construction of large-scale property improvements containing the
cancer-causing fiber.

The justices rejected the appeal in a one-page order that left
standing a precedential Superior Court opinion from June which
found that personal injury claims leveled by David and Frances
Graver over David Graver's on-the-job exposure were barred by a
12-year statute of repose that runs from the point a defendant
makes an improvement to real property -- in this case 1955, when
an asbestos-spewing boiler designed by Foster Wheeler was
completed.

The justices did not comment on the case, and an attorney for the
plaintiffs did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

The Superior Court decision overturned a Philadelphia County
judge's conclusion that a 2009 state Supreme Court ruling had
created an exception to the statute of repose for asbestos claims.

Graver, a former Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. worker, filed suit
in June 2010 alleging he developed mesothelioma after being
exposed to asbestos from a massive boiler that Foster Wheeler had
helped to design and install at a steam plant along the
Susquehanna River.

A Philadelphia County judge denied Foster Wheeler's bid for
summary judgment after ruling that "strong dicta" in the Supreme
Court's 2009 decision in Eleanor Abrams v. Pneumo Abex Corp.
created an exemption to the 12-year statute of repose that
traditionally governs personal injury claims arising against
entities involved in the construction of real property or
improvements to the property.

A jury returned a $4.5 million verdict in favor of the Gravers,
which was cut down to $750,000 to account for the fault
apportioned to co-defendants who had settled with the plaintiffs.

On appeal, Foster Wheeler reiterated its claim that the suit was
time-barred under the statute of repose because the relevant
improvement to real property -- the completion of the boiler in
the Pennsylvania Power & Light plant where Graver worked --
predated the 2010 complaint by more than four decades.

Unlike a statute of limitations, which only limits claims once the
cause of action accrues, Pennsylvania's statute of repose begins
running whenever the real property improvement is complete.

Judge Jack Panella of the state's Superior Court ruled that
language in the Abrams decision stating that "no statutory right
of repose exists with respect to asbestos cases" was not intended
to create precedent.

In so ruling, the court said that if Pennsylvania is to adopt an
asbestos-related exception to the statute of repose in
construction cases, it should not come from the courts but from
lawmakers, as has happened in Maryland, New Jersey and Virginia.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert Paul and Richard Myers of
Paul Reich & Myers PC.

Foster Wheeler is represented by Leroy Janiczek of Reilly Janiczek
& McDevitt PC.

The case is Frances Graver et al., v. Foster Wheeler Corp., case
number 476 EAL 2014, in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ipswich Co. Fined for Exposing Workers to Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Adwent, writing for Ipswich Star, reported that the actions
of an Ipswich, England, building company were branded incompetent
after it was fined for removing asbestos insulation board without
a licence and failing to protect its workers.

LJW Cladding Ltd of Evesham Close, was fined a total of GBP10,000
by Chelmsford magistrates.  It was also ordered to pay costs of
GBP3365.50 and a GBP120 victim surcharge after pleading guilty to
separate breaches of the Work at Height Regulations and the
Control of Asbestos Regulations at a farm building in Waltham,
Essex.

After the hearing, Health and Safety Executive Principal Inspector
Dominic Elliss said: "LJW Cladding's incompetent actions led to
its employees being potentially exposed to asbestos fibres at a
much higher level than would have been possible had a competent
licensed contractor been used.

"In addition there was a serious risk one of them could fall from
or through the fragile roof because of the firm failed to provide
effective safeguards. Too many workers continue to be seriously
injured from falls in exactly this type of refurbishment project."

Workers were potentially exposed to dangerous asbestos fibres and
only provided with baby wipes or access to a hose for
decontamination.

Chelmsford Magistrates' Court heard the Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) was alerted by a member of the public concerned
that unsafe work was being undertaken at the farm building.

HSE's investigation found LJW Cladding Ltd did not have a licence
permitting it to remove asbestos, despite telling the farm owner
it held the necessary approvals.

None of the workers were trained to work with licensed asbestos
and were also placed in danger of falling from height while
removing the fragile asbestos boards.

HSE found that the work, carried out between February 26 and 28
last year, was woefully lacking in safety measures. Asbestos
insulating boards were broken from their fixings with wholly
inadequate attempts to prevent the uncontrolled release of fibres.
There was no use of an enclosure and the respiratory protective
equipment provided to workers offered insufficient protection.

Instead of a full three-stage decontamination unit required for
such work all the workers had access to were baby wipes and the
farm's cold water hose.

Contaminated overalls over normal clothing continued to be worn
while the workers took their lunch break on site and also meant
they could have taken asbestos contamination home with them each
night.

The investigation also identified the workers were at risk of
falls of up to four metres owing to absent or inadequately
installed safety netting and a harness and inertia reel being used
inappropriately.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Fear Spread of Fibro in Columbia Univ.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catie Edmondson, writing for Columbia Daily Spectator, reported
that employees at the Columbia University are petitioning their
union, Transport Workers Union Local 241, to facilitate additional
analysis on asbestos samples found in insulating pipes leading to
an air supply fan in the powerhouse chiller plant in University
Hall, which is located behind Uris Hall.

The employees are filing the petition because they are
dissatisfied with the administrative response following the
discovery in the plant, which is currently undergoing renovation.

Following a notification of a potential case of disturbed asbestos
on Jan. 14, approximately 24 feet of asbestos pipe insulation was
removed, and a third-party consultant determined that the post-
abatement air monitoring results indicated the containment area
was safe for re-occupancy, according to Columbia Facilities.

However, employees of the chilling plant are concerned that the
location of the asbestos could have led to it being dispersed
throughout the facility.

"The asbestos was found on pipes in the discharge plenum of a fan
that blows air through our plant. So, it could have been blown all
over," said a worker in the plant who asked to remain anonymous
for reasons of job security. "They removed the asbestos and tested
for samples with the fan off. We want sampling done with the fan
on to get an accurate reading of what has settled on pipes
throughout the plant."

Employees in the chiller plant have created and are planning to
submit a petition asking that the executive board of Local 241
approve the collection of asbestos air samples through the use of
mechanical equipment to stir up settled dust to simulate the
environment that the workers were exposed to.

"We listened to the feedback from employees and are exploring
further options that will best address their concerns," said a
spokesman for Columbia Facilities.

Sebastian Di Palma, recording secretary of Local 241, said that
the union is responsible for notifying members throughout the
abatement process.

"The University considers the membership notified once the
Executive Board is notified. We in turn notify the membership
verbally, and only those members that would have been affected.
Neither the University and/or the Local posts or distributes
anything," Di Palma said in an email.

However, another worker in the chiller plant, who also asked to
remain anonymous for reasons of job security, said that he only
learned about the asbestos abatement from reading the logbook that
employees use to document what happens during their shift.

"At no time did my supervisor come down here and say, 'We found
asbestos, we want to notify you,'" he said.

According to the first worker and a third worker in the plant, the
asbestos should have been found when they filed a work order on
April 4 of last year with Environmental Health and Safety to re-
insulate and clean dust off the pipes in question.

The workers said that once they learned about the Office of
University Compliance in January and contacted the director
Geraldine Tan, communication and response time about the asbestos
improved dramatically. "She came down and looked at it and said,
'This is not good,'" said the worker. "She was nice enough to come
down and talk to me in person. She says, 'We're having the
asbestos people come in tonight and it's going to be abated,' and
right now, the place is totally cleaned up. But why wasn't this
done in April?"


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Kills Former Factory Worker
-----------------------------------------------------------
Staffordshire Newsletter reported that exposure to asbestos led to
the early death of a father from Stafford, England, who worked at
one of the town's biggest employers for more than 30 years, an
inquest has heard.

Leslie Hingerty, of Hartland Avenue, worked at Universal Grinding
Wheel Company in Doxey Road from 1969 to 2000, Cannock Coroner's
Court heard.  His work as a kiln operator exposed him to asbestos.
In a statement made before his death he said the ovens he worked
with were insulated with asbestos and the closing of the oven
doors caused dust to be released into the air.

In September 2013 Mr Hingerty was diagnosed with malignant
mesothelioma, a cancer linked to asbestos exposure. A CT scan in
2014 revealed the disease had progressed.

He was admitted to Stafford's County Hospital on November 1, 2014,
suffering shortness of breath, problems with a drain which had
been put in to tackle pleural effusions (excess fluid in the space
that surrounds the lungs) and kidney failure.

But his condition deteriorated and he passed away at the hospital
on November 27, aged just 66.

A post mortem revealed a tumour encasing his right lung, the
inquest heard, and Mr Hingerty's cause of death was given as
malignant mesothelioma.

Richard Hughes, deputy assistant coroner for South Staffordshire,
recorded a verdict of death from industrial disease. He said: "It
is very unfortunate that someone in their working life was exposed
to this condition and has gone on to be diagnosed with this
terrible condition."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $1MM Punitive Damages Awarded in NJ Fibro Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Hanlon and Armand Kalfayan of Wilson Elser, writing for JD
Supra Business Advisor, reported that a $7.5 million verdict was
rendered on January 15, 2015, by a Middlesex County jury in the
matter of Condon v. Advanced Thermal Hydronics, et al., Docket
No.: MID-L-5695-13AS, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Middlesex County. In this first asbestos case tried before New
Jersey's newly appointed asbestos judge, The Honorable Ana C.
Viscomi, only one of the defendants remaining at trial was found
liable and the verdict against it was limited to $780,000.

The case involved the asbestos exposure claim of 67-year-old
plaintiff William Condon, who suffered from mesothelioma primarily
as a result of his work with heating and air conditioning systems,
including boilers, over an 11-year period from 1973 to 1984. Three
defendants, Wallwork, CertainTeed and Pecora, suppliers of
building products, defended the case through the month-long trial
to verdict.

Wallwork and CertainTeed obtained defense verdicts. The jury
allocated 2 percent liability to Pecora. The remaining 98 percent
of the liability was apportioned by the jury to defendants whose
claims had been resolved prior to the verdict.

The liability award totaled $6.5 million, $130,000 of which was
assessed to Pecora. An additional $1 million punitive damages
award was rendered against Pecora in the trial's punitive damages
phase.

The liability award comprised a $5 million award for pain and
suffering ($500,000 past and $4.5 million future) and a $1.5
million award to Mrs. Condon for loss of services ($500,000 past
and $1 million future). In support of the punitive damages award,
the plaintiffs demonstrated that Pecora took no action to
eliminate asbestos from its product or to provide Mr. Condon with
warnings, despite Pecora's knowledge of the hazards of asbestos
prior to Mr. Condon's work with its asbestos-containing furnace
cement.

Under New Jersey law, the 2 percent allocation to Pecora protects
it from joint and several liability. In addition, the $1 million
punitive damages award was  reduced  to $650,000, as New Jersey
law does not permit a punitive damage award to exceed the
liability award by more than five times.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro NHS Costs Law Overruled by Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that firms in Wales whose staff are treated for
asbestos-related illnesses will not be ordered to reimburse the
NHS.

The Supreme Court agreed with insurers who claimed an assembly law
passed in 2013 was outside its competence.

The court said Welsh ministers had no right to impose charges to
fund the NHS, and insurers should not be given extra liabilities
for asbestos exposure which long predated the bill.

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) welcomed the judgement.

"The Welsh Bill would have seen increased insurance premiums for
Welsh businesses but no extra compensation for mesothelioma
sufferers," said a spokesperson.

"The insurance industry remains committed to doing all it can to
help the victims of this terrible disease and would be happy to
work constructively with the Welsh Government on this issue, as it
does on other public policy."

'Clarity' call

Pontypridd AM Mick Antoniw, who first proposed the bill, said he
was "gutted" at the ruling, having predicted the measure could
have raised GBP1m a year for the NHS in Wales.

The bill had been referred to the Supreme Court by the Welsh
government's Counsel General Theodore Huckle following objections
from the insurance industry.

The Welsh government said it would give "careful consideration to
this judgment".

Presiding Officer Dame Rosemary Butler called for "greater
clarity" so everyone understood what laws the assembly could pass.

The Supreme Court has previously ruled in favour of the assembly
on changes to local government by-laws and the re-establishment of
the Agricultural Wages Board which had been abolished by the UK
government.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ni Management to Settle Fibro Allegations
----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reported that Ni Management, LLC, will pay
approximately $65,000 to settle Massachusetts Attorney General
Maura Healey's allegations that the company violated the state
building code by removing asbestos without a permit, Healey said.

The company is owned by Wei Qiang Ni. The violation alleges the
company removed and transported asbestos, without a license.

"This is a public health issue," Healey said. "Asbestos-removal
actions should be conducted only by trained professionals, not
unlicensed and unqualified individuals, especially where tenants
could be exposed."

The company removed asbestos from a residential building and an
industrial building, and code guidelines for removal allegedly
were not followed, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection said after an investigation.

