/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150327.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 27, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 62 Headlines ALLIANCE WORKFORCE: Removes "Brifil" Class Suit to M.D. Florida ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Illegally Cancelled Life Insurance, Suit Says APPLE INC: "No Poach" Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay AR RESOURCES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Pa. Suit Claims ARIZONA: Judge OKs Prison Health Care Class Action Settlement ASSURED CONTRACTING: Removes "Hardy" class Suit to S.D. Florida BAC 115 CORP: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York BADIA SPICES: Recalls Badia Cumin Products Due to Peanuts BASIC RESEARCH: Settles Class Action Over Weight-Loss Tablets BLACK TIE: Faces "Romano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BRM FOODS: "Farris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BUFFALO, NY: Ex-Blue-Collar Employees Lose Class Action Bid CALLFIRE INC: Wins Summary Judgment in TCPA Class Action CCB CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Pending CON-WAY INC: Disputes Class Certification in "Pina" Action CON-WAY INC: Final Settlement Approval Granted in "Quezada" Suit COOPER TIRE: To Defend Against Suit Over Apollo Tyres Transaction CORPORATE RESOURCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action CRAWFORD & CO: Says 10% of Revenues From Deepwater Settlement DANIEL CONSUEGRA: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act DUTCHESS COUNTY, NY: Set to Reply to Grocer's Item-Pricing Suit ENERGY CORPORATION: Trial in Natural Gas Royalties Suit Begins EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Class Cert. Bid in "Beeman" Case Not Yet Briefed EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Decertify Class in "Brady" Still Pending EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Parties in "Berk" Case Agreed to Stay Lawsuit FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Arbitration Bid in "Howard" Case Granted FIRSTMERIT CORP: Revised Class Definition Not Yet Approved FIRSTMERIT CORP: Settlement in Citizens Merger Case Not Yet Final FIRSTMERIT CORP: Court Denied Bid to Dismiss CRBC 401(k) Suit FORT COLLINS, CO: Council Nixes Parts of Pandhandling Ordinance FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Asks Lawyers to Prepare Questions List GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Irish Soda Bread Due to Undeclared Milk HOMEPLUS: Class Action Mulled Over Sale of Customer Info HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Lactated Ringer's Irrigations HSBC: Faces Class Action Over Credit Card Fees in Australia HSBC FINANCE: Fails to Send Post-Repossession Notices, Suit Says HSBC FINANCE: Awaits Court of Appeals Ruling in Securities Case HSBC FINANCE: Settles Hazard Lender-Placed Insurance Claims HSBC FINANCE: Early 2015 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Funds' Suit HSBC FINANCE: Opt-Out Merchants Inked Deal in Credit Card Suit HSBC FINANCE: Plaintiffs in Salveson Appealed Claims Dismissal HSBC FINANCE: Settles Debt Cancellation Litigation HSBC FINANCE: Settlement in TCPA Litigation Has Initial Okay INTERSEC INTERACTIVE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages INVENSENSE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations JOHNSON & JOHNSON: DePuy Implant Case Trial Begins in Australia JUST ENERGY GROUP: Class Certification Granted in "Wilkins" Case KIRKLIN LAW FIRM: Judge Dismisses Plaintiffs Lawyer's Claims LENOVO US: Faces "Foster" Suit in W.D. Ky. Over Harmful Spyware LENOVO US: Faces "Johnson" Suit in Cal. Over Harmful Spyware LENOVO US: Faces "Levenhagen" Suit in Ore. Over Harmful Spyware LENOVO US: Faces "Simonoff" Suit in Cal. Over Harmful Spyware LIFE TIME: Settles TCPA Class Action for $15 Million LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Burns" Suit Over Toxic Floorings LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Flanagan" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Heilman" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Sowizrol" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Groton" Suit Over Chinese Flooring MASTEC INC: "O'Connor" Suit Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MICHAEL KORS: Managers File Overtime Class Action in California MOUNTAIN STATE UNIV: Former Students Get $11.3MM in Compensation MRS BPO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Braun" Suit Claims NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Trial in Super Bowl XLV Seating Suit Begins NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Judge Tosses Suit Over Super Bowl Tickets NEW YORK, NY: Cops File Class Action Over Quota Punishments OCWEN LOAN: Removes "Nemerovsky" Class Suit to M.D. Florida OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports PRIMAL PET: Recalls Feline Turkey Raw Frozen Formula PRUDENTIAL FIN'L: Cert. Bid Okayed in Part; Expert Report Nixed PURINA: Faces Class Action in California Over Beneful Dog Food RAMS HEAD: Faces Class Action Over Videotape Recording REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Appeals Court Reinstates Red-Light Camera Suits REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ROYAL BANK: SMEs File Class Action Over Alleged Conspiracy RW INSTALLATION: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SALOV: Fraud Class Action Moves Forward in California SAMARITAN VILLAGE: Accused of Harassment & Gender Discrimination SEI INVESTMENTS: No Schedule Yet to Respond to Ascension Case SIRIUS XM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Elickman" Suit Claims SO ROSE: Faces "Gabrielyan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ST. BARNABAS: Faces "Khansari" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime STATE FARM: Karmeier Ordered to Give Testimony STEWART'S SHOPS: Judge Dismisses Some Claims in Wage Class Action SUFFOLK COUNTY, MA: Immigrant Detainee Files Class Action SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Resolved Two Putative Class Actions SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Court Stayed "Belton" Adversary Suit SYNGENTA AG: Wisconsin Corn Growers File Class Action SYRINGA MOBILE: To Pay Damages to Residents Who Lacked Water T UP TRADING: Recalls Corn Bba Korean Snacks Due to Milk TALLAHASSEE, FL: Commissioners OK Funding for Class Action Fees TARGET CORP: Data Breach Costs to Reach $1 Billion TCP INTERNATIONAL: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Ohio TEXAS BRINE: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek $12MM in Legal Fees TGI FRIDAY'S: Black Workers File Discrimination Suit TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Failure to Ensure Electronic Security TRADER JOE'S: Recalls 16 oz. Cinnamon Almonds Due to Peanuts TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued in Canada Over Defective Guardrail Design U.S. ENGINEERING: "Elsea" Case May Proceed as Class, Mo. App Says UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Response to Amended Yucesoy Case Due March 31 ULTRAZX LABS: Recalls Weight Loss Supplements Due to Sibutramine UNITED AIRLINES: Illegally Collects Tourism Tax, Action Claims UNITED STATES: Deported Mexicans Can Return for Hearings UNIVERSAL PARKING: Faces Suit Alleging Retaliation Due to Race V2V HOLDINGS: Removes "Bair" Suit to Northern District of Georgia VIRGINIA: Victims of Forced Sterilizations to Get Compensation WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Ellis" Suit Over Product Misbranding WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Robocalls WALGREEN CO: Faces "Beal" Suit in Fla. Over Product Misbranding WALGREEN CO: Goldenberg Heller Files Suit Over Herbal Supplements WELLMARK INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Price-Fixing Suit WELLPOINT INC: High Court Won't Hear Premium-Hike Class Action WRIGHT MEDICAL: Defense Must Prepare Witness in Profemur Suit Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Had $100-Mil. Fibro Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand's Fibro Liability Totals $776.6MM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has 9,700 Corhart Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Continues to Defend PI Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Units Had 17,907 Fibro Claimants ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms Ruling in "Wygant" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich's Bid to Dismiss "Storey" Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer's Bid to Compel Fin'l Info Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Court Refuses to Dismiss "Wilson" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bids to Dismiss PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Denying Class Cert. of PI Suit Reversed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Strike Affidavit in Insurance Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Flips Ruling in "Calewarts" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Reargue in "Brown" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: $14-Mil. Award in Reinsurance Suit Confirmed ********* ALLIANCE WORKFORCE: Removes "Brifil" Class Suit to M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Brifil v. Alliance Workforce Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-CA-1202, was removed from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsbrough County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15- cv-00573-JSM-MAP to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought to recover alleged unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Schuette, Esq. Ashleigh Renee Shelver, Esq. JOHN BALES ATTORNEYS 9700 Dr MLK Jr. St. N, Suite 400 St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Telephone: (727) 823-9100 E-mail: mschuette@sessions-law.biz ashelver@johnbales.com Defendants Alliance Workforce Solutions, LLC, Rodney Rhors and Salvatore Nardello are represented by: Bonita Marie Riggens, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BONITA M. RIGGENS 669 First Avenue N St Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 898-1401 Facsimile: (727) 823-7351 E-mail: briggenslaw@gmail.com Defendant Cutrale Citrus Juices USA, Inc. is represented by: Kristyne E. Kennedy, Esq. COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA 1900 Summit Tower Blvd., Suite 750 Orlando, FL 32810 Telephone: (321) 972-0028 Facsimile: (321) 972-0099 E-mail: kristyne.kennedy@csklegal.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Illegally Cancelled Life Insurance, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- John E. Klaas, Frank M. Berardi, David R. Sangston, Terry G. Mountford, Elmer H. Ceisel, all on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Allstate Insurance Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-00163 (M.D. Fla., March 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, specifically by cancelling the Special Retirement Opportunity life insurance benefits of the Plaintiffs and the Class. Allstate Insurance Company is an Illinois corporation that is the third largest personal lines insurer in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Pearl, Esq. THE PEARL LAW FIRM, PA Suite 101, 7400 Tamiami Trail N Naples, FL 34108 Telephone: (239) 659-9330 Facsimile: (239) 659-9377 E-mail: robert@investorattorneys.com APPLE INC: "No Poach" Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay ------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge on March 2 seemed satisfied with a proposed $415 million settlement that would end a lawsuit in which tech workers accused Apple Inc, Google Inc and two other Silicon Valley companies of conspiring to hold down salaries. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, had previously rejected an earlier $324 million deal as too low. During a hearing on March 2, Judge Koh raised no objections about the size of the settlement as she had at an earlier court session. While Judge Koh did not formally rule from the bench on whether she would preliminarily approve the new deal, she set another hearing date for final sign off of the $415 million deal. "We are pleased court indicated she was going to approve the settlement," Kelly Dermody, an attorney for the workers, said after the hearing. The plaintiffs alleged that Apple, Google, Intel Corp and Adobe Systems Inc agreed to avoid poaching each other's employees, thus limiting job mobility and, as a result, keeping a lid on salaries. The antitrust class action lawsuit was filed in 2011. It has been closely watched because of the possibility that big damages might be awarded and for the opportunity to peek into the world of some of the United States' elite tech firms. The case was based largely on emails in which Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, former Google Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt and some of their rivals detailed plans to avoid poaching each other's prized engineers. Last August, Judge Koh rejected the previous $324.5 million agreement after one of the plaintiffs objected. That worker supports the new deal. In rejecting the $324.5 million deal, Judge Koh repeatedly referred to a related 2013 settlement involving the Walt Disney Co and Intuit Inc. Apple and Google workers got proportionally less than Disney workers, Judge Koh wrote, even though plaintiff lawyers had "much more leverage" against Apple and Google. To match the earlier settlement, the deal with Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe would need to total at least $380 million, Judge Koh wrote. The hiring case is In Re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California 11-cv-2509. AR RESOURCES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Pa. Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Kielbasinski, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. A.R. Resources, Inc. and John and Jane Does Numbers 1 Through 25, Case No. 3:15-cv-00066-KRG (W.D. Pa., March 16, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig T. Kimmel, Esq. KIMMEL & SILVERMAN P.C. 30 East Butler Pike Ambler, PA 19002 Telephone: (215) 540-8888 Facsimile: (215) 540-8817 E-mail: kimmel@creditlaw.com ARIZONA: Judge OKs Prison Health Care Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a judge has approved the settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of 33,000 inmates in Arizona over the quality of health care in state prisons. State officials agreed in October to increase health care staffing, offer cancer screenings to certain prisoners, follow requirements in treating patients with chronic diseases, and provide more out-of-cell time to prisoners kept in isolated cells. State officials didn't acknowledge any wrongdoing in making the settlement. The 2012 lawsuit alleged the failure of medical personnel at one prison to diagnose the metastasized cancer of one inmate resulted in his liver enlarging to the belly size of a pregnant woman at full term. It said another inmate with a history of prostate cancer had to wait more than two years for a biopsy. ASSURED CONTRACTING: Removes "Hardy" class Suit to S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Hardy v. Assured Contracting, LLC, et al., Case No. CACE 15-002321 04, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-60551-JEM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower, Suite 2200 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel R. Levine, Esq. BENNARDO LEVINE LLP 1860 NW Boca Raton Blvd. Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 392-8074 Facsimile: (561) 368-6478 E-mail: drlevine@bennardolevine.com BAC 115 CORP: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. BAC 115 Corp. d/b/a Augurs Well, a New York for profit corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-01950-JGK (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2015) is an action for injunctive relief for the Defendant's alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act entitling the Plaintiff to attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs. Mr. Hurley suffers from a relatively rare genetic developmental congenital disorder that he contracted at birth -- spina bifida cystica with myelomeningocele. He is permanently disabled and is confined to a wheelchair. 115 Corp., doing business as Augurs Well, is the operator of a bar and dining establishment located at 115 St. Mark's Place in New York County, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tara Anne Demetriades, Esq. ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES 2076 Wolver Hollow Road Oyster Bay, NY 11771 Telephone: (516) 595-5009 E-mail: TDemetriades@Aol.com BADIA SPICES: Recalls Badia Cumin Products Due to Peanuts --------------------------------------------------------- Badia Spices, Inc. is issuing a voluntary recall on Badia brand ground cumin product. Peanut is an allergen that is not declared on the product's ingredient statement. People, who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanut proteins, run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The recall was initiated after the firm was notified that a ground cumin sample collected by the State of NY Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Laboratory tested positive and had potentially been produced with undeclared peanut protein. The Product is packaged in plastic bottles. Product was distributed nationwide in retail stores, commencing in July, 2014. This recall notice only affects the following products: Product Name Package UPC Lot # Best By and Description Weight --- ----- Dates --------------- ------ ----- Badia Ground Cumin 7 oz. 033844-00002-8 117151 7/2019 Badia Ground Cumin 2 oz. 033844-00007-3 116837 7/2019 Badia Ground Cumin 16 oz. 033844-00516-0 116696 7/2019 No illnesses have been reported to date, to this firm in connection with this voluntary recall. The product is considered safe for consumers who do not have peanut allergen sensitivities. Consumers who have peanut allergen sensitivities are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 305-629-8000, 8 am to 4:30 pm EST Monday-Friday, or via email to qualitycontrol@badiaspices.com. BASIC RESEARCH: Settles Class Action Over Weight-Loss Tablets ------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Harvey, writing for The Salt Lake Tribune, reports that Basic Research of Salt Lake City has agreed to refund $25 per box of its weight-loss tablets purchased by consumers who become part of a settlement of a class action lawsuit that alleged the company's advertising slogan, "Eat All You Want & Still Lose Weight," was deceptive. But Basic Research has denied any wrongdoing and will still be able to use the slogan under the proposed settlement of the lawsuit brought by law firms on behalf of consumers who purchased the weight-loss product called Akavar beginning in 2007. The agreement follows on the heels recent decision in another set of lawsuits in which a federal judge found that the company had a scientific basis for the claims of its weight-loss pills, a decision the Federal Trade Commission is seeking to appeal. A spokesperson for Basic Research did not return an email and a voice message about the settlement. Jon Harper, a Salt Lake City attorney for the consumers, also said he could not comment beyond the language the parties had agreed to, which was that the litigation had been resolved "on terms satisfactory to the parties." In 2006, the FTC fined Basic Research $3 million and entered into an settlement in which the company agreed not to market its weight-loss products unless its claims were backed by "competent and reliable scientific evidence." Within a year, it had developed Akavar and launched a nationwide sales campaign, selling the pills in retail outlets like Walgreens, Target, CVS, Rite-Aid, Costco, WalMart and K-Mart, as well as directly over the web, according to court records. Akavar was touted as a "European Weight Loss Breakthrough" even though it was developed in Utah, lawsuits said. It was marketed by the Basic Research company called Dynakor -- one of a nearly a dozen companies created by Basic Research -- through a multi- million dollar ad campaign as a wonder pill in which the consumer could "Eat All You Want & Still Lose Weight. . . . (And we couldn't say it in print if it wasn't true!)." Akavar "literally causes excess fat to be pulled from bulging parts of your body," the campaign said, according to court records. It sold 60 capsules for $39.99 and two bottles for $79.98 with a third one for free, and sales brought in millions of dollars, documents say. Total company annual revenues were around $50 million in 2007 and 2008. In November of 2007, a proposed class action lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for Utah against Basic Research on behalf of consumers who had purchased Akavar based on the company's advertising. Also named were four related companies and company principals Dennis Gay and Daniel B. Mowrey, as well as Mitchell K. Friedlander, who is described in documents as a marketing consultant who receives royalties for the sale of company products. A second proposed class action lawsuit was filed in state court in California in late 2008. Both actions alleged that Basic Research was deceiving consumers. One complaint said it sought to "redress a pervasive pattern of fraudulent, deceptive and improper advertising, sales and marketing practices." Both said the company lacked a scientific basis for the weight- loss claims. The two cases were eventually consolidated into one action in Utah. U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart granted class-action status to the consolidated suits in 2010, meaning the plaintiffs could be expanded to include all consumers who had purchased Akavar after hearing or seeing the "Eat All You Want" advertising campaign. The two sides reached a settlement in 2012, but Basic Research then tried to back out, claiming agreement had not been reached on substantial terms. Judge Stewart refused to let the company scuttle the agreement and Basic Research was unsuccessful in trying to appeal his decision. Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission and Basic Research had sued each other in 2009 in federal court in Salt Lake City over whether the company was violating the 2006 agreement in which it was required to have a scientific basis for the claims of its products. But then late last year, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups sided with Basic Research. Judge Waddoups cited four case studies done in 2001, two of which suggested that the herbal compounds in Akavar helped users to lose weight because it caused food and liquids to stay longer in the stomach, making consumers feel full longer and prompting them to eat less. The FTC has filed a notice of appeal. Judge Waddoups' decision is cited in the proposed settlement of the class-action lawsuit. Basic Research is denying any wrongdoing or liability for Akavar and said it was settling "solely to avoid the expense, inconvenience and inherent risk of litigation" as well as disruption to its operations if the lawsuit continued. BLACK TIE: Faces "Romano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dominick Romano, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Black Tie Limousine, Inc. and Mark W. Mollica, Case No. 1:15- cv-10767 (D. Mass., March 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Black Tie Limousine, Inc. is a limousine and car service operating within Boston. The Plaintiff is represented by: Howard M. Brown, Esq. BARTLETT HACKETT FEINBERG P.C. 155 Federal Street, 9th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 422-0200 Facsimile: (617) 896-6263 E-mail: hmb@bostonbusinesslaw.com BRM FOODS: "Farris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Farris, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BRM Foods, Inc., and Robert Mosesso, Case No. 4:15-cv- 00142 (E.D. Ark., March 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a fast food eatery company headquartered in Searcy, Arkansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Sanford, Esq. Stephen Rauls, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com steve@sanfordlawfirm.com BUFFALO, NY: Ex-Blue-Collar Employees Lose Class Action Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- The Buffalo News reports that former blue-collar employees of the City of Buffalo who retired before 2009 have lost their class- action lawsuit to force the city to pay or reimburse them and other similar city retirees for their Medicare Part B premiums. The retirees contended that the city had an obligation to pay those premiums under their union's collective-bargaining agreements, which provided them with fully paid health insurance until they die. State Supreme Court Justice Patrick H. NeMoyer on Feb. 27 granted the city's motion seeking to dismiss the suit and requesting a declaratory judgment in the city's favor. "It is declared that the city has no contractual obligation to pay or reimburse the Medicare Part B premiums for plaintiffs and similarly situated retirees," Justice NeMoyer said. The 10 retirees, formerly members of the AFSCME Local 264 bargaining unit, filed the suit in March 2013 against the city and Mayor Byron W. Brown on behalf of themselves and between 300 and 500 of their former colleagues, all of whom retired before Jan. 1, 2009. The suit also included the spouses of living retirees. The suit said the plaintiffs retired with clear agreements with the city that they were to receive lifetime health insurance benefits "without any cost to them." But a letter sent by health insurer BlueCross BlueShield on Aug. 1, 2008, stated that the company would begin enforcing a provision of the policy that requires Medicare-eligible customers to enroll in the federal program. Medicare-eligible retirees and their eligible spouses were asked to enroll in Medicare Part B, which requires a premium of approximately $1,200 per person. "The effect of this mandate is a clear diminution of the guaranteed lifetime retiree health insurance benefit contained within various [collective-bargaining agreements] negotiated between the city and union," the suit said. It said the effect of the change is that the city is no longer paying the policy's full bill. Collective-bargaining agreements in effect at the time the plaintiffs retired said that upon retirement and until they die, employees would receive the health plan in effect on the last day of their service to the city, the suit said. The retirees sought compensation to make up for the health insurance payments they have made. Joseph E. O'Donnell, the retirees' attorney, said he will discuss the judge's ruling with his clients before deciding whether to appeal. CALLFIRE INC: Wins Summary Judgment in TCPA Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- CallFire, Inc., the cloud-based text and voice platform that helps organizations communicate with their target audiences, on March 2 disclosed that it won on summary judgment in a TCPA class action suit filed by Rinky Dink, Inc. against multiple defendants. The federal judge ruled that CallFire is a common carrier and therefore not subject to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). CallFire was represented in the suit by Michael Hazzard at Arent Fox LLP, a national leader in litigation, regulatory, and transactional counsel, and won the judgment in United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. "The TCPA was and continues to be an important and necessary piece of legislation to protect consumers from unwanted solicitation across multiple forms of communication, but it's not necessarily reflective of the times," said Ron Burr, CEO and Chairman, CallFire. "The judgment further clarifies the importance of a carrier designation for cloud-based telephony companies, as well as who should be held responsible for TCPA violations. This sets an important precedent around TCPA liability, and allows technology companies like CallFire and its industry counterparts to focus on innovation rather than fighting litigation." The United States District Court at Seattle found that CallFire is a common carrier and not subject to liability under the TCPA or analogous state laws when serving as a conduit for the calls its customers initiate in case number C13-1347-JCC. "We expect this decision to go a long way in eliminating harassing class action litigation against common carriers like CallFire," said Michael Hazzard, Partner, Communications, Technology & Mobile, Arent Fox. "The judge in this case set a clear industry precedent, while also enabling technology companies like CallFire to focus on growing their businesses and creating jobs." Rinky Dink, Inc. filed a putative class action complaint after receiving a prerecorded call from a vendor selling credit card processing services. The plaintiffs claimed that CallFire violated the TCPA and the Washington Automatic Dialing and Announcing Device (WADAD) statute on the theory that both CallFire and the customer using its telephone services had initiated prerecorded calls. The court ruled that "CallFire is a common carrier, and therefore is not subject to liability for alleged violations of the" TCPA because CallFire does not control the content, timing or recipients of the messages sent by its customers. CallFire also successfully argued that CallFire does not "initiate" the calls that its customers choose to transmit through CallFire's telephone service, and therefore CallFire could not have violated either the TCPA or WADAD. CCB CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Schwartz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. CCB Credit Services Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 01354-ARR-RLM (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com CHARLES SCHWAB: Appeal in Total Bond Market Fund Case Pending ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs' appeal in the Total Bond Market Fund Litigation is currently pending, The Charles Schwab Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and federal securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy, names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's shares) and CSIM as defendants. Allegations include that the fund improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives by investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed securities without obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified equitable and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs' federal securities law claim and certain of plaintiffs' state law claims were dismissed in proceedings before the court and following a