The company also allegedly didn't give notice to the department
that the work was being conducted. The investigation found that
loose asbestos remained in the basement of the residential
building.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Lawsuit Granted Reprieve by Appeals Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
Donald Peter worked as a machinist at Pabst Brewing Co. He began
working there in 1959 and would have thought nothing of the
working conditions beyond basic safety on the job. And then in
2012, he was diagnosed with malignant pleural asbestos
mesothelioma. He sued Sprinkmann Sons Corp., alleging that
exposure from pipe insulation the defendant was charged with
repairing caused his disease.

Peter finished his work at Pabst in 1979. His diagnosis for
asbestos cancer came 33 years later, in 2012. Such a time lapse is
consistent with the incubation period for mesothelioma, which can
linger in a dormant state only to emerge decades after initial
exposure to asbestos fibers. While it can take decades for
mesothelioma to appear, once it presents, the prognosis is usually
dire. In Peter's case, he would die about a year following his
diagnosis.

Peter's widow amended her late husband's asbestos lawsuit to
include a wrongful death claim. A lower court granted summary
judgment for the defendant, on grounds that in the court's view
Pamela Peter's claims were barred by a state's construction of
repose given that asbestos exposure was allegedly triggered from
maintenance work.

While Peter had toiled at Pabst Brewing, Sprinkmann was the entity
that carried out maintenance at the plant. Specifically, ongoing
maintenance to the insulation surrounding the pipes. Asbestos -- a
known carcinogen and a trigger for asbestosis -- is considered to
be at a lower risk provided the asbestos is contained and remains
undisturbed.

Conversely, asbestos fibers disturbed through the process of
maintenance or removal can be a health risk unless properly
contained.

The appeals court reversed the original ruling of summary
judgment, noting that Peter was exposed to asbestos through repair
work carried out by Sprinkmann Sons Corp. until 1979. Thus,
Wisconsin's construction statute of repose did not bar Pamela
Peter's claims in her asbestos lawsuit.

Sprinkmann argued that its work in the brewery constituted
improvement to real property. The defendant noted that pipe
insulation was in a state of constant disrepair. There was also at
least one full-time employee tasked exclusively with the job of
repairing pipe insulation at Pabst.

That argument was rejected, with the appeals court sending the
asbestos lawsuit back to the lower court for further proceedings.
The appeals court did, however, uphold a ruling by the circuit
court that a damages exception in the statute did not apply to the
case, given that Peter did not have an actionable claim prior to
1994. His asbestos mesothelioma diagnosis was made in 2012, the
year before he died.

"Although this interpretation may seem harsh to asbestos
plaintiffs who will not even know they have a claim until long
after the statute of repose has barred their action (assuming it
arises from an improvement to real property), [i]t is not our
function as the judiciary to construct an asbestos-related
exception to the statute of repose in construction cases," the
circuit court said. "That role properly lies with the
legislature."

The case is Peter v. Sprinkmann Sons Corp., Case Number 2014AP923
in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Judge Cuts Award Over Fibro Injuries to $30MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reported that a New York state
judge cut a combined $190 million judgment against boiler makers
Cleaver-Brooks Inc. and Burnham LLC over claims that asbestos in
their boilers caused five tradesmen to develop mesothelioma,
ruling the workers were entitled to less than $30 million.

A jury found the two companies acted negligently and recklessly in
exposing the workers to asbestos-tainted products and equipment
and awarded the plaintiffs and their families awards of between
$20 million and $60 million each. Three of the plaintiffs died.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Makes $490MM Final Payment to Trust
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Seltzer, writing for Baltimore Business Journal, reported
that W.R. Grace & Co. has paid $490 million to close out its
obligations to a trust paying the personal injury asbestos claims
that helped drive the chemical company into bankruptcy more than a
decade ago.

Columbia-based Grace disclosed the payment in federal filings. The
company still has existing agreements to make payments to a
separate property damage trust.

The two trusts were created to assume almost 130,000 pending
claims after Grace filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in
2001. Claims the company faced were related to its manufacturing
and selling asbestos-laced products like cement, plaster and spray
fireproofing.

Grace also faced legal action related to the mining and processing
of asbestos-rich vermiculite. Its mine in Libby, Mont., became a
widely known toxic site after a documentary about it aired on PBS.

The trusts were established as part of Grace's nearly 13-year
bankruptcy, which it exited last February. Collectively, the
company funded them with more than $4 billion, spokesman Rich
Badmington said. Funding sources included cash, warrants to
purchase Grace stock, deferred payment obligations, insurance
proceeds and payments from former company affiliates.

The $490 million payment Grace made to close its personal injury
trust obligation was technically in exchange for a warrant the
trust owned. That warrant was to acquire 10 million shares of
Grace stock at $17 per share. The company also recently made a
$632 million payment to settle a deferred obligation in September.

Grace still has future obligations to the property damage trust.
It has accrued $30 million for those payments, it said in federal
filings late last year.

The $490 million personal injury trust payments came just days
after Grace announced plans to split itself up into two companies.
It has yet to determine how its remaining trust obligations will
be allocated if the split is completed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ariz. Bill Would Make it Harder to File Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Sunnucks, writing for Phoenix Business Journal, reported that
a bill at the Arizona Legislature would make it harder to file
asbestos lawsuits.  House Bill 2603 requires plaintiffs filing and
courts hearing asbestos-related claims to seek out and find
various industry trusts set up to deal with such lawsuits.

Critics, such as Phoenix attorney Steve Leshner, say that will
just delay lawsuits brought by plaintiffs suffering from the
adverse side effects of being exposed to asbestos.
See Also

"It just tends to delay things," Leshner said. He said the bill
has been tried but not approved in other states, including Texas.
Asbestos is a natural mineral that was long used in various
building materials. It causes mesothelioma cancer and is banned in
50 countries, according to the Washington-based Mesothelioma
Center.

Leshner said asbestos trusts were set up previously by companies
being sued to handle lawsuits. But many of those now don't have
any money or are dormant and plaintiffs often don't name them in
lawsuits. The Arizona bill would change that dynamic.
It would also allow for more delays for discovery in asbestos
cases.

"It changes the rules for asbestos cases," Leshner said.
The main sponsor of the bill, Arizona Rep. Sonny Borrelli, R-Lake
Havasu City, did not respond to requests for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moon Area Fibro Removal Schedule Stirs Ire
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tory N. Parrish, writing for TribLive.com, reported that Moon
Area, Pennsylvania School District's plan to complete asbestos
removal at two schools during spring break is rushed and could be
a potential health risk to students and staff, some parents said
during a sometimes contentious school board meeting.

"Even in the case of a one-family house, that seems like a pretty
tall task to undergo in one week," said Dr. Rob Schwartz, a
pediatrician and one of several parents who spoke about the
planned asbestos removal.

As part of its $26.2 million elementary capital improvement plan,
the school district plans to remove asbestos tiles from Allard and
Brooks elementary schools during spring break, which is March 30
to April 3.

The school board has voted 7-2, with Jerry Testa and Michael
Hauser opposed, to approve asking the state Department of
Education to give its approval to executing contracts -- likely
with Professional Service Industries Inc. -- to do the removal
work.

Board approval is required as part of the education department's
Planning and Construction Workbook, or PlanCon, program under
which school districts apply for reimbursements for renovation and
construction projects.

The board voted, 9-0, to approve having Professional Service
Industries, which has corporate headquarters in Oakbroook Terrace,
Ill. and a local office in Green Tree, conduct an analysis of
asbestos and other hazardous materials in Hyde Elementary School.
Hyde will close in June, remediation work would be performed this
summer, and the building would reopen in the fall as a learning
center with a preschool and high school remedial classes.

Asbestos is the name of a group of minerals with long, thin fibers
that once was used widely as insulation, according to the National
Institutes of Health. The fibers are so small that they can't be
seen; but, if disturbed, they can float in the air, making them
easy to inhale.

Breathing in high levels of asbestos over a long period of time
can cause internal scarring and inflammation, affect breathing and
lead to diseases such as mesothelioma, a rare cancer that affects
the lining of the lungs or abdomen.

Moon Area parents say they are concerned with the spring break
timetable and their children returning to school in a safe
building.

"There's no guarantee that the project will be completed during
the suggested time," parent Shanda Wyatt said.

Professional Service Industries has said the timetable for
removing the asbestos tiles in the two schools is reasonable,
board President A. Michael Olszewski.

"They are a highly competent and technical specialist that does
this all the time. They've researched the size and scope and
nature of the jobs, and they're confident not only in the
timeframe given but the nature of the job," he said.

Furthermore, the asbestos being removed at Allard and Brooks is in
tiles, which is not the traditional asbestos insulation found on
pipes or in walls, he said.  The work will not take place
throughout the buildings, but in phases in several classrooms
which will be sealed off, he said.

School board member Jerry Testa and Superintendent Curt Baker
engaged in a heated debate, with Baker criticizing Testa for
suggesting that school board members were cutting corners and
jeopardizing students' health by pushing through an unreasonable
timetable.

"You're trying to force feed a schedule that can't be met," Testa
said.

The timetable debate is irrelevant, school board Vice Chairman
Dennis Harbaugh Jr. said, because the Allegheny County Health
Department will independently inspect the schools for safety after
the work has been completed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sufferers to Receive GBP54,000 in New Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Rae, writing for for ChronicleLive.com, reported that
asbestos widow Chris Knighton has welcomed new rules for asbestos
compensation.

The government has announced that asbestos-related cancer suffers
are to receive up to GBP54,000 extra in compensation.

Under new rules for the government's Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment
Scheme, compensation will rise to match 100 per cent of average
civil claims, up from the current 80 per cent, which could mean an
increase of up to GBP54,000 a person, according to Ministers.

The change has been welcomed by Chris, who has dedicated her life
to campaigning to help those affected by the deadly condition
since her husband Mick died from the asbestos-related cancer
mesothelioma in 2001.

The Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund, based in Wallsend,
North Tyneside, has raised more than GBP1m for research and
supported hundreds of people.

Chris, 68, said: "I feel very pleased. It has been a long haul for
this to come about and it does give people the opportunity for
compensation that would otherwise not have had.

"There is still a long way to go and sadly this decision should
have been taken a long time ago as those with mesothelioma don't
have the luxury of time.

"Those with the condition want to know that their family will be
financially provided for when they are no longer here and this is
why the new rules are so important."

Those diagnosed with asbestos-related mesothelioma from February
10 2015 will benefit from the payment increases.

Mesothelioma is a cancer affecting the lining of internal organs
such as the lungs, which is usually connected to exposure to
asbestos.

The North East is a blackspot for the disease, because asbestos
was used in shipbuilding, construction and the automotive
industry.

Ministers introduced legislation in 2013 to provide payments to
those who cannot trace their former employer's insurer.  But the
compensation on offer was lower than the average compensation
people would expect to receive by going through the courts -- and
MPs have been campaigning for the payments to be increased.

The Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme has already paid out over
GBP19m in its first 10 months of operation.

Work and Pensions Minister, Lord Freud said: "For years, many
victims of this truly terrible disease have been failed by
successive governments and the insurance industry. With this
scheme we are continuing to help the many victims and families
that mesothelioma has left without financial support.

"From today we are raising compensation payments to 100% of
average civil claims. It is partly thanks to the success of the
insurance industry in tracing liable insurers and employers that
we are able to make these changes as part of our on-going
commitment to support mesothelioma sufferers.

"Though the majority of suffers are able to claim compensation
through the liability insurance held by their employer, a
significant minority cannot.

"Due to the length of time between asbestos exposure and cancer
diagnosis, many employers and their insurers no longer exist and
so the liable successor organisations are often untraceable."

Blaydon MP Dave Anderson said: "I'm delighted to hear this news,
this is what campaigners have asked for many years.

"At last people who were denied justice by dilatory ex-employers
and their friends in the insurance industry will be properly
compensated, it's long overdue but welcome."

Around 2,100 people in the UK are diagnosed with mesothelioma each
year. It is almost always fatal with most of those affected
usually dying within twelve months of diagnosis.

A 'standardised mortality ratio' (SMR) is used to identify
blackspots, where a figure of 100 would be the expected number of
deaths, given the age of the population.

But in North Tyneside the figure is much higher, at 309, and in
South Tyneside it is 303, reflecting the high incidence of
mesothelioma in those local authority areas.

Across the Tyne and Wear Metropolitan County the figure is 235 and
in the North East it is 170.

Ministers said the number of people claiming compensation under
the scheme had been higher than expected.

Mesothelioma is almost always caused by exposure to asbestos, a
soft material that used to be widely used in building construction
as a form of insulation and to protect against fire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Michigan Fibro Release Leads to 3 Convictions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rex Hall Jr., writing for MLive.com, reported that a woman and two
men from Southwest Michigan are facing up to five years in federal
prison after pleading guilty in what investigators say may have
been the largest release of asbestos in Michigan since the
material was declared a hazardous air pollutant in 1971.

Cory Hammond, of Hastings, and LuAnne LaBrie and Robert "Mike"
White, both of Kalamazoo, each pleaded guilty to violating the
Clean Air Act, according to a news release issued by the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Grand Rapids.

LaBrie, formerly known as LuAnne McClain, plead guilty to failing
to notify federal or state authorities that asbestos material
would be stripped and removed at the former Consumers Energy power
generation facility in Comstock Township.

Hammond and White, meanwhile, each pleaded guilty to failing to
adequately wet asbestos material while stripping and removing
asbestos inside the facility.

The asbestos release, according to prosecutors, led to a $1
million cleanup by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Superfund Division.

According to federal authorities, the case against LaBrie, Hammond
and White began in 2011 when they agreed to "salvage valuable
material from the facility and share in the proceeds."

LaBrie controlled and supervised the facility, which was located
at 6800 E. Michigan Ave., and visited the site on a regular basis
and communicated regularly with Hammond and White about the
salvage operation, investigators said.

"Despite knowing that Hammond, White, and other laborers were
stripping and removing asbestos insulation from pipes and facility
components, LaBrie failed to notify the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) or the State of Michigan that the salvage
operation would involve the removal of asbestos inside the
facility," prosecutors said.

Prosecutors said Hammond and White admitted to failing to properly
wet asbestos material at the site "that had been stripped and
removed until it was collected and sealed in a leak-tight
container to prevent the release of asbestos particulates during
the salvage operation."

LaBrie, Hammond and White have agreed to pay restitution to the
EPA for the cost of the cleanup at the site.

"Companies and individuals handling regulated asbestos material
must follow basic workplace practices designed to protect both the
workers who handle the hazardous material and the air we breathe,"
U.S. Attorney Patrick Miles said. "Those who attempt to evade the
law by cutting corners to maximize profits and harm our
environment will be held accountable for their actions.

The case against LaBrie, Hammond and White was investigated by the
EPA's Criminal Investigation Division, the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources Environmental Investigation Section and the
Internal Revenue Service.

LaBrie is scheduled to be sentenced April 23 by U.S. District
Judge Gordon J. Quist. Hammond and White are scheduled to be
sentenced July 6 by U.S. District Judge Robert J. Jonker.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pepsi Can't Recoup Payouts From Federal-Mogul
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for Delaware Business Court Insider,
reported that a Delaware judge has denied PepsiAmericas' attempt
to recoup insurance proceeds from bankrupt Federal-Mogul Global
over the companies' shared asbestos liabilities.

Pepsi argued Federal-Mogul improperly collected insurance proceeds
from a comprehensive general liability plan that paid the
companies' claims for their shared asbestos liabilities of Abex
Corp.

A Delaware bankruptcy judge granted Federal-Mogul's motion for
summary judgment and U.S. District Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez of
the District of New Jersey affirmed the ruling, finding Pepsi
didn't show how Federal-Mogul overbilled on insurance contracts
that covered both parties.

Pepsi argued Federal-Mogul drew from their shared general
liability coverage on Abex matters to cover Federal-Mogul's non-
Abex-related asbestos claims and failed to reimburse Pepsi for
litigation costs and expenses.

Pepsi cited four instances in which Federal-Mogul allegedly
overbilled the shared policies for a total of $1.4 million,
including one instance in which the plaintiff allegedly did not
work with Abex products. Pepsi alleged this was evidence of a
"larger scheme" to bill the policies for claims not covered by the
policies, according to the opinion in In re Federal-Mogul Global.

Pepsi also provided the court with three other insurance
settlement contracts signed by both Pepsi and Federal-Mogul that
Pepsi argued establish privity between the two companies. Pepsi
argued Federal-Mogul breached the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing in those contracts by billing the insurance
policies for non-Abex claims.

"As the bankruptcy court noted, 'there is a difference between
what the facts are and what they mean and [Pepsi's] challenge is
to the meaning of undisputed facts,'" Rodriguez said.

Federal-Mogul was not a party to the insurance policies in
question, but under a 1994 asset purchase agreement, was able to
claim proceeds from those policies for compensation for Abex-
related claims. Pepsi argued Federal-Mogul was bound by the
documents through the doctrine of contract adoption, in which
third parties to a contract become parties who are bound by the
contract's terms by implicitly or explicitly adopting the
agreement, according to the opinion.

Pepsi also argued, in part, that Federal-Mogul was bound by the
contracts' terms under the doctrine of equitable estoppel in that
it enjoyed the benefits of the contracts and therefore was bound
by their terms. Pepsi argued the contract that set out the
parties' Abex-related liabilities, along with the insurance
policies from which Federal-Mogul drew estopped Federal-Mogul from
avoiding liability under the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.

"The term 'good faith' however, has no set meaning, and instead
prevents a wide range of forms of bad faith," Rodriguez said. "The
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires a party
in a contractual relationship to refrain from arbitrary or
unreasonable conduct, which could preclude the other party from
enjoying the benefit of the original bargain."

But Rodriguez noted the covenant has its limitations.

"The covenant is not a catch-all to prevent any injustice, and
Delaware courts have described invoking the covenant as a
'cautious enterprise,'" Rodriguez said. "The implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing cannot be applied to provide
contractual protections that were not secured at the bargaining
table."

Rodriguez said Pepsi did not attach its claim of a breach to any
specific contract and did not show inappropriate billing by
Federal-Mogul in regard to any of the shared settlement contracts.
Rodriguez said the covenant of good faith and fair dealing ensures
certain conduct does not deprive parties of the original benefit
of their bargain.

Pepsi "has not established that, as to a particular settlement
contract, it was precluded from enjoying the original benefit of
its bargain," Rodriguez said.

James E. O'Neill of Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones in Wilmington
represented Federal-Mogul. Ricardo Palacio of Ashby & Geddes in
Wilmington represented Pepsi. Neither attorney responded to a
request for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: EL Workers Exposed to Fibro, Mercury, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Parker, writing for Lansing State Journal, reported that
eight current and one former employee of the East Lansing,
Michigan's wastewater treatment plant have sued the city, saying
they were repeatedly exposed to mercury and asbestos, and the city
delayed notification of that exposure.

Lansing-area attorney Neal Wilensky filed the suit last month in
Ingham County Circuit Court on behalf of the employees.

Wilensky said his clients have several goals in mind.

"They want to make sure East Lansing doesn't do the same things
over and over, they want money damages, they want better employee
training and they want people to know what happened in the city in
regard to the exposure to workers of asbestos and mercury," he
said.

The employees, members of UAW Local 2256, say the results of a
2007 asbestos inspection of the plant at 1700 Trowbridge Road were
never shared with them or any of their co-workers. That inspection
identified "numerous areas" of asbestos, according to the lawsuit.
Some of that asbestos was considered "friable," the lawsuit says,
meaning it could be crumbled or reduced to powder. They also say
the city never adopted recommendations made by DeWitt-based
FiberTec, the company that performed the inspection, and that as a
result employees were exposed to asbestos for seven years.

A city official confirmed eight of the people are still employed
by the city but would not name the former employee. The lawsuit is
being brought by: Troy Williams, Allesha Morris, Jose Mireles, Kim
Hopkins, Craig Walsh, Josh LaFave, Ryan Ebbinghaus, Mamuda Cham
and Kyle Smith.

"We received the complaint at the end of last week," city manager
George Lahanas said in a statement.  "We have assigned it to our
attorney and staff for further investigation. It's premature for
me to make any comment at this point until I have a full picture
of what occurred. When the investigation provides us with more
information, I will provide a statement at that time."

Among other allegations in the suit:

* In December 2011, Williams and "co-employer" Scott Houser asked
their supervisor about certain materials hanging from pipes,
specifically whether it was asbestos. Their supervisor, identified
as Wayne Beede, "told the employees to keep quiet or they would
lose their jobs."

* In October 2012, LaFave also asked Beede about some material
"and was told to keep quiet or he would lose his job." Beede no
longer works for the city. The city paid him $26,450 in November
in exchange for agreeing to resign and to not sue the city.

* Employees said the city acted improperly when about a pound and
a half of mercury was spilled at the wastewater treatment plant in
November of 2013 and that workers were not notified promptly of
the incident.

The mercury spill was not reported until March of 2014 when a
group of plant workers requested a meeting with city officials and
revealed what happened, the city's former public works director
told the State Journal last year.

The former director, Todd Sneathen, has since resigned. Lahanas
said last year Sneathen took advantage of a career opportunity and
his departure was unrelated to the mercury incident.

The city has since reported a second mercury spill at the Hannah
Community Center. Officials said in October that a hose used in
the spring of 2014 to clean part of the heating system at the
center at 819 Abbot Road might have contained a small amount of
mercury. City officials insisted at the time that exposure to
employees and the public was limited.

The city is being represented by Thomas Fleury of the Southfield
law firm Keller Thoma. Fleury said a response to the lawsuit will
be filed within the 30-day deadline. The lawsuit seeks in excess
of $25,000 in damages.

Exposure to asbestos can cause lung cancer or lung disease. High
mercury exposure can lead to kidney problems, respiratory failure
and death.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GOP Drafting Bill to Let Fibro Cos. Off the Hook
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Gruenberg, writing for People's World, reported that taking
advantage of the new Republican rule over Congress, the remaining
firms that manufactured items containing asbestos -- the cancer-
causing substance that sickened thousands of shipyard workers,
factory workers, construction workers, among others, and that
still kills 10,000 people yearly -- are pushing legislation to
limit if not remove their remaining legal liability to pay workers
or their heirs for their illnesses and suffering.

Their bill, HR526, in a GOP-run House Judiciary subcommittee, drew
opposition from the AFL-CIO and victims' advocates, and protests
from one pro-victim attorney who testified on Feb. 4.  As might be
expected, business representatives denied that avoiding payment
was their aim.  They also brought in a law school professor who
claimed the victims' attorneys inflate damage claims.  No workers
or workers representatives were invited to testify.

The so-called Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency act would
allegedly prevent fraud and direct more of the remaining money to
asbestos victims, say its sponsors, Reps. Blake Farenthold, R-
Texas, and Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte, R-Va.
The legislation would do exactly the opposite, AFL-CIO Legislative
Director Bill Samuel counters.

"This legislation would invade the privacy of asbestos victims by
posting personal exposure and medical information online and
create new barriers to victims receiving compensation for their
asbestos diseases," he wrote to lawmakers prior to the hearing.

"Hundreds of thousands of workers and family members have suffered
or died of asbestos-related cancers and lung disease, and the toll
continues," Samuel said.  Even the pro-business law school
professor from Yeshiva University in New York admitted workers
could die from past asbestos exposure could continue through at
least 2047.

"Asbestos victims faced huge barriers and obstacles to receiving
compensation for their diseases.  Major asbestos producers refused
to accept responsibility and most declared bankruptcy in an
attempt to limit their future liability," Samuel explained.

A 1994 law set up asbestos bankruptcy trusts to pay the victims
while reorganizing the asbestos-manufacturing firms to stay in
business.  Though the trusts have $30 billion-$37 billion, they
lack enough money to fully pay claims, with the average victim or
heirs receiving only one-fourth of the claim's value for medical
suffering and treatment costs.

"The AFL-CIO is well aware the system for compensating asbestos
disease victims has had its share of problems, with victims facing
delays and inadequate compensation and too much money being spent
on defendant and plaintiff lawyers," Samuel admitted.   The fed
has "spent years of effort" trying to solve the problem, he added.
Though he did not say so, business opposition sank those prior
efforts.

"HR526 does nothing to improve compensation for asbestos victims
and would in fact make the situation even worse," Samuel adds.

"The bill is simply an effort by asbestos manufacturers who still
are subject to lawsuits to avoid liability for diseases caused by
exposure to their products," he said.  And it opens individual
asbestos victims to "personally identifiable exposure histories"
and disease and payment information.

"This public posting is an extreme invasion of privacy.  It would
give unfettered access to employers, insurance companies, workers
compensation carriers and others who could use this information
for any purpose including blacklisting workers from employment and
fightin compensation claims."  Not only that, the asbestos trusts
would have to give the asbestos makers any claim and payment
information the makers demand, Samuel added.

"The only party that stands to benefit from this insulting bill is
the asbestos industry, who will be able to delay and deny justice
for the American families devastated by their deadly products,"
said Linda Lipsen of the American Association for Justice, the
trial lawyers' group.  "Meanwhile, victims of asbestos exposure
and their loved ones will be forced to shoulder the burdens of
this unnecessary legislation through delayed compensation and a
loss of privacy.

"Do not let the name fool you -- the so-called Fact Act is nothing
more than a hand-out to the asbestos corporations that, for
decades, knowingly poisoned and killed thousands of Americans,"
she warned.

Elihu Inselbuch, a Caplin & Drysdale attorney who's represented
victims and their heirs and worked with the trusts, sounded the
same themes, but even more strongly.