successful petition by defendants to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On August 8, 2011, the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs have again appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is currently pending. CON-WAY INC: Disputes Class Certification in "Pina" Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Con-way Inc. challenged certification of the class in the "Pina" case, and further contends that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by federal law and not substantiated by the facts, Con-way Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Con-way is a defendant in several class-action lawsuits alleging violations of the state of California's wage and hour laws. Plaintiffs allege that Con-way failed to pay certain drivers for all compensable time and that certain other drivers were not provided with required meal breaks and rest breaks. Plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified monetary damages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees. The primary case is Jose Alberto Fonseca Pina, et al. v. Con-way Freight Inc., et al. (the "Pina" case). The Pina case was initially filed in November 2009 in Monterey County Superior Court and was removed to the U.S. District Court of California, Northern District. On April 12, 2012, the Court granted plaintiffs' request for class certification in the Pina case as to a limited number of issues. The class certification ruling does not address whether Con-way will ultimately be held liable. Con-way challenged the certification of the class in this case, and further contends that plaintiffs' claims are preempted by federal law and not substantiated by the facts. Con-way has denied any liability with respect to these claims and intends to vigorously defend itself in this case. There are multiple factors that prevent Con-way from being able to estimate the amount of potential loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that may result from this matter, including: (1) Con-way is vigorously defending itself and believes that it has a number of meritorious legal defenses; and (2) at this stage in the case, there are unresolved questions of fact that could be important to the resolution of these matters. CON-WAY INC: Final Settlement Approval Granted in "Quezada" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Con-way Inc. recently settled the case Jorge R. Quezada v. Con-way Inc., dba Con-way Freight (the "Quezada" case). Notice of the settlement was provided to class members in this case and on January 9, 2015, the Court granted final approval of the settlement. Con-way had adequately accrued for this matter, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. COOPER TIRE: To Defend Against Suit Over Apollo Tyres Transaction ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cooper Tire & Rubber Company and its officers intend to vigorously defend the federal securities litigation related to the terminated transaction with Apollo Tyres Ltd., Cooper said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On January 17, 2014, alleged stockholders of the Company filed a putative class-action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware relating to the terminated Apollo transaction. That lawsuit, captioned OFI Risk Arbitrages, et al. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., et al., No. 1:14-cv-00068-LPS, generally alleges that the Company and certain officers violated the federal securities laws by issuing allegedly misleading disclosures in connection with the terminated transaction and seeks, among other things, damages. The Company and its officers believe that the allegations against them lack merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. CORPORATE RESOURCE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., a global investor rights firm, on March 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Corporate Resource Services, Inc. common stock between July 1, 2014 and February 6, 2015. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Corporate Resource Services investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Corporate Resource Services class action, go to the website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-518.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. 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. According to the lawsuit, Corporate Resource Services issued materially false and misleading statements to investors by failing to disclose that its co-employer, Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., had a material unpaid federal payroll tax liability, which would adversely impact the Company and the Company was not in compliance with the Account Purchase Agreements with Wells Fargo as of November 30, 2014. When the truth was revealed to investors, the price of Corporate Resource Services common stock dropped, damaging investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 1, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation go http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-518.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. CRAWFORD & CO: Says 10% of Revenues From Deepwater Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Crawford & Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that revenues and operating earnings from the Legal Settlement Administration operating segment are project based and can vary significantly from period to period depending on the timing of project engagement and the work performed in a given period. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company's previously disclosed special projects, the Deepwater Horizon class action settlement and the Gulf Coast Claims Facility ("GCCF") projects, together accounted for more than 10% of the Company's consolidated revenues. During the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2013, Legal Settlement Administration continued to derive more than 10% of its revenues from each of the Deepwater Horizon class action settlement projects and from another non-Gulf related class action settlement project. The revenues from each of these projects were individually less than 10% of our consolidated revenues in each of 2014 and 2013. The projects continue to wind down, and the Company expects these revenues, and related operating earnings, to be at a reduced rate in all future periods as compared to 2014. "Results from our Legal Settlement Administration segment during 2014 continued to include activity from the Deepwater Horizon class action settlement, as well as a number of other meaningful class action and bankruptcy matters. However, anticipated declines in volumes associated with these large projects negatively impacted results in the 2014 fourth quarter. These trends are expected to continue into 2015, although at a slower level of decline," the Company said in an exhibit to a separate Form 8-K filing. DANIEL CONSUEGRA: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Yennifer Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, P.L., a Florida Professional Limited Liability Company, and Dyck-O'Neal, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Case No. 8:15-cv-00571-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla., March 16, 2015) seeks relief from alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Austin Tyler Brown, Esq. Earl Warren Parker, Jr., Esq. PARKER & DUFRESNE, PA 8777 San Jose Blvd., Suite 301 Jacksonville, FL 32217-4226 Telephone: (904) 733-7766 Facsimile: (904) 733-2919 E-mail: abrown@jaxlawcenter.com parker@jaxlawcenter.com - and - Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Steven Thomas Simmons, Jr., Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, PA P.O. Box 1870 Lady Lake, FL 32158 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 753-8606 E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com ssimmons@varnellandwarwick.com DUTCHESS COUNTY, NY: Set to Reply to Grocer's Item-Pricing Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Wolf, writing for Poughkeepsie Journal, reports that Dutchess County was due to reply March 2, to a grocer's lawsuit seeking to overturn the county's item-pricing law, the one that requires for most products that each item for sale must have a price tag on it. Dutchess has hired the Poughkeepsie firm of McCabe & Mack for its defense in federal District Court, venued in White Plains. The county seeks to have the court dismiss the suit. The original case dates back to March 2014, but an amended complaint was filed Dec. 1. Dutchess asked Judge Cathy Seibel for an extra week to reply to the suit and was granted the time. Kevin Bloom, New Windsor-based attorney for the store, said the challenge to the law is also on behalf of all other grocers and stores to which it applies, known as a class-action suit. The grocer is Poughkeepsie Supermarket Corp., which does business as Market Fresh and was formerly known as Associated Supermarket. Dutchess had inspected the store and fined it three times for noncompliance in 2012, the suit complaint notes. Fines totaled $20,000 and were paid, the complaint says. The suit claims there is "no longer any real or substantial interest to be achieved by the county through the enforcement of its price marking requirements" by virtue of the availability and industry-accepted accuracy of CACOS, the item price marking requirements of computer-assisted checkout systems. Mr. Bloom's complaint alleges that the law "has a chilling effect on the plaintiff's exercise of its First Amendment rights to free speech in that a reasonable food marketing entity in plaintiff's position would perceive the county's conduct as a threat of further punishment if it fails to comply with the price marking requirements." The suit seeks to have the court declare the law unconstitutional on two free-speech grounds: "first by compelling commercial speech without a rational basis and second by restricting commercial speech without directly serving any substantial interest and/or by means that are more extensive than necessary." The store also seeks refunds of fines and payment of its costs, which include an estimated $45,000 a year to comply with the law. Posner's memo in the case says, "The item pricing requirement is one of pure disclosure and places no restriction on plaintiffs ability to engage in transactions with its customers. The labeling mandate is rationally related to the need for full disclosure of prices, to assist consumers in making informed choices while in the aisles, and to prevent miscalculation at checkout." He said the suit "does not allege that the law prohibits plaintiff from speaking or engaging in commercial transactions with is customers, but just that it is more difficult (i.e., costs plaintiff money)." In August, the parties told the court they had agreed to settle the case based on an expected amendment to the law being considered by the county Legislature. That didn't happen, so the plaintiffs filed an updated complaint. ENERGY CORPORATION: Trial in Natural Gas Royalties Suit Begins -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bowling, writing for TribLive, reports that a class-action lawsuit over natural gas royalties hinges on the question of when the company sold the gas, an industry expert said on Feb. 27. "The issue of when title passes will likely be the most important aspect of this trial," said Steven Townsend of ShaleAdvice LLC. Nine Greene County property owners claim in the lawsuit that Energy Corporation of America improperly charged them for transmission and marketing costs when it sold the gas extracted from their properties to its marketing affiliate, Eastern Marketing Corp. The company contends it paid royalties without deductions on what Eastern Marketing paid it, which was the price at which Eastern Marketing sold the gas to third parties minus the transport and marketing costs. Consequently, Energy Corp. did not charge the owners any transport or marketing costs. Robert Sanders, one of the attorneys for the property owners, declined to comment. Lawyers for the company could not be reached. The amount in dispute is about $354,000 in transport costs and $891,000 in marketing fees on gas sold between 2006 and 2012, according to court documents. The property owners sued the company in November 2010. Their case was set to go before a federal jury on March 2 with U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert Mitchell presiding. "The jury, as it does in most civil cases, needs to follow the money," Mr. Townsend said. If the company pays the 12.5 percent royalties on one price and then moves and markets the gas at a higher price, the property owners should not be charged, he said. "The royalty owner should be getting the benefit of the higher sale price of the gas since they are paying for the transportation and marketing fees that raise the price," Mr. Townsend said. Pennsylvania has a law requiring gas royalties to be at least 12.5 percent, but beyond that, the issue is controlled by the leases both sides signed, said Ross Pifer, a Penn State law professor and director of the Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center. "At its core, it is a contract matter," he said. The state Supreme Court in 2010 upheld the industry practice of using the "net-back method" of calculating royalties, which pays a royalty based on 12.5 percent of the sale price minus 12.5 percent of the cost of bringing the gas to market. With the exception of the minimum royalty required by state law, the property owner and the company could agree on any cost-sharing plan by spelling it out in the lease. Traditionally, the companies pay all the costs of getting the gas out of the ground and the owners pay a share of getting the gas to the buyer. Other disputes over those costs have included companies trying to deduct management fees and other indirect costs from royalties, he said. While the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that companies cannot deduct any post-production cost that's not spelled out in the lease, Pennsylvania does not have a similar ruling, he said. Most leases in Pennsylvania don't include those details, he said. "For the most part, they are very imprecise," Mr. Pifer said. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Class Cert. Bid in "Beeman" Case Not Yet Briefed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs in the case, Jerry Beeman, et al. v. Caremark, et al. (United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.021327) (filed December 2002), have filed a motion for class certification, but that motion has not been briefed pending the outcome of an appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The complaint was filed against Express Scripts, Inc., NextRX LLC f/k/a Anthem Prescription Management LLC, Medco Health Solutions, Inc. ("Medco") and several other pharmacy benefit management companies by several California pharmacies as a putative class action, alleging rights to sue as a private attorney general under California law. Plaintiffs allege that ESI and the other defendants failed to comply with statutory obligations under California Civil Code Section 2527 to provide California clients with the results of a bi-annual survey of retail drug prices, and seek money damages. In July 2004, the case was dismissed with prejudice due to lack of standing. In June 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's opinion on standing and remanded the case. The district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss on first amendment constitutionality grounds was appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification, but that motion has not been briefed pending the outcome of the appeal. In July 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to dismiss. In June 2012, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision certifying the question of constitutionality of California Civil Code Section 2527 to the California Supreme Court, requesting consideration of the issue and a ruling. In December 2013, the California Supreme Court held that California Civil Code Section 2527 does not infringe upon state constitutional free speech protections. In January 2014, the Ninth Circuit en banc panel issued a ruling vacating the prior panel opinion and remanded the case to the original Ninth Circuit three-judge panel to either consider the federal constitutional issues or remand the case to the district court. In March 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order lifting the stay and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. Defendants' objections based on plaintiffs' lack of standing and the unconstitutionality of the California law due to defendants' first amendment rights have been rejected by the courts and are not subject to further appeals. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Bid to Decertify Class in "Brady" Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Express Scripts, Inc.'s motion to decertify the class in the Brady Enterprises case is pending since oral arguments were held in January 2012. In re: PBM Antitrust Litigation (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania). The following three cases were transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation in August 2006: (i) Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc. (filed in August 2013 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania); (ii) North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama), consolidated with North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama) (filed in October 2003); and (iii) Mike's Medical Center Pharmacy, et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California) (filed December 2005). The Brady Enterprises case was filed against Merck & Co., Inc. ( "Merck") and Medco. Plaintiffs moved for class certification to represent a national class of retail pharmacies and allege that Medco conspired with, acted as the common agent for, and used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to restrain competition in the market for the dispensing and sale of prescription drugs. Plaintiffs allege that, through conspiracy, Medco has engaged in various forms of anticompetitive conduct including, among other things, setting artificially low pharmacy reimbursement rates. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and seek treble damages and injunctive relief. The North Jackson Pharmacy case purports to be a class action against ESI and Medco on behalf of independent pharmacies within the United States. The complaint alleges that certain of ESI's and Medco's business practices violate the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification against ESI and Medco was granted in March 2006. Following oral arguments on ESI's motion to decertify the class in 2007, the case remained dormant until April 2011, when it was reassigned to a new judge who ordered supplemental briefing. Oral argument of all the class certification motions was heard in January 2012, and the court took ESI's motion under submission. The Mike's Medical Center Pharmacy case was filed against Medco and Merck. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all pharmacies and pharmacists that contracted with Medco and California pharmacies that indirectly purchased prescription drugs from Merck. Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act, California antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair business practices. Relief demanded includes, among other things, treble damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully obtained profits and injunctive relief. Currently, ESI's motion to decertify the class in the Brady Enterprises case is pending since oral arguments were held in January 2012. EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Parties in "Berk" Case Agreed to Stay Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Express Scripts Holding Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in the case Jason Berk v. Express Scripts, Inc. and Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, Case No. 0:14-cv-01008) (filed April 8, 2014), have agreed to stay the lawsuit in favor of early investigation and mediation. The complaint was filed against Express Scripts, Inc. and Express Scripts Pharmacy, Inc., its subsidiary, by named employee, Jason Berk, a current Pharmacy Benefit Specialist employee, alleging two causes of action: (1) a collective action under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), for failure to pay wages and overtime; and (2) a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 class action for breach of contract. The parties have agreed to stay the lawsuit in favor of early investigation and mediation. FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Arbitration Bid in "Howard" Case Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge J. Thomas Marten granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captioned RANDY HOWARD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FERRELLGAS PARTNERS, L.P.; FERRELLGAS, L.P.; FERRELLGAS, INC.; AND DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case No. 2:10-CV-2555-JTM, (D. Kan.). Plaintiff Randy Howard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, sought damages against defendants Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.; Ferrellgas, L.P.; and Ferrellgas, Inc. for allegedly engaging in unfair, unconscionable, deceptive, misleading, and unlawful conduct in connection with the marketing and sale propane and related equipment and services. In his Order dated March 16, 2015 available at http://is.gd/0QNOFD from Leagle.com, Judge Marten granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Arbitration since Plaintiff is bound by the parties' Master Agreement and all of its terms, including the arbitration provision, and therefore must arbitrate his claims against defendant. Randy Howard, Plaintiff, represented by Helen I. Zeldes, Esq. -- helenz@zhlaw.com -- Aaron M. Olsen, Esq. -- aarono@zhlaw.com -- at Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP; and Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq. -- pwedgworth@milberg.com -- Andrei V. Rado, Esq. -- arado@milberg.com -- Charles Slidders, Esq. -- cslidders@milberg.com -- Elizabeth S. Metcalf, Esq., at Milberg LLP; and R. Frederick Walters, Esq. -- fwalters@wbsvlaw.com -- Walters Bender Strohbehn & Vaughan, P.C. Kathryn R. DeBord, Esq. -- katie.debord@bryancave.com -- Rick E. Frawley, Esq. -- rick.frawley@kutakrock.com -- Robert M. Thompson, Esq. -- rmthompson@bryancave.com -- Craig S. O'Dear, Esq. -- csodear@bryancave.com -- of Bryan Cave LLP serve as counsel for Ferrellgas Partners, LP. FIRSTMERIT CORP: Revised Class Definition Not Yet Approved ---------------------------------------------------------- FirstMerit Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the parties in the Overdraft Litigation stipulated to a revised class definition, and an order approving that stipulation is awaiting court approval. Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court of Common Pleas against the Corporation and FirstMerit Bank N.A.. The complaints were brought as putative class actions on behalf of Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at the Bank and who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged re-sequencing of debit transactions. The lawsuit that had been filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without prejudice on July 11, 2011. The remaining suit in Lake County seeks actual damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees. In December 2012, the trial court issued an order certifying a proposed class and the Bank and Corporation appealed the order to the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. In September 2013, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's class certification order, and remanded the case back to the trial court for further consideration, in particular with respect to the class definition. On October 9, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed with the Eleventh District Court of Appeals an application for reconsideration and application for consideration en banc. On November 20, 2013, the Eleventh District denied those applications. On December 4, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court, and on January 3, 2014, they filed with the Ohio Supreme Court a memorandum in support of the Court's exercising its jurisdiction and accepting the appeal. The plaintiffs filed an opposition, and, on April 24, 2014, the Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction. On August 6, 2014, the Bank and Corporation filed a motion asking the trial court to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration of claims subject to an arbitration agreement. That motion has been fully briefed and is awaiting a decision by the court. On August 25, 2014, the parties stipulated to a revised class definition (without affecting the pending motion to stay), and an order approving that stipulation is awaiting court approval. FIRSTMERIT CORP: Settlement in Citizens Merger Case Not Yet Final ----------------------------------------------------------------- FirstMerit Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the settlement in the Citizens merger litigation will not become final until an appeal has been resolved. Between September 17, 2012 and October 5, 2012, alleged shareholders of Citizens Republic Bancorp Inc. filed six purported class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court of Genesee County, Michigan, relating to the proposed merger between Citizens and FirstMerit, which merger closed in April 2013. The lawsuits were consolidated under the caption In re Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 12-99027-CK (the "Lawsuit"). The consolidated complaint in the Lawsuit alleges that the former directors of Citizens breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the best available price in the merger and by not providing Citizens shareholders with all material information related to the merger, and that FirstMerit and Citizens aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the merger, rescissory damages and other equitable relief. The plaintiffs and defendants have entered into a settlement of the Lawsuit, and the court approved the settlement on September 20, 2013. Under the settlement, the defendants amended the joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger to include certain supplemental disclosures to shareholders of Citizens and agreed to pay attorneys' fees and expenses as awarded by the court. An alleged former shareholder of Citizens objected to the settlement and has filed an appeal of the court's approval of the settlement; the settlement will not become final until that appeal has been resolved. FIRSTMERIT CORP: Court Denied Bid to Dismiss CRBC 401(k) Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- FirstMerit Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the CRBC 401(k) Litigation. Participants in the Citizens Republic Bancorp 401(k) Plan filed a lawsuit in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in 2011, alleging that Citizens and certain of its officers and directors violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by offering Citizens common stock as an investment alternative in the Plan during periods when it was imprudent to do so and by failing to adequately monitor fiduciaries responsible for administering the Plan. The lawsuit, captioned Kidd v. Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-11709, asserts claims for monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of a purported class of participants and beneficiaries in the Plan who held Citizens stock in their Plan accounts during the period from April 17, 2008 to "the present." In April 2014, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. Based on information currently available, consultation with counsel, available insurance coverage and established reserves, Management believes that the eventual outcome of all claims against the Corporation and its subsidiaries will not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or results of operations. However, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters, if unfavorable, may be material to the results of operations for a particular period. The Corporation has not established any reserves with respect to any of this disclosed litigation because it is not possible to determine (i) whether a liability has been incurred; or (ii) an estimate of the ultimate or minimum amount of such liability. FORT COLLINS, CO: Council Nixes Parts of Pandhandling Ordinance --------------------------------------------------------------- Coloradoan reports that Fort Collins City Council on Feb. 27 voted unanimously to nix some aspects of the city's panhandling ordinance in hopes of side-stepping at least part of an ACLU-filed class action lawsuit. Council, in a brief meeting on Feb. 27, approved an emergency ordinance to cut some provisions of the "aggressive panhandling" rules on the books, at least temporarily changing when, where and from whom individuals can solicit donations. By addressing the contested elements, officials said they would have more time to research the issues and consider what additional action can or should be taken. "This is an aggressive panhandling ordinance, or at least that's the intent," said Coucilmember Ross Cunniff in highlighting that the law's goal is not to curb all panhandling in the city. The Colorado arm of the American Civil Liberties Union on Feb. 10 sued the city on behalf of four homeless individuals on the grounds that police were infringing upon free-speech rights by warning individuals about solicitation or citing people for some forms of panhandling. The 29-page document also includes allegations from Greenpeace, Inc., that Fort Collins police have started targeting the environmental group's canvassing procedures in Old Town. "The City of Fort Collins has taken a positive and welcome first step by repealing the provisions of its panhandling ordinance that have been challenged by the ACLU and our clients, who engage in nonthreatening, nonaggressive requests for charity that are fully protected by the First Amendment," ACLU of Colorado Legal Director Mark Silverstein said in a written statement on Feb. 27. "We hope that the repeal means that they and all other peaceful solicitors will no longer be targeted by Fort Collins police." The city scheduled the Feb. 27 meeting in an effort to save time and resources needed to fight the suit in court, officials said. It's