"HR526 is the latest, but not the first, attempt by asbestos
defendants to minimize and ultimately extinguish their liability,"
he testified.  "These defendants -- the only beneficiaries of this
bill -- are the same asbestos companies who for decades have been
determined liable for recklessly and willfully exposing unknowing
workers and their families to the companies' deadly products.

"Had these companies shared the information they knew about the
dangers of asbestos, or at the very least, provided adequate
safety gear, countless lives would have been saved, and you would
not be sitting here today" discussing "the longest-running public
health epidemic in our history."

Samuel summed up the workers' and the AFL-CIO's position:
"Congress should be helping the hundreds of thousands of
individuals who are suffering from disabling and deadly asbestos
diseases, not further victimizing them by invading their privacy
and subjecting them to potential blacklisting and discrimination.
The AFL-CIO strongly urges you to oppose HR526," he told
lawmakers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Record Fibro Payout Cut After Silver's Arrest
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Marsh, writing for New York Post, reported that a judge who
since Sheldon Silver's arrest has come under scrutiny for the sky-
high damages that juries in her court have awarded to Weitz &
Luxenberg clients recently slashed a record $190 million asbestos-
poisoning payout to less than $30 million.

Defense attorneys speculated that the 84 percent reduction may be
the result of bad publicity in The Post and other news outlets.

In a decision dated Feb. 5, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan
Madden ordered a new hearing on a 2013 jury verdict in her court
that gave five mesothelioma victims represented by Weitz a total
of $190 million -- the highest award of its kind at the time.

In the weeks before the staggering decrease, The Post reported
that Weitz, which US Attorney Preet Bharara says paid former
Assembly Speaker Silver $5.3 million for a no-show job, received
special treatment from a section of the court that handles
asbestos cases.

"The timing of the opinion would certainly raise the question: Is
this a p.r. stunt?" asked defense attorney and civil-justice
reform advocate Mark Behrens.

Another advocate for tort reform said, "Defense attorneys think
the drastic reduction is a result of new scrutiny of the New York
asbestos docket as a result of Sheldon Silver's arrest."

A defense lawyer involved in asbestos cases in Manhattan
speculated, "Judge Madden is a little scared of some of the
adverse publicity she's getting." The award reduction "suggests
that some of these articles are making points and she's listening
to them," he said.

The lawyer, who declined to give his name, fearing retribution
from Weitz in settlements with his clients, pointed out that
Madden lowered another jury award from $32 million to $8 million
in 2012.

When the record-breaking asbestos verdict was announced, Weitz
lawyer Adam Cooper bragged online about his politically connected
firm: "It's a place that is recognized and dare I say feared in
the courtroom."

A spokesman for Weitz declined to comment.

Judge Madden declined to comment on her ruling, but court
spokesman David Bookstaver said, "Judge Madden's decision was
essentially written, substantively, five to six weeks ago. It
wasn't released because she was on trial and she had to review
it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Expects More State Fines for Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Parker, writing for Lansing State Journal, reported that East
Lansing, Michigan, was fined $4,400 last year by state regulators
for asbestos-related violations at its wastewater treatment plant,
and a second state investigation into asbestos concerns at the
facility is ongoing.

The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration
initially fined the city $11,000 after an investigation that began
in March of last year found that the city lacked an emergency plan
and did not inform employees of the presence of asbestos. That
fine was later reduced through an informal settlement between
MIOSHA and the city, according to state officials.

State officials confirmed a second asbestos-related investigation
was launched in October. The results of that investigation have
been completed, but are being reviewed by state officials.

City manager George Lahanas said he expects further penalties as a
result of the second investigation.

"The important thing is to find out what we are doing incorrectly
and take the steps to fix it, which we are doing," he said.

State officials said the unresolved investigation involves
asbestos exposure, lack of air monitoring after asbestos removal
and lack of training for employees.

The city is being sued by eight current and one former employee
for exposure to asbestos and mercury, and employees argue the city
was aware of the hazardous materials and did not notify employees.

The employees, members of UAW Local 2256, say the results of a
2007 asbestos inspection of the facility at 1700 Trowbridge Road
were never shared with them or any of their co-workers. That
inspection identified "numerous areas" of asbestos, according to
the lawsuit.

Some of that asbestos was considered "friable," according to the
lawsuit says, which is a more hazardous form that can be crumbled
or reduced to powder. They also say the city never adopted
recommendations made by DeWitt-based FiberTec, the company that
performed an inspection in 2007, and as a result employees were
exposed to asbestos for seven years.

The MIOSHA investigation that began in March of last year
continued through May. Citations were issued July 9, and the
settlement agreement was reached July 30.

"We accepted the fines and the responsibility, and we paid a
reduced penalty because we did that," Lahanas said.

"We want to hear if we're doing things incorrectly or if we can do
things better in regard to safety. We will continue working to
improve to have the safest workplace possible."

Tanya Baker, spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Licensing
and Regulatory Affairs, said the investigation resulted in three
serious citations, and state regulators found the city did not:

* Establish an emergency response plan, conduct asbestos awareness
training or implement a written hazard communication program;

* Inform employees of the asbestos or materials containing it;

* Maintain surfaces "as free as practicable" of waste and debris.

A mercury spill in November 2013 was not reported until March
2014, when a group of plant workers requested a meeting with city
officials and revealed what happened, the city's former public
works director told the State Journal last year.

The former director, Todd Sneathen, has since resigned. Lahanas
said last year Sneathen took advantage of a career opportunity and
his departure was unrelated to the mercury incident.

The city has since reported a second mercury spill at the Hannah
Community Center. Officials said in October a hose used in the
spring of 2014 to clean part of the heating system at the center
at 819 Abbot Road might have contained a small amount of mercury.
City officials insisted at the time that exposure to employees and
the public was limited.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Alert at Leisure Center in Castlereagh
-------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News Northern Ireland reported that the mayor of Castlereagh
has said he hopes the closure of the Robinson leisure centre in
east Belfast is a temporary measure.

The centre was closed after asbestos was found in hard-to-access
areas.

The mayor, the DUP's Jack Beattie, said he did not think people
should be alarmed.  He said the asbestos had been found in an area
that was not open to the public.

"The (council) officer from Belfast, who are taking over this
facility, had come in and found a small area somewhere not open to
the public and he said there was some of this asbestos showing,"
he said.

"Our officers, not wanting to do the wrong thing, had decided in
the afternoon that they would close it and further investigate it.

"The health and safety people will come in and have a look at it
and then a report will come out."

In a statement on its website, Castlereagh Council said asbestos
had been found "in a previously unrecorded and difficult to access
area".

The asbestos was discovered during a building management survey.

The council said further survey work was ongoing and the Health
and Safety Executive NI (HSENI) was working with them.

"As a precautionary measure, the council has taken immediate
action to close the centre until the full results of the survey is
known," the statement said.

"It should be noted that materials containing asbestos are
commonly found in buildings of a similar age, however with regular
monitoring and management the risk is negligible."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEQ Fines Tigard Firm for Fibro Removal Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hillsboro Tribune reported that a Tigard, Oregon company, AAM,
Inc., has been fined $19,200 by the Department of Environmental
Quality for two violations related to a residential asbestos
removal project in Hillsboro.

The Tigard firm did the work at 262 N.E. 18th Ave., Hillsboro on
Oct. 22, 2014.

The first violation was for "failing to adequately wet friable
asbestos material," and ensuring the material remain wet during
removal and disposal.

The second violation was for failing to enclose the area where the
materials were removed. Both violations carry a $9,600 penalty.

According to the DEQ press release, the company's violations
"could have released asbestos fibers into the air and exposed
workers, the public, and residents of the home to asbestos."

The company has appealed the penalty.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gran's Disease Caused by Fibro Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------
Herne Bay Times reported that a grandmother is appealing to former
colleagues after being diagnosed with an incurable disease she
believes was caused by exposure to asbestos at her workplace.

Shirley Price, who was born in Herne Bay, England, and has lived
in the town all her life, was told just before Christmas that she
had contracted mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the chest.

Shirley, 80, is convinced that the disease was sparked by exposure
to asbestos at Brookwood Hospital in Knaphill, Surrey, where she
worked in the 1970s.  Now she is asking former colleagues, ex-
workers and maintenance men who worked at the hospital between the
1970s until the hospital's closure in 1994 for help.  She says it
is probable that others who worked there at the time were
similarly unaware of the dangers of asbestos exposure.

Helen Grady, an expert in asbestos disease solicitor at Novum Law
who specialises in mesothelioma cases, said: "Mesothelioma is a
particularly aggressive and incurable cancer that is extremely
debilitating for sufferers, who, like Shirley, were exposed to
deadly asbestos simply by going to work every day.

"Our research suggests there was a lot of asbestos at Brookwood
Hospital and it is hoped that as many ex-workers as possible will
come forward with information, including maintenance men who may
well remember the asbestos on site.

"It is likely that they were also unaware of the dangers of
asbestos exposure during the 1970s."

Shirley thinks she would have exposed to asbestos -- a fibrous
material that was regularly used for building insulation before
its dangers became apparent -- on a regular basis during her time
at the hospital, from 1974-75.

"I worked as a cleaner, constantly dusting, sweeping, mopping and
scrubbing," she said.

"There were lots of little side wards going off the main ward and
many large radiators and lots of pipework to clean.

"I dusted the windowsills, pipework and radiators and this was
part and parcel of my normal, daily cleaning routines. There was
always dust and mess to clear up.

"As the hospital was so big, there were permanent maintenance men
onsite. They regularly came on to the ward where I was working to
carry out their maintenance and repair jobs."

Her son Robin said: "It's been traumatic -- going back as recently
as November she would still walk from Hampton to Herne Bay with
her friends.

"But she started getting breathless to the point where she was
struggling to breathe.

"At hospital a litre of fluid was drained from her lung where it
had come away from the chest wall.

"She was referred to Guy's hospital, a consultant explained to Mum
what could it could possibly be."

Sadly, the consultant's suspicion proved correct and in January
Shirley's family -- she has three children and two grandchildren -
- were told she could have just six to eight weeks to live.

"It was a major shock to the family," said Robin. "We all feel
very angry because the asbestos seemed to have been used
everywhere to lag the pipes -- we've read the survey report."

"We're trying to get people who worked any time up till it shut in
1994 and who can back our case to come forward. Of course, there
might have been other cases. We want to stress that the government
knew asbestos was being used but didn't upon it.

"We want to demonstrate the fact it was just a shame people
weren't told or warned about it. We want to make people more aware
of the dangers -- you can be carrying this in your body for 40-60
years before something triggers it."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Covered Clothes Caused Woman's Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------
James Mayse, writing for Messenger-Inquirer, reported that a
former Owensboro, Kentucky, resident is suing a number of
companies, including General Electric, Big Rivers Electric Corp.
and Alcoa, claiming she contracted cancer when her former husband
was allegedly exposed to asbestos at various job sites.

Doris White, who now lives in Louisville, filed suit in Daviess
Circuit Court against Big Rivers, Alcoa, General Electric,
Triangle Insulation and Sheet Metal Co., Domtar Inc., Goodrich,
Goodyear Tire and Rubber, Indianapolis Light And Power and a
number of other businesses.

Although the suit was filed in October, the case file has already
ballooned to eight volumes as attorneys for White and the various
businesses issue reams of requests, counter-requests, responses
and depositions.

The complaint states White was "exposed to asbestos products from
her former husband, Ronald Eades' clothing and person during his
career as a insulator. Eades worked "in and around Daviess
County," the complaint says. The couple divorced in 1985.

"The defendants have for many years manufactured, sold,
distributed, installed, removed, specified, maintained properties
and/or directed the use of products that contained asbestos," the
complaint says.

In a deposition given in December, White said Eades was diagnosed
with asbestosis and underwent treatment. Eades, a union pipe
insulator, worked at multiple locations, and filed suit against
Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp. in 1996.

According to state Supreme Court ruling on Eades' case, Owens-
Corning "was in the business of manufacturing several different
types of insulation products that contained asbestos" and Eades
"breathed in asbestos dust" while handling insulation products.

In her deposition, White said she was diagnosed with mesothelioma
last summer after she complained of fatigue and shortness of
breath, and a chest X-ray indicated fluid in her lungs. According
to Medline Plus, a website maintained by the National Library of
Medicine and the National Institutes of Health, mesothelioma is a
"rare but serious type of cancer" that manifests as tumors in the
lining around the heart, lungs and organs.

"Most people who get (mesothelioma) have worked on jobs where they
inhaled asbestos particles." The disease "can take a long time" to
manifest, the website says.

White claims in her deposition that she was exposed to asbestos
dust from Eades' work clothing. White told attorneys in December
she would shake out Eades' work clothes, sometimes outside, but
other times in the garage or basement of their various homes when
she was doing laundry.

The dust from the clothes would be visible and heavy enough to
sweep up afterward, White said in her deposition.

White underwent major surgery to remove the lining of her lungs at
a Boston Hospital in October. During the procedure, two of White's
ribs were removed, and her diaphragm was also scraped, White said
in her deposition. She had also undergone the first of what was
expected to be several rounds of chemotherapy in December.

When White's attorney, Joseph Satterley of Louisville, asked how
White had been affected by the disease and treatment, White said
she'd lost quality of life, such as being able to work or do
activities with her family.

The court documents from the companies being sued consist of
responses to White's complaint. The companies, in turn, deny any
liability in White's condition.

In her deposition, attorneys for several of the companies inquired
as to whether White had ever been around a home that was being
remodeled, or around car repair work. White said that some
remodeling work was done in a portion of one of the houses where
she lived with Eades and her family, but that she was not involved
with work beyond doing things like picking colors.

White is seeking damages for her alleged injuries, and punitive
damages. No hearings on the case are currently scheduled in
Daviess Circuit Court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Fibro Victim Appeals to Colleagues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Croydon Advertiser reported that the distraught widow of a former
Croydon Council, England, painter and decorator who died from
asbestos-related cancer is appealing to his former colleagues for
help securing justice.

Harry Russell, of Addiscombe, died aged 82 in August 2013 from
mesothelioma just two days after his diagnosis which his family
believes was caused by his exposure to asbestos while employed by
the council.  His family told lawyers Irwin Mitchell they remember
him talking about working on the cooling towers at Taberner House,
the former council HQ.  He also painted a number of public
buildings including schools, old peoples' homes and childrens'
homes while working for the council between 1964 and 1995.

Mr Russell's wife Gwen, 79 and two children, Sharon and Gary, have
asked Irwin Mitchell's industrial disease experts to investigate
the working conditions during his time working for the council.
Mrs Russell hopes his former workmates will come forward to tell
lawyers about the measures put in place to protect workers from
inhaling asbestos dust and fibres in this period.

She said: "I am still coming to terms with the loss of Harry, but
I am determined to get justice for him and make sure those
responsible for failing to protect him are held to account."

Sarah Wolf, of Irwin Mitchell, said: "The dangers of asbestos have
been known for a long time, but sadly we continue to see examples
where employers have failed to take responsibility for the safety
of their workers.

"In this case, Harry paid the ultimate price for going to work
every day to provide for his family, and suffered a significant
amount of pain and distress in the final months of his life.

"We hope that his former workmates will come forward and provide
information on how and where he was exposed to asbestos during his
work, and what measures, if any, were put in place to prevent
tradespeople working for Croydon Council from inhaling the deadly
substance."

Mr Russell's daughter Sharon, 56, said her dad was an active man
who spent lots of time in his garden and allotment growing fresh
produce he gave to his family, friends and neighbours.

She added: "We are trying to do everything we can for mum and I
have given up my career as PA to take care of her.

"There's no amount of money that could compensate for Dad's loss,
but we want those who were responsible for his exposure to
asbestos to be held to account for their lack of preventative
measures, and for mesothelioma to be highlighted to employers and
workers alike, so no more families need to go through what we
have."

A Croydon Council spokeswoman said: "We would like to express our
condolences to the family of Mr Russell. As this is now a legal
matter we are unable to comment further at this time."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Waltham Forest Council to be Sentenced
-------------------------------------------------------
Zoie O'Brien, writing for This Is Local London, reported that the
sentencing of Waltham Forest council for allowing workers to be
exposed to asbestos will take place in March.

A date of March 30 has been set for the local authority to appear
at Southwark Crown Court after a judge decided the matter was too
serious for the magistrates court on January 19.

The council has already pleaded guilty to four counts of failing
staff and contractors by ignoring asbestos warnings.

All three kinds of asbestos, including deadly dust, were found in
the town hall basement in 2012 after a Freedom of Information Act
request was submitted by a member of the public.

A warning was given to the council in 2002 after asbestos was
found -- but it is not known when it was distrurbed.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wales Blocked from Claiming Fibro Costs
--------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ascher, writing for The Insurance Insider, reported that the
UK's Supreme Court has blocked the Welsh government's attempt to
retroactively chase insurers for the cost of the asbestos crisis
to the Welsh NHS.

In a decision on Feb. 9, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that
the Welsh government did not have the power to instate the
Recovery of Medical Costs Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill.

The court also found that even if the government did have the
power, it would be a breach of insurers' human rights.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow of Fibro Victim Receives Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Woodcock, writing for Gazette Live, reported that the widow
of a former chemical plant worker who was exposed to asbestos has
secured a settlement after his death.

John Gerald McLeod, known to friends and family as Ian, died in
August 2011 aged 66 after a long battle with lung cancer caused by
exposure to the deadly substance.

The Longlands, England, dad-of-two had been exposed to asbestos
while employed at Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) Billingham
and Wilton plants between 1967 and 1970, and again from 1979 to
1994.  And now, following a legal battle, lawyers at Irwin
Mitchell have secured Ian's widow Eileen a significant undisclosed
settlement.

ICI did not admit liability but a number of witnesses came forward
with crucial information about the conditions Ian was exposed to
and the measures in place to prevent his exposure to asbestos.

Eileen, who was married to Ian for 45 years, said: "I am delighted
and relieved that our legal battle in Ian's name is over and we
have received a settlement after a lot of hard work from our legal
team at Irwin Mitchell.

"No amount of money will bring Ian back or help us forget the pain
and suffering he went through as a result of being exposed to
asbestos during his working life, but we feel that justice has now
been done.

"The whole family would like to thank Ian's former workmates who
came forward with the information our legal team needed to secure
a settlement. We hope that these proceedings will encourage
companies to take the dangers of asbestos dust and fibres
seriously and ensure workers are protected from the deadly
substance."

During his employment with ICI, Ian, a grandad of seven and great-
grandfather to two, was exposed to the deadly dust in his role as
a rigger, which required him to erect scaffolding to allow
colleagues to lag the pipework with asbestos at ICI plants.

He was also required to remove asbestos lagging and before his
death recalled that scaffolding would become covered in debris and
asbestos dust, which he was required to handle on a daily basis.

Roger Maddocks, a partner and an expert asbestos lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell, said: "Ian worked at ICI's plants for a number of years
and a lot of his time working for the company was spent in dusty
environments where he would regularly come into contact with and
inhale asbestos dust and fibres.

"Unfortunately, he was not warned of the dangers of asbestos and
was not provided with the equipment required to prevent inhalation
of the hazardous substance. It is completely unacceptable that
workers were simply not protected or warned of the dangers of the
dust which have been known since the 1930s.

"I would like to thank those who came forward with information
about the working conditions Ian was exposed to at ICI's
Billingham and Wilton plants. They played a crucial role in
securing a settlement for Ian's wife Eileen and their family."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Senate Ponders Fibro Trust Claims Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Dickerson, writing for The West Virginia Record, reported
that a statewide group for trial lawyers says a state Senate bill
targeting asbestos bankruptcy trust claims is unnecessary and only
will hurt affected residents.

A legal reform group, however, applauds the measure, saying it
would bring needed transparency to the process and create medical
criteria for asbestos claimants.

Senate Bill 411 is being called the Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust
Claims Transparency Act and Asbestos and Silica Claims Priority
Act. It currently is before the state Senate Judiciary Committee.

The West Virginia Association for Justice urged the Judiciary
Committee to table the measure.

WVAJ President Anthony Majestro says West Virginia's current case
management order for asbestos cases is working well.

The current CMO "has a system to prioritize cases so that cancer
patients have their cases heard first," he said. "The case
management order has been used for all cases filed after September
6, 2001, and should serve as a national model for how these cases
are processed."

Majestro said SB 411 simply isn't needed.

"For more than a decade, West Virginia's asbestos cases have been
handled very effectively by our case management order," he said.
"It was developed by lawyers for both the injured workers and the
manufacturers. They worked together to establish a system that
would handle these cases fairly, efficiently and protected the
interests of all parties involved.

"More importantly, it ensures that very sick people are
compensated for their exposure to a deadly product that was kept
on the market for decades after its dangers were well known.

"West Virginia's case management order is working, and it should
be a model for any state that has asbestos claims.  If SB 411 is
passed, dying West Virginians will not be compensated and billion-
dollar manufacturers that kept a dangerous product on the market
will not be held accountable and get to keep their profits."

Majestro said defendants involved in the creation of the CMO have
acknowledged that "the existing CMO was an exhaustive joint effort
by the vast majority of plaintiffs and defendants to develop a
comprehensive system to address the large number of asbestos
claims in West Virginia." He also said that since its
implementation, additional changes have been made to improve
disclosure requirements regarding bankruptcy payments to clients
and that the CMO never has been appealed.

Majestro also noted that the proposed bill would eliminate
possible claims for secondary exposures for spouses and children
who were exposed to asbestos from a worker's body and clothing
even in cases of mesothelioma which is caused by inhaling asbestos
fibers.

West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse says the reform is
needed "to stop abuse of the asbestos trust system."

"Future legitimate asbestos claimants would benefit greatly from
legal reforms to bring transparency to the asbestos claims process
and establish medical criteria for asbestos claimants," WV CALA
Executive Director Roman Stauffer said. "These reforms are needed
to reduce fraud and help ensure the longevity of asbestos trusts.

"Abuse of the asbestos trust claims process is widespread, and
this legislation will shed much-needed daylight on how trusts are
being run and cut down on widespread fraud in trust claims and
litigation. Greed and misrepresentation of facts are rampant in
the system, and future legitimate victims of asbestos exposure are
losing out to those factors in our present system."

Stauffer said West Virginia and national personal injury attorneys
have abused the asbestos trust filing process for personal gain,
citing bogus claims filed by late radiologist Ray Harron and two
Pittsburgh asbestos attorneys. They were found guilty of fraud and
racketeering. He also mentioned recent events in North Carolina
regarding Garlock Sealing Technologies.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges ruled in January 2014 that
Garlock would put $125 million into a trust that would pay
asbestos claimants. The figure was roughly $1 billion less than
plaintiffs attorneys had argued for.

Hodges wrote in his ruling that Garlock's history of verdicts and
settlements was an unreliable future indicator of the company's
liability because that past had been tainted by plaintiffs
attorneys who withheld their clients' evidence of exposure to
other companies' products in order to maximize recovery against
Garlock.

Garlock has filed four racketeering lawsuits against the firms
Shein Law Center of Philadelphia, Belluck & Fox of New York City,
Waters & Kraus of Dallas and Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett,
also of Dallas.

Garlock has since settled with a representative who represents
future claimants for more than $360 million.

"The Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Claims Transparency Act would
require personal injury lawyers to disclose, in litigation, when
they have filed claims with asbestos trusts or plan to do so,
which is currently not practiced," Stauffer said. "Additionally,
the legislation establishes medical criteria for asbestos claims,
which will help eliminate fraudulent trust claims and preserve
asbestos trust resources for those with legitimate claims.

"Some millionaire personal injury lawyers are not speaking the
truth when they say this legislation will 'eliminate asbestos
monetary recovery.' This reform legislation will ensure that our
lawsuit system is used for justice, not greed. It will ensure that
asbestos trusts remain accessible to those with legitimate
asbestos claims and will be a giant step toward ending asbestos
fraud with trusts and in the courtroom."

On its website, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization said
it also is opposed to SB 411.

"West Virginians suffer some of the worst asbestos exposure with
the fourth-highest age-adjusted mesothelioma death rate," an ADAO
post states. "Mesothelioma, a name few know until they are
diagnosed, is a fatal lung cancer directly caused by asbestos
exposure."

ADAO says that, if SB 411 passes, "asbestos victims will likely be
unable to receive the compensation they rightly deserve from the
asbestos companies who unlawfully exposed workers, community
members, and families to the carcinogen."

"If passed, the bill will take away victims legal right to privacy
and rightful compensation needed to pay the unending tide of
mesothelioma medical bills and basic costs of day-to-day living,"
the group states. "In addition, the bill would undercut our right
as American citizens to hold asbestos companies responsible for
their unlawful and morally reprehensible actions."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Kills Derby Founder Worker
------------------------------------------------------
Martin Taylor, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that a former
foundry worker from Derby, England, breathed in asbestos and
silicon while cleaning out giant furnaces at the place where he
worked.

A pathologist said parts of Trevor Dunn's lungs were so badly
diseased "they were dead".

But he added that breathing in the two deadly dusts only half-
contributed to the 82-year-old's death, as he also had two forms
of heart disease.

Mr Dunn's inquest heard that his son questioned why surgeons had
chosen not to operate on his father who was suffering from heart
disease shortly before his death.

But those concerns were allayed by Dr Andrew Hitchcock, who
carried out the post-mortem examination. He told the hearing:
"From a very simplistic view I would suggest had he had surgery
(on his heart), he would have either died on the (operating) table
or shortly after.

"I think the decision not to intervene was the right one."

The inquest, at Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court, heard
that Mr Dunn, of Slaney Close, Allenton, was admitted to the Royal
Derby hospital on September 26, having suffered a heart attack,
and he died less than 40 minutes later.

The hearing was told that he started working at the age of 14 at
the former Ewarts Foundry, where he stayed for 30 years.

After a statement was prepared by son Richard for the inquest,
Coroner Louise Pinder said: "During his time there he was a
foundry repair man and used to clean the insides of the giant
furnaces which were used in the production of molten metal.

"Later furnaces were lined with asbestos to which he was
significantly exposed."

After leaving Ewarts, in 1990, Mr Dunn used to train people to
become painters and decorators until he retired at the age of 65.

Miss Pinder said: "The question has been raised by the family as
to why three different consultants reached a decision not to elect
that Mr Dunn had heart surgery."

Dr Hitchcock said his post-mortem examination revealed that Mr
Dunn suffered from asbestosis, silicosis and naturally occurring
combined heart diseases, which he gave as the cause of death.

He said: "Both lungs were grossly abnormal in their entirety with
blackening and scarring. There were certain parts of the lung that
were so abnormal they were dead.

"I am going to suggest to the court that all these separate
diseases played their part in his death."

Miss Pinder reached a conclusion that Mr Dunn died both of
industrial disease and natural heart disease.

She said: "I suggest he was a very stoic man who did extremely
well to cope, both physically and mentally, with the diseases he
had."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hailsham Man Suffering From Fibro Poisining Dies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastbourne Herald reported that a 75-year old man from Hailsham,
England, suffering from asbestos poisoning died a week after being
admitted to St Wilfrid's Hospice, an inquest has heard.

James Spencer, of Harmers Hay Road in Hailsham, was taken into the
Hospice on January 10, 2015 but died a week later, on January 17.

At his inquest, held at Eastbourne Magistrates' Court on February
12, the court heard how Mr Spencer was a specialist joiner by
trade. In an in-life statement written by Mr Spencer's solicitors,
he told how he worked as a carpenter and shop fitter for W.K
Nelson King, where he was exposed to asbestos on a number of
occasions. Much of his work was done in basements, where pipes
would be covered with asbestos lagging.

Later, he worked for Turner and Dean, where he was let out as a
sub-contractor for Bell and Pearson. The work, which was overseen
by East Sussex County Council, involved cutting soffits and boards
that were made of asbestos sheets.  He said he was never given any
information about asbestos, nor any protective mask. He used to
sweep up the dust with a dustpan and brush at the end of each day.

Coroner Alan Craze recorded a conclusion of death by industrial
disease.

Mr Craze felt assured that Mr Spencer suffered from asbestos
poisoning, which is on the list of industrial diseases, and that
he died as a cause of the infection and did not simply have it as
a secondary illness. He was also convinced Mr Spencer contracted
the disease during many years of exposure at work.

While a post mortem was not carried out, a junior nurse at St
Wilfrid's Hospice agreed with the cause of death as asbestos
poisoning.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Oglebay Norton Unit Can't Dodge Fibro Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law360, reported that a former division
of the shipping operator Oglebay Norton Corp. failed to shake off
a lawsuit by the wife of a deceased former employee who allegedly
developed mesothelioma from asbestos exposure, after arguing to a
Pennsylvania state court that the state's Occupational Disease Act
hampers the suit.

Pennsylvania state judge Michael F. Marmo denied a motion for
summary judgment by Ferro Engineering Division of Oglebay Norton
Marine Services Co.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Suits Against Crane Co. Time-Barred
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Fair, writing for Law360, reported that a crane manufacturer
has dodged a quartet of asbestos cases in Cambria County just more
than a week after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected an
appeal of a decision finding that a 12-year statute of repose
barred claims against companies involved in large-scale property
improvements containing the cancer-causing fiber.

Judge Patrick Kiniry in the Cambria County Court of Common Pleas
agreed to dismiss four cases against Reunion Industries Inc. after
accepting arguments that the custom crane manufacturer could not
be held accountable for any alleged exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 12,000 Pending Fibro Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company had 12,000 pending asbestos-
related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 26, 2014.

Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976, the Company is named
as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged
exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases
involve product liability claims based principally on allegations
of past distribution of products containing asbestos. A limited
number of the cases allege premises liability based on claims that
individuals were exposed to asbestos while on the Company's
property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants
in addition to the Company. The complaints generally seek monetary
damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from
alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's
involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because it did not
mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's
experience, a large percentage of these claims have never been
substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company
has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding
related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these
lawsuits. When appropriate, the Company settles claims; however,
amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims have been
immaterial. As of December 26, 2014, there were approximately
12,000 asbestos-related cases pending against the Company.

The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that were
incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which
are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed
consolidated balance sheets. The Company's estimate of its
liability for pending and future claims is based on claims
experience over the past five years and covers claims either
currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years.
The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related
to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to
determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos-
related proceedings, the Company believes, given the information
currently available, that the ultimate resolution of all known and
anticipated future claims, after taking into account amounts
already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will not
have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results
of operations and cash flows.

Mallinckrodt public limited company (Mallinckrodt), incorporated
on January 9, 2013, is a global specialty pharmaceuticals company.
The Company develops, manufactures, markets and distributes both
branded and generic specialty pharmaceuticals, active
pharmaceutical ingredients (API) and diagnostic imaging agents.
The Company uses its API products in the manufacture of its
generic pharmaceuticals and also sells them to other
pharmaceutical companies. The Company operates through two
segments: Specialty Pharmaceuticals and Global Medical Imaging. On
June 28, 2013, Covidien plc completed the separation of its
Pharmaceuticals business and transferred the Pharmaceuticals
business to Mallinckrodt. In March 2014, the Company acquired
Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. In August 2014, Mallinckrodt Plc
acquired Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graham Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Corporation continues to defend itself against lawsuits
alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos allegedly
contained in its products, 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.

The Company states: "We have been named as a defendant in certain
lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos
allegedly contained in our products. We are a co-defendant with
numerous other defendants in these lawsuits and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against these claims. The claims are
similar to previous asbestos lawsuits that named us as a
defendant. Such previous lawsuits either were dismissed when it
was shown that we had not supplied products to the plaintiffs'
places of work or were settled by us for immaterial amounts.
As of December 31, 2014, we were subject to the claims, as well as
other legal proceedings and potential claims that have arisen in
the ordinary course of business.

"Although the outcome of the lawsuits to which we are a party
cannot be determined and an estimate of the reasonably possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made, we do not believe that the
outcomes, either individually or in the aggregate, will have a
material effect on our results of operations, financial position
or cash flows."

Graham Corporation (Graham) designs, manufactures and sells
equipment for the energy industry, which includes the oil
refining, petrochemical, cogeneration, nuclear and alternative
power markets. The Company also designs and manufactures custom-
engineered ejectors, vacuum pumping systems, surface condensers
and vacuum systems, as well as supplies and components for use
inside the reactor vessel and outside the containment vessel of
nuclear power facilities. The Company's products are used in a
range of industrial process applications in energy markets,
including petroleum refining, chemical and petrochemical
processing, power generation or alternative energy, defense and
other. The Company's two wholly owned subsidiaries, Energy Steel &
Supply Co. (Energy Steel), located in Lapeer, Michigan, and Graham
Vacuum and Heat Transfer Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. (GVHTT),
located in Suzhou, China.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: United Technologies Continues to Defend PI Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation continues to defend itself against
lawsuits alleging asbestos-related personal injury, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company states: "Like many other industrial companies in
recent years, we or our subsidiaries have been named as a
defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of
exposure to asbestos integrated into certain of our products or
premises. While we have never manufactured asbestos and no longer
incorporate it in any currently-manufactured products, certain of
our historical products, like those of many other manufacturers,
have contained components incorporating asbestos. A substantial
majority of these asbestos-related claims have been covered by our
insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed
without payment. The remaining closed cases have been resolved for
amounts that are not material individually or in the aggregate."

United Technologies Corporation (UTC) provides high technology
products and services to the building systems and aerospace
industries worldwide. The Company operates in six segments:Otis,
Carrier and UTC Fire & Security (collectively referred to as the
commercial businesses) serve customers in the commercial,
government infrastructure and residential property sectors
worldwide. Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Sundstrand and Sikorsky
(collectively referred to as the aerospace businesses) primarily
serves commercial and government customers in both the original
equipment and aftermarket parts and services markets of the
aerospace industry. Hamilton Sundstrand, Pratt & Whitney and UTC
Fire & Security also serve customers in certain industrial
markets.In April 2014, United Technologies Corp announced that
Interlogix, part of UTC Building & Industrial Systems, a unit of
United Technologies Corp acquired Ultra High Speed (UHS) from
Australian company Hills Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NC App. Affirms Compensation Ruling in PI Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thurman Franklin Patton originally brought a claim for asbestosis
against several defendants in 2003.  The decedent's claim was
resolved through a compromise settlement agreement approved by the
North Carolina Industrial Commission on April 27, 2009.  On
February 10, 2010, the decedent passed away.  The decedent's
surviving spouse, Artie Patton, passed away on August 29, 2011.
As such, the named plaintiff in the action is Michael Ray Patton,
the decedent's son and the administrator of his estate.

In June 2014, the Full Commission entered an Opinion and Award
reversing the Deputy Commissioner's decision and concluding that
the decedent's death was compensable under the North Carolina
Workers' Compensation Act.  The Commission awarded the plaintiff,
in relevant part, 400 weeks of compensation benefits at the weekly
rate of $400.01 and ordered the defendants to pay plaintiff a
burial fee of $3,500.

Defendant-employer Sears Roebuck & Co. and Specialty Risk Services
appeal from the Commission's Opinion and Award.  On appeal, the
defendants neither contend that the decedent was not exposed to
asbestos at work nor do they deny that he had asbestosis.
Instead, they argue that the decedent was not entitled to
compensation for this disease because his exposure was not great
enough to maintain a claim for benefits and because it is unclear
whether his exposure to asbestos caused or significantly
contributed to his death.

In an opinion dated Feb. 17, 2015, the Court of Appeals of North
Carolina, affirmed, after concluding that the findings of fact
showed that (1) the plaintiff was exposed to asbestos for a
minimum of 30 days within a consecutive seven-month period and (2)
the decedent's occupational exposure to asbestos was a significant
contributing factor in his death are both supported by competent
evidence.

The case is MICHAEL RAY PATTON, Administrator of the Estate of
THURMAN FRANKLIN PATTON, Deceased Employee, Plaintiff, v. SEARS
ROEBUCK & CO., Employer, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, Carrier,
Defendants, NO. COA14-955 (N.C. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/2Qpmomfrom Leagle.com.

Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Edward L. Pauley, for plaintiff.

Rudisill White & Kaplan, P.L.L.C., by Stephen Kushner, Esq. --
stevekushner@rwklawfirm.com -- for defendants.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Grants Bids to Vacate PI Suit Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Burnham LLC, individually, and as a successor to
Burnham Corp., and Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., move pursuant to CPLR
4404(a) to set aside the verdict in favor of plaintiffs in five
consolidated asbestos cases, and for judgment in their favor as a
matter of law, or, in the alternative, for a new trial, as against
the weight of the evidence, or for remitter of the jury verdicts.

Judge Joan A. Madden of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision and order dated Feb. 5, 2015, issued the following
rulings:

   (1) the motion by Cleaver-Brooks to set aside the verdict with
respect to plaintiff Santos Assenzio is granted only to the extent
of vacating the awards of $20 million for past pain and suffering,
and $10 million to Mr. Assenzio's spouse for loss of consortium
and ordering a new trial on the issue of damages unless plaintiff
Santos Assenzio stipulates to reduce the awards to $5.5 million
for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for his spouse's loss of
consortium;

   (2) the separate motions by Burnham and Cleaver-Brooks to set
aside the verdict with respect to plaintiff Robert Brunck is
granted only to the extent of vacating the award of $20 million
for past pain and suffering and ordering a new trial on the issue
of damages unless plaintiff Robert Brunck stipulates to reduce the
award to $3.2 million for past pain and suffering;

   (3) the motion by Cleaver-Brooks to set aside the verdict with
respect to plaintiff Paul Levy is granted only to the extent of
vacating the awards of $15 million for past pain and suffering,
$35 million for future pain and suffering and $10 million to Mr.
Levy's spouse for loss of consortium and ordering a new trial on
the issue of damages unless plaintiff Paul Levy stipulates to
reduce the awards to $4 million for past pain and suffering, $3.5
million for future pain and suffering, and $650,000 for his
spouse's loss of consortium;

   (4) the motion by Burnham to set aside the verdict with respect
to plaintiff Cesar O. Serna is granted only to the extent of
vacating the awards of $30 million for past pain and suffering and
$30 million for future pain and suffering and ordering a new trial
on the issue of damages unless plaintiff Cesar O. Serna stipulates
to reduce the awards to $4.5 million for past pain and suffering
and $3 million for future pain and suffering; and

   (5) the separate motions by Burnham and Cleaver-Brooks to set
aside the verdict with respect to plaintiff Raymond Vincent is
granted only to the extent of vacating the award of $20 million
for past pain and suffering and ordering a new trial on the issue
of damages unless plaintiff Raymond Vincent stipulates to reduce
the award to $5 million for past pain and suffering.

The case is IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
SANTOS ASSENZIO, ROBERT BRUNCK, PAUL LEVY, CESAR O. SERNA, RAYMOND
VINCENT, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al.,
Defendants, DOCKET NOS. 190008/12, 190026/12, 190200/12,
190183/12, 190184/12 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Madden's Decision is available at http://is.gd/lNI4NYfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Hammond" Suit Remanded to Miss. State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendell Hammond filed suit against Phillips 66 Company and
numerous other defendants in the Circuit Court of Marion County,
alleging injury as a result of being exposed to asbestos while
working in the oil industry from approximately 1968 until 1979.
Hammond alleges that he suffers from asbestosis and related lung
disease because of his frequent and sustained exposure to drilling
mud additives and products containing asbestos that were
negligently and defectively designed, manufactured, marketed,
distributed, and sold by each Defendant.  Chevron Phillips
Chemical Company LP, as successor in interest to Defendant
Phillips 66 Company, removed the proceeding to the federal court.

In a memorandum opinion and order dated Feb. 12, 2015, at the
Plaintiff's behest, Judge Keith Starrett of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Eastern
Division, remanded the action to the state court.

The case is WENDELL HAMMOND, Plaintiff, v. PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, ET
AL., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14CV119-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss.).
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/XvdQDKfrom Leagle.com.

Wendell Hammond, Plaintiff, represented by Laurel Li Harris,
PORTER & MALOUF, PA.

Phillips 66 Company, Defendant, represented by Lindsey O. Watson,
ADAMS AND REESE, LLP.

Phillips Petroleum Company, Defendant, represented by Lindsey O.
Watson, ADAMS AND REESE, LLP.

Drilling Specialties Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Lindsey O. Watson, ADAMS AND REESE, LLP.

Conoco Phillips Company, Defendant, represented by Lindsey O.
Watson, ADAMS AND REESE, LLP.

Montello, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brannon L. Berry,
FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, LLP, Clare Smith Rush,
FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, LLP, Laura DeVaughn
Goodson, FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY & Marcy B. Croft,
FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alexander
Caston Martin, II, FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, LLP,
Christi G. Jones, FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, LLP &
Laura DeVaughn Goodson, FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY.

Oilfield Service and Supply Company, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Jason Eric Fortenberry, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, LLP.

GEO Drilling Fluids, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tara
Strickland Clifford, DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6 Cos. Obtain Dismissal of "Denton" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois, in the asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit styled BILLIE DENTON, Individually and as Special
Administrator for the Estate of ROBERT F. DENTON, Deceased,
Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATIONS, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-1243-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill.), issued
separate memoranda and orders granting the motions to dismiss the
lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction filed by six defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges that decedent Robert F. Denton was exposed
to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed large amounts of
asbestos fibers from products manufactured, sold, distributed, or
installed by the defendants.  Judge Yandle found that the
Plaintiff alleges no facts indicating the Decedent's injuries
arose from the Defendants' activities in Illinois.

A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision dated Feb. 17, 2015,
with respect to defendant E.I. DuPont De Menours Company's motion
is available at http://is.gd/qbouU5from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision dated Feb. 19, 2015,
with respect to defendant NIBCO, Inc.'s motion is available at
http://is.gd/2j7YtWfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision dated Feb. 19, 2015,
with respect to defendant Exxon Mobile Corporation's motion is
available at http://is.gd/b9wuACfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision dated Feb. 19, 2015,
with respect to defendant BASF Corporation's motion is available
at http://is.gd/QLtma5from Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision dated Feb. 19, 2015,
with respect to defendant Clow Corporation's motion is available
at http://is.gd/Xk21Rsfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision dated Feb. 19, 2015,
with respect to defendant Valero Energy Corporation's motion is
available at http://is.gd/lY1YXDfrom Leagle.com.

Billie Denton, Plaintiff, represented by Allyson M. Romani,
Shrader & Associates LLP, Matthew B. McLeod, Shrader & Associates
LLP. Andrew John McEnaney, Shrader & Associates LLP. Bradley N.
Ritter, Shrader & Associates LLP & Robert Eugene Shuttlesworth,
Shrader & Associates LLP.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary
C. Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et
al..

Alcoa Inc, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal,
McCambridge et al..

Ameron International Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Lawrence S. Denk, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. John I. Schaberg, Foley
& Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.
API Heat Transfer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephanie F.
Jones, Gordon & Rees LLP.

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

Armstrong Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Margaret M.
Foster, Esq. -- mfoster@mckenna-law.com -- McKenna Storer.

Arvinmeritor Inc, Defendant, represented by Dayna L. Johnson, Esq.
-- dlj@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker et al..

Atlantic Richfield Company, Defendant, represented by Donald
Patrick Eckler, Esq. -- deckler@pretzel-stouffer.com -- Pretzel &
Stouffer.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al. & Samuel Joseph Cook, Segal, McCambridge
et al..

Baltimore Aircoil Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC &
Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

BASF Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph A Kilpatrick,
Esq. -- joe.kilpatrick@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP.

Beazer East, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Bechtel Construction Company, Defendant, represented by Gary C.
Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et
al..

Bechtel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
BF Shaw, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erick E. VanDorn,
Thompson Coburn.

Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald W.
Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP. Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP. James D.
Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP. Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs
LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald
Patrick Eckler, Pretzel & Stouffer.

Brand Insulations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Kenneth M. Nussbaumer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC & Mary D. Rychnovsky, Williams
Venker & Sanders LLC.

Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, Defendant, represented
by A. J. Bronsky, Brown & James.

Buffalo Air Handling, Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill,
Heyl, Royster et al..

Burnham, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber, Hinshaw
& Culbertson. James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP. Mark D.
Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

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

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.
Catalytic Construction Company, Defendant, represented by Kenneth
M. Burke, Brown & James.

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

Celanese Corporation, Defendant, represented by Earl B. Thames,
Jr., Hawkins, Esq. -- ehawkins@hptylaw.com -- Parnell et al. &
Stephen Christopher Collier, Esq. -- ccollier@hptylaw.com --
Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP.

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Chevron Philips Co, Defendant, represented by Erik L. Hansell,
Esq. -- erik.hansell@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP &
Mark G. Zellmer, Esq. -- mark.zellmer@huschblackwell.com -- at
Husch Blackwell LLP.

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Defendant, represented by Julie Fix
Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP. Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Raymond R. Fournie,
Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Donald J. Dahlmann, Walker & Williams & Leslie G. Offergeld,
Walker & Williams.

Cleaver-Brooks, Defendant, represented by Erin Renee Griebel,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. & Meredith S Hudgens,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Coastal Refining and Marketing, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Kenneth M.
Nussbaumer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC & Mary D. Rychnovsky,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Columbia Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski
Shultz LLC.

Conwed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber,
Hinshaw & Culbertson. James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.
Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Conoco Phillips Company, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter,
Heyl, Royster et al.. Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Mark
G. Zellmer, Husch Blackwell LLP.

Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber,
Hinshaw & Culbertson. James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.
Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Crane Company, Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson,
HeplerBroom LLC. Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Noel L. Smith,
Jr., HeplerBroom LLC.

Crosby Valve, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N.
Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP & Julia Yasmin Tayyab,
Morgan, Lewis et al..

Crown Cork & Seal USA Inc, Defendant, represented by Stephen J.
Maassen, Hoagland, Fitzgerald & Pranaitis.

Cummins Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal,
McCambridge et al..

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Daniel International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan
L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed,
Armstrong et al..

Dap, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Lynn Weinberger,
Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge
et al..

Dezurik, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al. & Samuel Joseph Cook, Segal, McCambridge
et al..

Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Beth Kamp
Veath, Brown & James.

The Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T.
Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Dravo Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al..

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by J. Todd Applegate,
Pitzer Snodgrass PC & Brian J. Connolly, Pitzer Snodgrass PC.
EEIC, Inc, Defendant, represented by Earl B. Thames, Jr., Hawkins,
Parnell et al..

Ethyl Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Exxon Mobile Corporation, Defendant, represented by H. Patrick
Morris, Esq. -- morrisp@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell & David F.
Fanning, Esq. -- fanningd@jbltd.com -- Johnson & Bell LTD.

The Fairbanks Company, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..
Ferro Engineering, Defendant, represented by A. J. Bronsky, Brown
& James.

Flowserve US Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al.. Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP. James
D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP. Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs
LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Fluor Constructors International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Bryan L. Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II,
Reed, Armstrong et al..

Fluor Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton,
Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed, Armstrong
et al..

Fluor Daniel Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan L.
Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed,
Armstrong et al..

Fluor Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bryan L.
Skelton, Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed,
Armstrong et al..

FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert,
Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Fort Kent Holdings, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kyle Pozan,
Segal, McCambridge et al..

Foseco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler,
HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Gardner Denver Inc, Defendant, represented by Amanda Lynn
Weinberger, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Bradley R. Bultman, Segal,
McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC &
Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Goodrich Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter,
Heyl, Royster et al.. Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Kendra
A Wolters, Heyl, Royster et al..

Goulds Pumps Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Dennis J.
Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson. James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP. Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Nicole E.
Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.

Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Kyler
H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski
Shultz LLC.

Greene Tweed & Co., Inc, Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Samuel Joseph Cook, Segal,
McCambridge et al..

Grinnell Corporation, Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, Esq. -- ytayyab@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis et al..

Hennessy Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephanie F.
Jones, Gordon & Rees LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J.
Dobbels, Polsinelli PC. Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart
PC. Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones,
Polsinelli PC.

Howden North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J.
Graber, Hinshaw & Culbertson. James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP. Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Nicole E.
Rice, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.

Illinois Tool Works, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC &
Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter,
Heyl, Royster et al.. Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Kendra
A Wolters, Heyl, Royster et al..

Industrial Holdings Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael
J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC &
Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC &
Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

International Paper Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J.
Kanute, Faegre Baker Daniels & Mindy A. Finnigan, Faegre Baker
Daniels.

ITT Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers,
McGuire Woods LLP & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP.

J.A. Sexauer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith,
Herzog Crebs LLP. James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP. Justin
Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et
al..

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kyler
H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski
Shultz LLC.

The J.R. Clarkson Company, Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin
Tayyab, Morgan, Lewis et al..

John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Johnston Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Michael R.
Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Joy Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Lynn
Weinberger, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Bradley R. Bultman, Segal,
McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Kennedy Valve Company, a division of McWane, Defendant,
represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J.
Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Kitz Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Joseph R.
Brown, Jr., Lucco, Brown et al.. Christopher P. Threlkeld, Lucco,
Brown, Threlkeld & Dawson LLP & Debra K. Zahalsky, Lucco, Brown et
al..

Kraissel Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Margaret M.
Foster, McKenna Storer.

Kunkle Valve, Defendant, represented by Julia Yasmin Tayyab,
Morgan, Lewis et al..

Kvaerner U.S. Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels,
Polsinelli PC. Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli Shughart PC.

Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli
PC.

Ladish Valve Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by James A.
Telthorst, Esq. -- jim.telthorst@guntymccarthy.com -- Gunty &
McCarthy & David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy.

Lattner Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter,
Heyl, Royster et al.. Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Kendra
A Wolters, Heyl, Royster et al..

Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC. Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC & Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC.

Lennox Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Maremont Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ryan T. Barke,
Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC & John T. Hipskind, Esq. --
jth@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC.

McCord Gasket Company, Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N.
Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

McNally Industries LLC, Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N.
Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Metso Minerals Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Donald
Patrick Eckler, Pretzel & Stouffer.

Milwaukee Valve Co., Defendant, represented by Lawrence S. Denk,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP.

Mueller Steam Speciality Co., Defendant, represented by James A.
Telthorst, Gunty & McCarthy & David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy.
Nalco Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler,
HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Margaret M.
Foster, McKenna Storer.

Natkin Service Co., Defendant, represented by James V Tomaska,
Johnson & Bell LTD.. James K. Toohey, Johnson & Bell LTD & Jeffery
G. Chrones, Johnson & Bell LTD.

Navistar International Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC. Allison K. Sonneveld, Polsinelli
Shughart PC. Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones,
Polsinelli PC.

Nibco, Inc., Defendant, represented by James V Tomaska, Johnson &
Bell LTD.. James K. Toohey, Johnson & Bell LTD & Jeffery G.
Chrones, Johnson & Bell LTD.

Nooter Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas M. Nieder,
Esq. -- dnieder@lewisrice.com -- Lewis Rice LLC.

NRG Texas Power, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC.

Oakfabco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tracy J. Cowan, Hawkins,
Parnell et al. & John M. Ward, Hawkins, Parnell et al..

Occidental Chemical Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark G.
Zellmer, Husch Blackwell LLP.

Owens-Illinois, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian O'Connor
Watson, Schiff Hardin LLP. Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin LLP &
Matthew J. Fischer, Schiff, Hardin et al.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary C.
Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.

Pecora Corporation, Defendant, represented by James A. Telthorst,
Gunty & McCarthy & David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy.

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew M. Voss, Esq. --
amv@greensfelder.com -- Greensfelder, Hemker et al..

Pharmacia Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jordan T. Ault,
Esq. -- jordan.ault@huschblackwell.com -- at Husch Blackwell LLP.

Plastics Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Samuel Joseph Cook, Segal,
McCambridge et al.

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Ref-Chem Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan L. Skelton,
Reed, Armstrong et al. & William B. Starnes, II, Reed, Armstrong
et al..

Resco Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Orris,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Williams
Venker & Sanders LLC & Mary D. Rychnovsky, Williams Venker &
Sanders LLC.

Research-Cottrell, Inc., Defendant, represented by James A.
Telthorst, Gunty & McCarthy & David J. Page, Gunty & McCarthy.

Riley Stoker Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary C.
Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et
al..

RME Petroleum Company, Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Orris,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Kenneth M. Nussbaumer, Williams
Venker & Sanders LLC & Mary D. Rychnovsky, Williams Venker &
Sanders LLC.

Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gary C.
Pinter, Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et
al..

Sargent & Lundy LLC, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter,
Heyl, Royster et al. & Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al..

Sepco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Scott Hood,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C. & Sean P. Fergus,
O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C..

Sherwin Williams Company, The, Defendant, represented by John A.
Bruegger, Hawkins, Parnell et al..

Shell Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Shell Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman,
Segal, McCambridge et al. & James R Shultz, Segal, McCambridge et
al..

Spirax Sarco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis J. Graber,
Hinshaw & Culbertson. James M. Brodzik, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Mark D. Bauman, Hinshaw & Culbertson. Nicole E. Rice, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP & Trevor A. Sondag, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Defendant, represented by Marcie J.
Vantine, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kyler H.
Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski
Shultz LLC.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC, Defendant, represented by
Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP.

Superior Boiler Works, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence S.
Denk, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP.

Swindell-Dressler International Co.., Defendant, represented by
Keith J. Hays, Hill Fulwider, PC & Christopher N. Wahl, Hill
Fulwider, PC.

TA Company, Defendant, represented by Margaret M. Foster, McKenna
Storer.

Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler,
HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Treco Construction Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Kenneth M.
Nussbaumer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC & Mary D. Rychnovsky,
Williams Venker & Sanders LLC.

Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Donald W. Ward,
Herzog Crebs LLP. Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP. James D.
Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP. Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs
LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..

Universal Refactories, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jerome S.
Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC & Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski
Shultz LLC.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T.
Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Justin S. Zimmerman,
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

URS Energy & Construction, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth
M. Burke, Brown & James.

Valero Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Travis
Herbert Campbell, Bryan Cave, LLP .

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael J
Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC &
Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Gary C. Pinter, Heyl,
Royster et al.. Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Kendra A
Wolters, Heyl, Royster et al..

Washington Group International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Kenneth M. Burke, Brown & James.

Watson McDaniel Company, Defendant, represented by John P.
Cunningham, Brown & James PC & Tucker Blaser, Brown & James PC.

Weil McLain, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal,
McCambridge et al. & Samuel Joseph Cook, Segal, McCambridge et
al..

Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael W. Newport,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Gary L.
Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP. James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP.
Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog,
Crebs et al..

The WM Powell Company, Defendant, represented by L. Alexa Newton,
Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield,
PLLP & Michael W. Newport, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

York International Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary L.
Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP. James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP.
Justin Andrew Welply, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog,
Crebs et al..

Zy-Tech Global Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by L.
Alexa Newton, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Michael R. Dauphin, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP & Robert J. Brummond, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Zurn Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Lynn
Weinberger, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Bradley R. Bultman, Segal,
McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Defendant, represented by Charles
L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley,
Nussbaumer, et al..

NRG Texas Power, Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens,
Kurowski Shultz LLC & Jerome S. Warchol, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Julie Fix
Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong
Teasdale LLP. Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R.
King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Clow Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler,
HeplerBroom LLC. Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J.
Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporartion, Defendant, represented by
Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Rohm and Haas Company, Defendant, represented by Mark Alan Smith,
Esq. -- mark.smith@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP &
Mark G. Zellmer, Husch Blackwell LLP.

Flowserve Corporation F/K/A, Defendant, represented by Bradley R.
Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al..

Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom
LLC.

Industrial Holdings Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by
Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom
LLC.

Foseco, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler,
HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC.

Borgwarner Morse Tec Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Donald
W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP. Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary
Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fla. Inmate's Claims for Damages Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff John Brown alleges that, while he was an inmate at the
Reception and Medical Center, he was exposed to friable asbestos.
Like most inmates at RMC, Brown contends that he suffers from
chronic illness and disabilities.  Brown alleges that, despite his
condition, he was forced to remove floor tile and mastic
containing asbestos from the F dormitory where he was housed.
Brown further alleges that exposure to asbestos in high
concentrations or over extended periods of time can result in
asbestosis and mesothelioma, both respiratory ailments.  Although
the risks of exposure to asbestos are known, Brown alleges that
the defendants failed to disclose the danger, provide any
training, gloves or masks, or ensure that the area had adequate
ventilation.

In an order dated Feb. 20, 2015, Judge Marcia Morales Howard of
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Jacksonville Division, granted the defendants' Motion to
Dismiss the plaintiff's claims for compensatory and punitive
damages, and dismissed defendant Michael Crews, Secretary of the
Florida Department of Corrections, from the action.  To the extent
that the Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages in
Counts One and Two of his lawsuit, those claims are also
dismissed.  Count Two against Defendant Michael Crews is further
dismissed, Judge Howard ruled.

The case is JOHN BROWN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL CREWS, Secretary of
the Florida Department of Corrections, in his official capacity,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-36-J-34PDB(M.D. Fla.).  A
full-text copy of Judge Howard's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/8d7mCgfrom Leagle.com.

John Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Karen M. Marcell, Esq. --
kmarcell@likeyourlawyer.com -- Katzman Garfinkel & Berger &
Michael O'Brien Colgan, Esq. -- mcolgan@likeyourlawyer.com --
Katzman Garfinkel & Berger.

Michael Crews, Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections,
in his official capacity, Defendant, represented by Lance Eric
Neff, Office of the Attorney General, Susan A. Maher, Office of
the Attorney General & Eric Neiberger, Office of the Attorney
General.

Bryan Riedl, Warden of Reception and Medical Center, in his
individual and official capacities, Defendant, represented by Eric
Neiberger, Office of the Attorney General, Lance Eric Neff, Office
of the Attorney General & Susan A. Maher, Office of the Attorney
General.

Ellen Link, Assistant Warden of Reception and Medical Center,
Defendant, represented by Eric Neiberger, Office of the Attorney
General, Lance Eric Neff, Office of the Attorney General & Susan
A. Maher, Office of the Attorney General.

Christopher Hancock, Sergeant, Defendant, represented by Eric
Neiberger, Office of the Attorney General, Lance Eric Neff, Office
of the Attorney General & Susan A. Maher, Office of the Attorney
General.

Archie W. Clemons, Colonel, Defendant, represented by Eric
Neiberger, Office of the Attorney General, Lance Eric Neff, Office
of the Attorney General & Susan A. Maher, Office of the Attorney
General.

Officer Hartley, Defendant, represented by Eric Neiberger, Office
of the Attorney General, Lance Eric Neff, Office of the Attorney
General & Susan A. Maher, Office of the Attorney General.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 7 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Bray" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Bray, executrix of the estate of Edgar St. Jean, and Marilyn
St. Jean, brought an action in Connecticut Superior Court
asserting claims for product liability, Conn. Gen. Stat. Sections
52-572m, et seq., loss of consortium, and punitive damages.
Defendant Crane Company timely removed the case to federal court
under the federal officer and military contractor defenses, 28
U.S.C. Section 1442.  At the close of discovery, defendants Aurora
Pumps, BW/IP, Inc., Carrier Corporation, Crane, Nash Engineering
Company, Warren Pumps, and Weir Valves and Controls USA, Inc.,
filed motions for summary judgment, principally asserting that the
plaintiffs had failed to meet their evidentiary burden on all
claims.

The decedent, Edgar St. Jean, served in the military from 1953 to
December 1956.  He then joined Electric Boat Corporation, a
division of General Dynamics Corporation, as an outside machinist
and later, as a general foreman, from approximately 1956 to April
1980.  His worksite was located in Groton, Connecticut, where St.
Jean worked on new construction and the overhauling of nuclear
submarines for the U.S. Navy.  The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants manufactured products used in Electric Boat's
shipbuilding and repair business, and that St. Jean was exposed to
when using or installing those products.  On May 19, 2013, St.
Jean died of mesothelioma and asbestosis, which the plaintiffs
allege was caused by St. Jean's exposure to and inhalation of
asbestos fibers throughout his military and shipbuilding career.

Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut, based on the record and all
pleadings, found that the plaintiffs have failed to meet their
evidentiary burden on all of their claims and thus granted the
defendants' motions for summary judgment.

The case is DEBRA BRAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INGERSOLL-RAND CO.,
et al., Defendants, NO. 3:13-CV-1561 (SRU)(D. Conn.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Underhill's ruling and order dated Feb. 19, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/zVFoRpfrom Leagle.com.

Debra L. Bray, Plaintiff, represented by Amity L. Arscott, Embry &
Neusner & Melissa M. Riley, Embry & Neusner.

Marilyn St. Jean, Plaintiff, represented by Amity L. Arscott,
Embry & Neusner & Melissa M. Riley, Embry & Neusner.

Ingersoll-Rand Co., Defendant, represented by Erminia Amy
LaBrecque, Adler, Cohen, Harvey, Wakeman and Guekguezian.

Aurora Pump, Defendant, represented by Cullen W. Guilmartin,
McCarter & English, LLP, Erin C O'Leary, Esq. --
eoleary@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English LLP & John J. Robinson,
Esq., at McCarter & English, LLP.

BW/IP, Inc., Defendant, represented by Geoffrey Lane Squitiero,
Esq. -- squitiero@halloransage.com -- Halloran & Sage LLP.

Carrier Corporation, Defendant, represented by Chenchao Lu, Esq. -
- clu@conwaystoughton.com -- Conway & Stoughton, LLC & Matthew G.
Conway, Esq. -- mconway@conwaystoughton.com -- Conway & Stoughton,
LLC.

Crane Co, Defendant, represented by Patrick J. Glinka, Esq. --
pglinka@danaherlagnese.com -- Danaher, Lagnese & Sacco, P.C. &
Jason Kirk Henderson, Esq. -- jhenderson@danaherlagnese.com --at
Danaher Lagnese, PC.

Flowserve US Inc., Defendant, represented by Geoffrey Lane
Squitiero, Halloran & Sage LLP.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Tara Lynn Trifon, Locke
Lord LLP, Andrew J Murray, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP & Paul E.
Dwyer, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP.

IMO Indus, Inc, Defendant, represented by Richard M. Dighello,
Jr., Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C..

Industrial Holdings Corp, Defendant, represented by Tara Lynn
Trifon, Locke Lord LLP, Andrew J Murray, Edwards Wildman Palmer
LLP & Paul E. Dwyer, Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Melicent B. Thompson, Esq. -- thompson@litchfieldcavo.com --
Litchfield Cavo LLP.

Nash Engineering Co, Defendant, represented by Reed Adam Slatas,
Adler Law Group LLC, Jennifer Elaine Wheelock, McGivney & Kluger,
P.C., Jonathan P. Ciottone, McGivney & Kluger, P.C. & Mark R.
Cramer, McGivney & Kluger, P.C.

Safeguard Scientifics Inc, Defendant, represented by Edward N.
Storck, III, Esq. -- estorck@morrisonmahoney.com -- Morrison,
Mahoney LLP & Robert S. Bystrowski, Esq. --
rbystrowski@morrisonmahoney.com -- Morrison, Mahoney LLP.

Sepco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard M. Dighello,
Jr., Updike, Kelly & Spellacy, P.C..

Tuthill Corporation, Defendant, represented by Frank Audemars
Sherer, III, Esq. -- fsherer@mdmc-law.com -- McElroy, Deutsch,
Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP.

Viking Pump Inc, Defendant, represented by Charles K. Mone, Esq.
-- cmone@piercedavis.com -- Pierce, Davis & Perritano, LLP.

Warren Pumps, Defendant, represented by Charles K. Mone, Pierce,
Davis & Perritano, LLP.

Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Elaine Wheelock, McGivney & Kluger, P.C. & Reed Adam
Slatas, Adler Law Group LLC.


                             *********

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  * * *