not yet clear what the Feb. 27 decisions could mean for the future of the suit. A preliminary injunction hearing was scheduled for March 2 in federal court, at which time a judge may decide whether to enjoin the city from enforcing some parts of its panhandling ordinance until the rest of the suit can be more deeply considered by the court. "If Fort Collins would agree to make the repeal permanent, we could be well on our way to resolving this litigation and putting it behind us," Silverstein said. What's against the law: Here's a breakdown of what's still illegal under the city of Fort Collins prohibition on aggressive panhandling: -- Intimidating, threatening, coercive or obscene panhandling conduct that causes the subject to reasonably fear for his or her safety. -- Panhandling using fighting words. -- Knowingly touching or grabbing the person solicited. -- Panhandling in a manner that obstructs the passage or the person or requires him or her to take evasive action to avoid physical contact. FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Asks Lawyers to Prepare Questions List ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Lannom, writing for Charleston Daily, reports that a federal judge directed attorneys to come up with a list of questions to ask prosecutors involved in the Freedom Industries criminal case to see if or how they were affected by the chemical spill. Citing a need to develop the record, U.S. District Judge Thomas Johnston told attorneys to come up with a list of questions to ask U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin, assistant U.S. Attorney Phil Wright and First Assistant U.S. Attorney Carol Casto, which would be submitted to the judge under seal. Both sides have until March 16 to submit the list of questions and Judge Johnston will come up with his own list before an April 1 hearing on the questions. Judge Johnston also set a deadline of May 18 for defense attorneys to file a change of location motion and set a hearing for June 1 to take up that motion and other motions that could be filed. In a Feb. 27 hearing, Judge Johnston took up motions filed by attorneys for former Freedom executives Dennis Farrell and Gary Southern. Attorneys have asked to disqualify U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin's office from the case, arguing prosecutors were victims of the chemical leak and thus have a conflict of interest in prosecuting the cases against Farrell and Southern. Judge Johnston previously took up the disqualification motion in a January hearing but set the Feb. 27 hearing to further consider it. Judge Johnston also took up defense attorneys' motion to conduct discovery, where attorneys wanted to look into how prosecutors were affected by the leak. Mr. Southern's attorney Mark Moore said defense attorneys are entitled to question prosecutors on the effects from the chemical leak on prosecutors' personal lives. "We contend the prosecutors are victims," Mr. Moore said, arguing that the degree to which they are victims doesn't matter. "What we clearly have here are prosecutors who are victims and under direct supervision by other victims," Mr. Moore later said, arguing they had "axes to grind with Mr. Southern." Mr. Southern, 53, of Marco Island, Fla., is charged with Clean Water Act violations, scheming to defraud in a bankruptcy case, scheming to defraud by wire, fraud by interstate commercial carrier and making a false oath in a bankruptcy case. Mr. Farrell, 58, of Charleston, faces charges including negligent discharge of a pollutant, unlawful discharge of refuse and negligent violation of permit condition. Both Messrs. Southern and Farrell were present for the Feb. 27 hearing. "They seized the opportunity to turn this into a criminal prosecution," Mark Moore said, arguing it didn't appear there was a lot of deliberation before prosecutors presented the case to a Beckley grand jury. Farrell's attorney Mike Carey said Mr. Goodwin hasn't asked and can't require people in his office or their families not to participate in the class action lawsuit from the leak. He said if prosecutors are successful in obtaining a conviction, that ends the liability from a civil standpoint. He also mentioned that in the civil suit, people are seeking medical monitoring for children under 5 years old, and said it would be unlikely that if Goodwin's staff had children in that age range, that they would not want to take part in that medical monitoring. Mr. Wright said in order to get discovery for selective or vindictive prosecution, defense attorneys need to produce evidence to clear a "significant barrier." "They've made the mistaken presumption that everyone suffered the same harm," Mr. Wright said. Mr. Wright told the judge that defense attorneys can't only present evidence of a discriminating effect, they have to also present evidence of a discriminatory intent. What that means, he said, is that they can't just show prosecutors were injured from the leak, but they also have to show that prosecutors have some intent to recover. Mr. Wright said Mr. Goodwin hasn't ordered anyone to not participate in the class action but said prosecutors don't intend to be part of the lawsuit and have no interest in recovering from the class action claim. He said speculative interest isn't enough to disqualify the office. "It appears they are trying to force us out of this case and into a class action we don't want to be part of." After hearing arguments, Judge Johnston said he didn't think it was necessary to allow a civil lawsuit-style discovery to the extent sought by the defense. "Having said that, I have an obligation to develop the record," he said. Judge Johnston said ultimately, he will decide the questions asked to prosecutors and he will submit his list to attorneys and they will have a chance to respond to him. "I assume no one will be particularly happy with this but . . . a balance needs to be struck to make the record," Judge Johnston said. GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Irish Soda Bread Due to Undeclared Milk ------------------------------------------------------------ Giant Eagle brand Irish Soda Bread, baked and sold inside Giant Eagle supermarkets between February 24 and March 11, has been voluntarily recalled by Giant Eagle due to an undeclared milk allergen. This creates the potential for serious health consequences if consumed by those with milk allergies. The product is safe for consumption for those who do not have these allergies. The recalled Irish Soda Bread was sold with a UPC of 20761800000 and a net weight of 16 ounces. The product was purchased by approximately 2,000 customers in Giant Eagle and Market District supermarkets in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland and West Virginia. Giant Eagle became aware of one reported case of customer illness associated with the Irish Soda Bread product, which prompted further investigation. The product label for the Irish Soda Bread, which contains milk, omitted milk as an allergen. The issue has since been resolved and all product currently on shelf is labeled correctly. To date, the company is not aware of any additional reported cases of customer illness. Customers with a milk allergy who have purchased the affected product should dispose of it or return it to their local Giant Eagle for a refund. If you have any questions, you may call Giant Eagle Customer Care at 1-800-553-2324 Monday through Friday 9am-9pm EST. In addition to this public communication regarding this recall, Giant Eagle initiated its consumer recall telephone notification process in conjunction with ensuring that all Irish Soda Bread product currently on shelf is labeled correctly. The consumer recall process used purchase data and consumer phone numbers housed in the Giant Eagle Advantage Card(R) database to alert those households that purchased the affected product and have updated telephone contact information in the database. HOMEPLUS: Class Action Mulled Over Sale of Customer Info -------------------------------------------------------- Suk Gee-hyun, writing for The Korea Herald, reports that local consumer groups are planning to file a class action suit against Homeplus, the South Korean supermarket chain owned by British retail giant Tesco, for the firm's alleged illegal gathering and selling of customer information to third parties. Ten consumer groups affiliated with the Korea National Council of Consumer Organizations said on March 2 they were gathering participants in a suit to demand compensation for the retailer's sale of their private information. Homeplus is accused of collecting and selling customers' information, including names, phone numbers, birthdays and details of family members, collected through giveaway events and membership registrations. "We hope this lawsuit serves as an opportunity to raise the alarm on Homeplus' illegal acts and to root out unethical practices in the industry," the KNCCO group said in a statement. The group's officials added that it was also seeking to file a suit against Tesco, Homeplus' parent company, in association with Which?, a British consumer group. Earlier in February, prosecutors indicted six former and incumbent Homeplus officials and two insurance firm employees for trading the information of some 24 million customers in return for 23 billion won ($20.8 million). "We will announce our official stance once they file the suit," Homeplus spokesman Kang Jong-ho said. Separately, prosecutors are investigating two other retail giants, E-mart and Lotte Mart, for the same charges. The Seoul YMCA filed a suit against E-mart and Lotte Mart for allegedly raising 6.6 billion won and 2.3 billion won, respectively, for handing over customers' information to insurance firms. The group claimed the retailers gathered the information through events requiring consumers to submit their private information, and sold them for 2,000 won per person. HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Lactated Ringer's Irrigations -------------------------------------------------- Hospira, Inc. (NYSE: HSP), announced it is initiating a voluntary recall of one lot of Lactated Ringer's Irrigation, 3000mL (NDC 0409-7828-08, Lot 40-008-JT; Expiry 1APR2016) to the user level (both human and veterinary) due to a confirmed customer report of several dark, fibrous particulates floating within the solution of the primary container. The particulate was confirmed as a common non-toxic, non-invasive mold, Aspergillus kanagawaensis. To date, Hospira has not received reports of any adverse events associated with this issue for this lot. A loss of sterility is a primary concern when there is a presence of mold in a sterile, nonpyrogenic solution. If contaminated solution is used on a patient it may cause bacteremia, sepsis, septic shock and endocarditis, and death may result. Signs and symptoms may include redness, pain, swelling at the site, fever, shortness of breath, tachycardia, nausea, and vomiting. Septicemia could lead to shock and multi-system organ failure, requiring critical medical intervention. The mold is considered allergenic and exposure to it may induce an allergic response or immune response to the particulate including anaphylaxis. Delayed therapy may occur if the particulate were to block the flow of the solution during irrigation. However, this delay is likely to be of short duration as the medication is administered by a healthcare provider and remediation is readily available. Lactated Ringers Irrigation is a sterile, nonpyrogenic solution of electrolytes in water for injection, intended only for sterile irrigation, washing and rinsing purposes. The product is packaged in 3000 mL flexible container bags and sold four bags per carton (NDC: 0409-7828-08, Lot 40-008-JT, Expiry 1APR2016). The lot was distributed nationwide in the United States to wholesalers, distributors, surgery centers, and hospitals from June 2014 through September 2014. Hospira has initiated an investigation to determine the root cause and corrective and preventive actions. Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lot should stop use and distribution, and quarantine the product immediately. Customers should notify all users in their facility. Customers who have further distributed the recalled product should notify any accounts or additional locations which may have received the recalled product and instruct them if they have redistributed the product to notify their accounts, locations or facilities to the user level (both human and veterinary). Hospira will be notifying its direct customers via a recall letter and is arranging for impacted product to be returned to Stericycle in the United States. For additional assistance, call Stericycle at 1-877-907- 7037 between the hours of 8 am to 5 pm ET, Monday through Friday. Patients should contact their physician or health care provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to using this drug product. For clinical inquiries, please contact Hospira using the information provided below. Hospira Contact Contact Information Areas of Support --------------- ------------------- ---------------- Hospira Global 1-800-441-4100 To report adverse Complaint Management (8am-5pm CT, M-F) events or product (ProductComplaintsPP complaints @hospira.com) Hospira Medical 1-800-615-0187 Medical inquiries Communications or medcom@hospira.com (Available 24 hours a day/7 days per week) Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178 This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Hospira, Inc. is the world's leading provider of injectable drugs and infusion technologies, and a global leader in biosimilars. Through its broad, integrated portfolio, Hospira is uniquely positioned to Advance Wellness(TM) by improving patient and caregiver safety while reducing healthcare costs. Learn more at www.hospira.com. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm437793.htm HSBC: Faces Class Action Over Credit Card Fees in Australia ----------------------------------------------------------- Johanna McDiarmid, writing for ABC News, reports that a class action has been launched to recover millions of dollars in credit card late payment fees from two of Australia's largest finance companies. HSBC and GE Capital Finance provide finance and credit card facilities to customers of thousands of retailers and service providers including Buyer's Edge, Coles, JB Hi Fi, The Good Guys and Myer. Steven Lewis from ACA Lawyers said the action was about justice for anyone who had to pay an unlawful late fee to these providers. "This includes people who have been stung by balance transfer deals and the customers of Australia's major retailers," he said. "People are being massively ripped off because the fees do not reflect the actual loss to the finance companies caused by a late payment. "We will argue this is unlawful and anyone who has paid these fees should be able to get their money back." GE Capital charges up to $30 in late fees depending on the credit card, while HSBC charges a $30 fee for customers who fail to make credit card payments on time. Mr. Lewis said the companies were making giant profits at the cost of the consumer. "These finance companies are gouging consumers. It's a rip off of a huge scale," he said. "The courts have previously held that the nature of these fees are extravagant and unconscionable and they're making giant profits." ACA Lawyers expects the class action to be worth in excess of $150 million. Customers who have paid a late payment fee in the past six years may be eligible to join the action. HSBC FINANCE: Fails to Send Post-Repossession Notices, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Duane O'Neal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HSBC Finance Corporation, successor by merger to HSBC Auto Finance, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00881 (S.D. Ohio, March 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to send post- repossession notices which comply with the Retail Installment Sales Act (RISA) and the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code. HSBC Finance Corporation is a financial services company and a member of the British HSBC Group. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald I. Frederick, Esq. Michael L. Berler, Esq. FREDERICK & BERLER, LLC 1370 Ontario Street, Suite 1240 Cleveland, OH 44113-1971 Telephone: (216) 502-1055 Facsimile: (216) 566-9400 E-mail: ronf@clevelandconsumerlaw.com mike@clevelandconsumerlaw.com - and - Gregory S. Reichenbach, Esq. P.O. Box 256 Bluffton, OH 45817 Telephone: (419) 529-8300 Facsimile: (419) 529-8310 E-mail: Greg@ReichenbachLaw.com HSBC FINANCE: Awaits Court of Appeals Ruling in Securities Case --------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Finance Corporation awaits a Court of Appeals ruling in an appeal related to a securities litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported consolidated financial statements and other corporate events, including the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household International, Inc. ("Household International") and certain former officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. No. 02 C5893), filed August 19, 2002 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint asserted claims under Sec. 10 and Sec. 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleged that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements of material fact relating to Household International's Consumer Lending operations, including collections, sales and lending practices, some of which ultimately led to the 2002 state settlement agreement, and facts relating to accounting practices evidenced by the restatement. Ultimately, a class was certified on behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of Household International common stock between July 30, 1999 and October 11, 2002. A jury trial concluded in April 2009, which was decided partly in favor of the plaintiffs. Various legal challenges to the verdict were raised in post-trial briefing. In December 2011, following the submission of claim forms by class members, the court-appointed claims administrator to the district court reported that the total number of claims that generated an allowed loss was 45,921, and that the aggregate amount of these claims was approximately $2.2 billion. Defendants filed legal challenges regarding the presumption of reliance as to the class and compliance with the claims form requirements, which the district court in September 2012 rejected for the most part. The district court directed further proceedings before a court- appointed Special Master to address certain claim submission issues. On October 4, 2013, the district court denied defendants' additional post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial, and granted plaintiffs' motions for a partial final judgment and awarded pre-judgment interest at the Prime Rate, compounded annually. Subsequently, on October 17, 2013, the district court entered a partial final judgment against the defendants in the amount of approximately $2.5 billion. In addition to the partial judgment that has been entered, there also remain approximately $625 million, prior to imposition of pre-judgment interest, in claims that still are subject to objections that have not yet been ruled upon by the district court. Defendants filed a Supersedeas Bond in the approximate amount of the judgment in order to stay execution on the judgment pending the appeal of the judgment to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Oral argument on the appeal was heard May 29, 2014, and the Company awaits a ruling from the Court of Appeals. "Given the complexity and uncertainties associated with the actual determination of damages, including the outcome of the appeal, there is a wide range of possible damages. We believe we have presented meritorious grounds for appeal on matters of both liability and damages. If the Appeals Court rejects or only partially accepts our arguments, the amount of damages in the action, based upon that partial final judgment, and other pending claims and the application of pre-judgment interest on those pending claims, may lie in a range from a relatively insignificant amount to an amount up to or exceeding $3.6 billion. We continue to maintain a reserve for this matter in an amount that represents management's current estimate of probable losses," the Company said. HSBC FINANCE: Settles Hazard Lender-Placed Insurance Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Various U.S. HSBC defendants have agreed to settle hazard lender- placed insurance claims on behalf of a nationwide class, HSBC Finance Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Lender-placed insurance involves a lender obtaining an insurance policy (hazard or flood insurance) on a mortgaged property when the borrower fails to maintain their own policy. The cost of the lender-placed insurance is then passed on to the borrower. Industry practices with respect to lender-placed insurance are receiving heightened regulatory scrutiny from both federal and state agencies. Beginning in October 2011, a number of mortgage servicers and insurers, including the Company's affiliates, HSBC Insurance (USA) Inc. and HSBC Mortgage Services Inc., received subpoenas from the New York Department of Financial Services (the "NYDFS") with respect to lender-placed insurance activities dating back to September 2005. "We have and will provide documentation and information to the NYDFS that is responsive to the subpoena. Additionally, in March 2013, the Massachusetts Attorney General issued a Civil Investigative Demand to HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. seeking information about lender-placed insurance activities. We continue to be engaged with the Massachusetts Attorney General regarding this matter," the Company said. Several putative class actions related to lender-placed insurance were filed against various HSBC U.S. entities, including actions against one or more of our subsidiaries: Montanez, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 11-CV-4074); West, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), et al. (South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, 14th Circuit No. 12-CP-00687); Weller, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., et al. (D. Col. No. 13-CV-00185); Hoover, et al. v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al. (N.D.N.Y. 13-CV-00149); Lopez v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al. (S.D. Fla. 13-CV-21104) Ross F. Gilmour v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al. (S.D.N.Y. Case No. 1:13-cv-05896-ALC) and Blackburn v. HSBC Finance Corp., et al. (N.D. Ga. 13-CV-03714-ODE). These actions relate primarily to industry-wide practices, and include allegations regarding the relationships and potential conflicts of interest between the various entities that place the insurance, the value and cost of the insurance that is placed, back-dating policies to the date the borrower allowed it to lapse, self- dealing and insufficient disclosure. The various U.S. HSBC defendants agreed to settle hazard lender- placed insurance claims on behalf of a nationwide class comprised of borrowers "who, from January 1, 2005 to the present, were charged by HSBC defendants as assureds or additional assureds under a hazard lender placed insurance policy for residential property." The Southern District of Florida granted final approval of the class settlement in the Diaz v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al. (S.D. Fla 13-CV-21104) action (formerly known as Lopez v. HSBC Bank, USA, N.A., et al.) on October 29, 2014. The settlement pays claims of class members, on a claims made basis, based on a formula, as well as class plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs of administration, with an overall cap of $32 million for all payments. This settlement does not include claims related to lender-placed flood insurance, such as those asserted in the Montanez, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Corporation (USA), et al. (E.D. Pa. No. 11-CV-4074) action. On December 11, 2014, the parties in Weller, et al. v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc., et al. (D. Col. No. 13-CV-00185) reached a settlement in principle resolving putative class action claims regarding lender placed flood insurance. Under the agreement, HSBC agreed to pay $1.8 million inclusive of claims, attorneys' fees and administrative costs. This settlement is subject to court approval. HSBC FINANCE: Early 2015 Hearing on Bid to Dismiss Funds' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The hearing on HSBC Finance Corporation's motions to dismiss a lawsuit filed by two mutual funds has been scheduled for early 2015, HSBC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. In May 2014 HSBC, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC USA and HSBC Finance Corporation, along with the other U.S. dollar Libor panel banks, were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed by two mutual funds managed by Prudential Investment Portfolios seeking unspecified damages as a result of alleged artificial suppression of U.S. dollar Libor rates which plaintiffs allege resulted in plaintiffs receiving substantially less interest payments in connection with certain transactions entered into with the defendants. This action has been transferred and/or consolidated with a U.S. dollar Libor Multi-District Litigation proceeding pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. HSBC and HSBC Bank plc are defendants in that proceeding as well. The stay previously imposed by the court on the individual actions was lifted in 2014. Plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint. HSBC moved to dismiss the amended complaint in November 2014. A hearing on these motions has been scheduled for early 2015. HSBC FINANCE: Opt-Out Merchants Inked Deal in Credit Card Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Finance Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that certain groups of opt-out merchants have entered into settlement agreements with the defendants in the Credit Card Litigation. Since June 2005, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC Finance Corporation, HSBC North America and HSBC, as well as other banks and Visa Inc. ("Visa") and MasterCard Incorporated ("MasterCard"), had been named as defendants in a number of consolidated merchant class actions and individual merchant actions had been filed against Visa and MasterCard, alleging that the imposition of a no- surcharge rule by the associations and/or the establishment of the interchange fee charged for credit card transactions causes the merchant discount fee paid by retailers to be set at supracompetitive levels in violation of the federal antitrust laws. In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1720, E.D.N.Y. ("MDL 1720"). In 2011, MasterCard, Visa, the other defendants, including HSBC Finance Corporation, and certain affiliates of the defendants entered into settlement and judgment sharing agreements (the "Sharing Agreements") that provide for the apportionment of certain defined costs and liabilities that the defendants, including HSBC Finance Corporation and our affiliates, may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse judgment or global settlement of one or all of these actions. The district court granted final approval of the class settlement in December 2013 and entered the Class Settlement Order and final judgment dismissing the class action shortly thereafter. Certain objecting merchants have filed notices of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Numerous merchants objected and/or opted out of the settlement during the exclusion period. To date, opt-out merchants have filed 35 opt-out suits in either state or federal court, including one, Speedy Stop Food Stores LLC v. Visa Inc. (Tex. Dist. Ct., Victoria City, No. 13-10-75377-A), that names certain HSBC entities as defendants. Most of these opt-out suits have been transferred to the consolidated multi-district litigation, MDL1720. To date, certain groups of opt-out merchants have entered into settlement agreements with the defendants in those actions and certain HSBC entities that, pursuant to the MDL 1720 Sharing Agreements, are responsible for a pro rata portion of any judgment or settlement amount awarded in actions consolidated into MDL 1720. HSBC FINANCE: Plaintiffs in Salveson Appealed Claims Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- HSBC Finance Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs in Salveson v. JPMorgan Chase et al. (N.D.Cal. No. 13-CV-5816) appealed the district court's decision dismissing claims. Salveson v. JPMorgan Chase et al. (N.D.Cal. No. 13-CV-5816) was filed on December 16, 2013 against HSBC Bank USA, HSBC North America, HSBC Finance Corporation, and HSBC, as well as other banks. This putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint asserts federal and California state antitrust claims on behalf of a putative class composed of all Visa and MasterCard cardholders in the United States. The substantive allegations regarding defendants' conduct parallel the merchant claims in MDL 1720. Unlike the merchant suits, however, the Salveson complaint alleges that cardholders pay the interchange fee charged for credit card transaction, not merchants, and that card holders were therefore injured by the alleged anticompetitive conduct. In March and May 2014, defendants, including the HSBC defendants, filed a motion to dismiss. In June 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the case to the Eastern District of New York for consolidation with MDL 1720. On November 26, 2014, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the federal antitrust claim and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the state law claim. Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the decision on December 18, and defendants responded on January 15, 2015. Plaintiffs also appealed the district court's decision on January 5, 2015. HSBC FINANCE: Settles Debt Cancellation Litigation -------------------------------------------------- HSBC Finance Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that beginning in August 2011, a number of State Attorneys General filed purported class actions against, among others, certain affiliates and/or subsidiaries asserting claims challenging cardholders' enrollment in debt cancellation or suspension products and various marketing or administrative practices relating to those products. In August 2014, the HSBC defendants settled the pending cases brought by the Hawaii, Mississippi and New Mexico State Attorneys General for a total payment of approximately $7 million. State of Hawaii ex rel David Louie, Attorney General v. HSBC Bank Nevada N.A. and HSBC Card Services, Inc., et al. (No. 12-1-0983-04); Jim Hood, Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, ex. rel. The State of Mississippi v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., HSBC Card Services, Inc., and HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; State of New Mexico ex rel Gary King, Attorney General, v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., HSBC Card Services, Inc., and HSBC Bank USA, N.A. HSBC FINANCE: Settlement in TCPA Litigation Has Initial Okay ------------------------------------------------------------ The court preliminarily approved a settlement in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation against HSBC Finance Corporation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. Between May 2012 and January 2013, two substantially similar putative class actions were filed against various HSBC U.S. entities, including actions against the Company or one or more of its subsidiaries. These two actions have been consolidated into a single action entitled: Mills & Wilkes v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., HSBC Card Services, Inc., HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. HSBC Auto Finance, Inc. & HSBC Consumer Lending (USA), Inc., Case No.: 12- cv-04010-MEJ (N.D. Cal.). A number of individual actions also have been filed. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that the HSBC defendants contacted them, or the members of the class they seek to represent, on their cellular telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice, without their express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq. ("TCPA"). Plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for willful violations), although similar cases filed against other financial institutions have been resolved for amounts significantly less than these maximum statutory damage amounts due to, among other things, the availability of various defenses to the claims. By agreement of the parties, the action in the Northern District of California was dismissed and a consolidated action entitled Wilkins & Mills v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. & HSBC Card Services, Inc., was filed in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The parties have agreed to settle the action for approximately $40 million, subject to court approval. The court preliminarily approved the settlement in July 2014. INTERSEC INTERACTIVE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Braga and Matthew Cottone v. Intersec Interactive, Inc., and Does 1-25, Case No. 4:15-cv-01145 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Intersec Interactive, Inc. is a New York corporation that owns and operates a pornography business in Oakland California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard A. Hoyer, Esq. David C. Lipps, Esq. HOYER & ASSOCIATES 4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94114 Telephone: (415) 766-3539 Facsimile: (415) 276-1738 E-mail: rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com dlipps@hoyerlaw.com INVENSENSE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology & Communications Portfolio, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Invensense, Inc., Behrooz Abdi and Alan Krock, Case No. 3:15-cv- 01134 (N.D. Cal., March 11, 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. Invensense, Inc. designs, develops, markets and sells Micro- Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) sensors, such as accelerometers, gyroscopes and microphones for consumer electronics. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Esq. Mark L. Knutson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1250 San Diego, California 92101-3579 Telephone: (619) 238-1333 Facsimile: (619) 238-5425 E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com mlk@classactionlaw.com JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces Class Action Over Wage Violations ----------------------------------------------------- Joe Van Acker and Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, report that assistant store managers suing sandwich chain Jimmy John's LLC along with several franchisees over alleged wage violations and restrictive noncompete agreements have attempted to use a reply brief to "surreptitiously amend" their claims, which should be dismissed, the company told an Illinois federal court on Feb. 27. Jimmy John's said the managers essentially conceded that their second amended complaint was deficient by attempting to rewrite their allegations in a response to the company's motion to dismiss their proposed class action, and said the managers should have known all along that they couldn't bring class claims for state wage laws on a nationwide basis. "Plaintiffs have chosen to assert a succession of grossly overbroad claims only to abandon them all at the last minute," Jimmy John's said. "Plaintiffs cannot amend their pleadings by way of their response brief; so they are stuck with the overbroad, legally deficient class claim that they pled." The company told the court the managers brought their wage claims under Illinois law but have now attempted to alter those claims in the reply brief as part of a "last-ditch effort" to maintain their class action. Jimmy John's said the managers' decision to link their claims to Illinois law also dooms their arguments against its noncompete agreement, which restricts current and former employees from working for any business that makes 10 percent of its revenue from selling sandwiches located within three miles of a Jimmy John's location. The company said that even if the managers could apply Illinois law nationwide, they can't show that Jimmy John's ever actually intended to enforce the agreement because it provided a sworn statement that it would not enforce the agreements against the plaintiffs in the future. In October, dozens of members of Congress asked the U.S. Department of Labor and the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the noncompete agreements. The managers sued in July 2014 but have since filed two amended complaints. Jimmy John's contends that the plaintiffs attempted to further amend their class definitions in a Feb. 14, 2015, response to the company's motion to dismiss, which was filed in November 2014. In their motion for class certification filed Feb. 26, the plaintiffs asked the court to certify four classes, including one reflecting their decision to alter a class of assistant managers seeking back pay to include only those employed in Illinois. On Feb. 27, Jimmy John's urged the court to hold the managers accountable for the "overbroad, unconstitutional class claim" they included in their complaint. "Plaintiffs' unending revisions to their class claims merely underscore the unmanageability of the nationwide classes that plaintiffs seek to certify," Jimmy John's said. The plaintiffs are represented by Robert M. Foote -- rmf@fmcolaw.com -- Kathleen C. Chavez -- kcc@fmcolaw.com -- Peter L. Currie and Kevin P. Noll of Foote Mielke Chavez & O'Neil LLC. The franchise defendants are represented by Matthew S. Disbrow, Gregory Andrews and Jeffrey Rudd of Jackson Lewis PC. Jimmy John's is represented by Gerald L. Maatman Jr., Matthew J. Gagnon, Giselle Perez de Donado and Jason J. Englund of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. The case is Brunner et al. v. Jimmy John Liautaud et al., case number 1:14-cv-05509, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: DePuy Implant Case Trial Begins in Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Bibby, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that recipients of a controversial metal-on-metal hip replacement implant say they were guinea pigs for a faulty device that has left thousands of people in constant pain and others with heavy metal poisoning. On the opening day of a Federal Court class action against the company that designed the metal hips, DePuy, and the product's distributor Johnson & Johnson, the victims of the devices demanded that those responsible be held to account. "A lot of these people are elderly, they're dying -- it's time for this to be settled so they can have compensation," one member of the class action, Janis Boys, said. "I had nothing but pain for three years. It affected my whole life and my relationship with family and friends. "My surgeon said it was the Rolls-Royce of hip replacements . . . [the companies] knew that wasn't the case." The class action is representing 1891 people who have had DePuy ASR hip replacement devices implanted. However, this figure could increase as statistics maintained by the Australian Orthopaedic Association's National Joint Replacement Registry show that, between 2003 and 2009, more than 5000 DePuy ASR implants were surgically implanted across Australia. In December 2009, Johnson & Johnson withdrew the DePuy ASR hip implants from sale in Australia. In March 2010, Johnson & Johnson issued a Safety Alert in relation to the DePuy ASR hip implants and in August 2010 it issued a Hazard Alert. In his opening address to the hearing, counsel representing the implant recipients, John Sheahan, QC, said the devices had been "a failure, both clinically and commercially" with devices having to be removed at a rate of up to 39 per cent. He said that ASR devices had featured a special design that was initially intended to reduce friction and wear, and increase the range of movement for recipients. However, the design in fact led to greater wear as the metal ball ground against the metal socket. Mr. Sheahan said that DePuy had not undertaken proper clinical testing of the implant, despite the variations in the design. He also said that, by mid-2005, DePuy was aware of problems with the device and the fact that these were exacerbated by the difficulty experienced by surgeons in implanting them effectively. He is expected to argue that, as a result of the metal ball grinding against the metal socket, traces of the metals cobalt and chromium were released into the blood streams of the recipients and that, in some cases, they suffered serious infections in their leg bones. This forced many to have multiple revision surgeries, with some having to have their hips replaced four or five times. The hearing continues. JUST ENERGY GROUP: Class Certification Granted in "Wilkins" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Joan B. Gottschall denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted the motion for class certification in the case captioned LEVONNA WILKINS, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JUST ENERGY GROUP, INC., JUST ENERGY ILLINOIS CORP., COMMERCE ENERGY, INC., and JUST ENERGY MARKETING CORP., Defendants, Case No. 13 C 5806, (N.D. Ill.) Plaintiff Levonna Wilkins claimed that the defendants misclassified her as an independent contractor and an outside salesperson pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL). She sought for class certification. Defendants sought for summary judgment as they contended that Wilkins' claim is outside the ambit of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL) since she is an outside salesperson. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 13, 2015 available at http://is.gd/BqkaNwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gottschall: 1) granted Wilkins' motion for leave to submit supplemental authority in support of her opposition to the defendants' motion for summary judgment; 2) denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment; and 3) granted Wilkins' motion to certify a class as the court certifies a class consisting of all persons since August 14, 2010 who: a) were Illinois residents; b) were listed on their Just Energy contract as performing services for Just Energy; c) were treated as independent contractors; d) had the job of going door-to-door for Just Energy; and e) were not paid minimum wage and/or overtime. He also set the case for status hearing on April 3, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. James J. Oh, Esq. -- joh@littler.com -- Catherine Sarah Lindemann, Esq. -- clindemann@littler.com - - Jennifer L. Schilling, Esq. -- jschilling@littler.com at Littler Mendelson, P.C. serve as counsel for Just Energy Group, Inc. KIRKLIN LAW FIRM: Judge Dismisses Plaintiffs Lawyer's Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Brenda Sapino Jeffreys, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that a judge in Houston has dismissed malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy claims that Houston plaintiffs lawyer George Fleming brought against two Houston firms and five Houston lawyers in 2014. On Feb. 24, 234th District Judge Wesley Ward signed orders granting "Anti-SLAPP" motions to dismiss claims Fleming filed against the Kirklin Law Firm of Houston and Charles, Paul and Stephen Kirklin; and claims that Fleming and Fleming & Associates filed against Ware, Jackson, Lee & Chambers of Houston and partners Don Jackson and Jeffrey Chambers. Judge Ward wrote in the order that he will consider at a later date requests for attorney fees and sanctions. However, also on Feb. 24, Judge Ward denied a motion filed by the Kirklin Law Firm and the Kirklins to dismiss claims brought by Fleming & Associates in Fleming & Associates v. Kirklin. Fleming & Associates is now known as Fleming, Nolen & Jez. Fleming, founder of Fleming & Associates, provided this statement: "I was disappointed in the court's rulings. We will consider our options going forward." Chambers, who characterized Fleming's allegations as "baseless," said he and Jackson are pleased with Ward's rulings. "We are very pleased," Paul Kirklin said on behalf of the Kirklin defendants. He is hopeful that Ward will dismiss the remaining claims on a motion for summary judgment. "We are feeling confident right now that the rest of the claims will get dismissed as well before trial," Paul Kirklin said. The defendants had filed motions asking Ward to grant the motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), on the ground that the lawsuit filed by Fleming and his firm violates their constitutional rights. "This lawsuit is nothing more than a strategic lawsuit against public participation, which is exactly what the TCPA is designed to prevent," the Ware Jackson defendants allege in their motion. In opposition to the dismissal motions, Fleming and his firm allege that the motions to dismiss under the TCPA lack legal basis. Paul Kirklin and Charles Kirklin are shareholders in the Kirklin Law Firm, and Charles Kirklin is also a partner in Kirklin Soh. Stephen Kirklin is a solo practitioner. In a second amended answer filed on Jan. 19, the Kirklin defendants deny the allegations that remain pending. The Allegations On Sept. 17, 2014, Fleming Nolen, formerly known as Fleming & Associates, filed the malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy suit, alleging that the defendants sought to "intimidate and harass" Fleming into settling some civil suits related to fen-phen litigation. In a first amended petition filed on Dec. 10, 2014, Fleming Nolen added Fleming as a plaintiff. In a second amended petition filed on Jan. 12, Fleming and his firm allege that the defendants made "false accusations" to solicit Fleming & Associates' former clients to pursue civil litigation against them "concerning settlement expenses." In the petition, Fleming and his firm allege that the defendants solicited a former client to file a "bogus class action" against Fleming and Fleming & Associates, which was dismissed; filed "sham federal charges" against Fleming, which led to an investigation by the U.S. attorney's office that was terminated in his favor; and filed "false charges" with the Harris County District Attorney's Office, again causing an investigation that resulted in the charges "being terminated in Fleming's favor." The plaintiffs also allege that the defendants filed "six improper, groundless and time-barred state bar complaints" against Fleming, which, "after an extensive investigation, have all been terminated in his favor." The plaintiffs sought more than $1 million in damages from the defendants. They allege that Fleming & Associates, on behalf of Fleming, was forced to "expend significant sums of money on outside counsel" to defend him from the federal and state criminal proceedings, and before the State Bar of Texas. In a second amended answer filed on Jan. 19, the Kirklin defendants deny the allegations that remain pending. LENOVO US: Faces "Foster" Suit in W.D. Ky. Over Harmful Spyware --------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Foster, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Superfish Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00203 (W.D. Ky., March 10, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and offensive spyware and malware. Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures and sells personal computers, tablet computers, smartphones, workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and smart televisions. Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company that develops various advertising-supported software products based on a visual search engine. The Plaintiff is represented by: John S. Friend, Esq. Robert W. Bishop, Esq. Tyler Z. Korus, Esq. BISHOP FRIEND, PSC 6520 Glenridge Park, Suite 6 Louisville, KY 40222-9998 Telephone: (502) 425-2600 E-mail: louisvillelaw22@gmail.com firm@bishoplegal.net tyler@bishoplegal.net LENOVO US: Faces "Johnson" Suit in Cal. Over Harmful Spyware ------------------------------------------------------------ Stanley D. Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., Lenovo Group Limited, and Superfish, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01122 (N.D. Cal., March 10, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and offensive spyware and malware. Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures and sells personal computers, tablet computers, smartphones, workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and smart televisions. Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company that develops various advertising-supported software products based on a visual search engine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Green, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C. 700 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 275 Larkspur, CA 94939 Telephone: (415) 477-6700 Facsimile: (415) 477-6710 E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com LENOVO US: Faces "Levenhagen" Suit in Ore. Over Harmful Spyware --------------------------------------------------------------- John Levenhagen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Superfish Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00401 (D. Ore., March 10, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and offensive spyware and malware. Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures and sells personal computers, tablet computers, smartphones, workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and smart televisions. Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company that develops various advertising-supported software products based on a visual search engine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve D. Larson, Esq. Mark A. Friel, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 S.W. Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com mfriel@stollberne.com - and - Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq. ABINGTON COLE + ELLERY 320 S. Boston Avenue, Suite 1130 Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone & Facsimile: (918) 588-3400 E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com LENOVO US: Faces "Simonoff" Suit in Cal. Over Harmful Spyware ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Simonoff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., Superfish, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01125 (N.D. Cal., March 10, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and offensive spyware and malware. Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures and sells personal computers, tablet computers, smartphones, workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and smart televisions. Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company that develops various advertising-supported software products based on a visual search engine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark T. Johnson, Esq. Todd M. Schneider, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON KONECKY LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com tschneider@schneiderwallace.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Arthur Stock, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4656 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net astock@bm.net LIFE TIME: Settles TCPA Class Action for $15 Million ---------------------------------------------------- Amy Fischbach, writing for Club Industry, reports that Life Time Fitness, Chanhassen, MN, will pay from $10 million to $15 million to settle a class action lawsuit alleging the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). About 593,000 class members contended that the company violated the act by "blasting unsuspected individuals with text messages to their cell phones advertising deals on enrollment fees, personal training packages and other 'exclusive offers'," according to a recent article on Law360.com. According to the complaint, Life Time "has a practice of sending unsolicited text messages to individuals' cell phones." The fitness company is accused of sending text messages to thousands of cell phone numbers either simultaneously or in rapid succession between January and April 2014. Recipients of some of the texts filed suit in federal courts in Illinois, Minnesota and Missouri. In October 2014, a judicial panel consolidated the cases in Minnesota. TCPA and Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rules ban most commercial text messages sent to a mobile phone. The only two exceptions are if the message is being sent for emergency purposes or if the recipient has given consent to receive the message. Life Time Fitness asserted that because the members gave the company their cell phone numbers, they consented to be contacted. After Oct. 16, 2013, however, the TCPA required companies to get written consent to send messages. Life Time Fitness attorneys asserted that the "new regulation didn't apply to cancel consent it received before the new regulation became effective." The purpose of the TCPA, according to the complaint, is to prevent advertisers from unfairly shifting the cost of their advertisements to consumers. Because the members had to pay their wireless carriers for the messages, they originally sought a minimum of $500 in damages. The parties reached a settlement of less than the $500 to $1,500 that plaintiffs could have potentially received based on TCPA rules as part of the settlement because "they would face significant challenges if the litigation continued," according to Law360.com. As a result, the federal court approved Life Time's motion to offer the class members one of three options: a free three-month membership at Life Time Fitness Gold Club, a $250 credit to be applied to a new or existing membership, or a $100 cash award. Life Time Fitness also will be responsible for covering the court costs, and in turn, the plaintiffs must drop their claims against the company. In a fourth quarter 2014 financial call, Eric Buss, executive vice president and CFO of Life Time, said that in the fourth quarter, the company recognized $4.7 million in expenses related to this class-action litigation. "While the company denied the allegations, we agreed to settle the matter," Buss said during the call. "The settlement agreement is still subject to approval from the court, but we believe the amount recorded represents a reasonable estimate of our potential exposure." Equinox, New York, also faces a class action suit related to the TCPA. That suit was filed in October 2014. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Burns" Suit Over Toxic Floorings ----------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Burns, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv- 01222 (E.D. Pa., March 10, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold Levin, Esq. LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com - and - Russ M. Herman, Esq. Leonard A. Davis, Esq. Stephen J. Herman, Esq. HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC 820 O'Keefe Avenue New Orleans, LO 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-6024 Facsimile: (504) 561-6024 E-mail: Rherman@hhkc.com Ldavis@hhkc.com Sherman@hhkc.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Flanagan" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ------------------------------------------------------------- John Flanagan, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-01752 (C.D. Cal., March 10, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond P. Boucher, Esq. Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Esq. BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903 Telephone: (818) 340-5400 Facsimile: (818) 340-5401 E-mail: ray@boucher.la bhujwala@boucher.la LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Heilman" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Heilman, Linda Heilman, Andrew Bailey, and Joanna Bailey, individually and on behalf of their minor child (Jack), and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00414 (N.D. Ala., March 10, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq. Dennis G. Pantazis, Esq. Gregory O. Wiggins, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203-3204 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: dea@wigginschilds.com dgp@wigginschilds.com gwiggins@wigginschilds.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Sowizrol" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ------------------------------------------------------------- Rodney Sowizrol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. et al, Docket No. 1:15-cv-02145 (N.D. Ill., March 11, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Marie McNulty, Esq. Robert A. Clifford, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES 120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 899-9090 E-mail: smm@cliffordlaw.com rac@cliffordlaw.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Groton" Suit Over Chinese Flooring ------------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Groton, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; Roseanna Oakes, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; Michael Oakes, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Does I through X, inclusive; and Roe Corporations I through X, inclusive; Case No. 2:15-cv- 00475 (D. Nev., March 16, 2015) is a consumer protection and false advertising class action relating to a variety of Chinese- manufactured laminate wood flooring materials. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants' claims that the Products comply with California Air Resources Board's standards for formaldehyde emissions and "with all applicable laws, codes and regulations" are false. The Plaintiffs contend that the Products emit formaldehyde gas at levels that exceed the strict limits set forth in the CARB Regulations. They add that the Defendants also fail to disclose the unlawful level of formaldehyde emission to consumers. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Toano, Virginia. Defendant Lumber Liquidators, Inc. markets, advertises, distributes and sells the Products to consumers throughout Oklahoma and the United States. Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business located in Toano. Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Toano. Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company also headquartered in Toano. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Q. Callister, Esq. Mitchell S. Bisson, Esq. CALLISTER & ASSOCIATES 823 Las Vegas Blvd. S., Suite 330 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 385-3344 Facsimile: (702) 385-2899 E-mail: mqc@call-law.com mbisson@call-law.com MASTEC INC: "O'Connor" Suit Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas O'Connor, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Mastec, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-20986 (S.D. Fla., March 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Mastec, Inc. is an infrastructure engineering and construction company based in Coral Gables, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Bernard Celler, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 243-4295 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com MICHAEL KORS: Managers File Overtime Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------------------- John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that a former Michael Kors Stores Inc. employee has claimed she was denied overtime pay and meal breaks during the two years she worked for a Michael Kors shop in a proposed class action that was removed to California federal court on Feb. 27. Former shop manager Pamela Thomas-Byass filed the suit on Dec. 23 in California Superior Court, saying that while Michael Kors classified her as a salaried worker exempt from overtime pay and legally required meal breaks, she was a manager in name only and had no authority, so she and other shop managers should have been nonexempt employees. "Shop managers had zero responsibility in determining what work was to be done by other employees of in what time frame," the complaint says. "The plaintiff and all the other shop managers were engaged in a type of work that required no exercise of independent judgment or discretion as to any matter of significance." The complaint says shop managers engaged in a finite set of tasks, including greeting and assisting customers, setting up sales racks and displays, dealing with customer service issues, cleaning fixtures, generating day-end sales reports and taking inventory. "To successfully compete against other apparel companies, Michael Kors substantially reduced its labor costs by placing the labor burden on a smaller number of employees," the complaint says. Lawyers for Michael Kors requested removing the case to California federal court, citing diversity of citizenship -- Ms. Thomas-Byass lives in California while Michael Kors is headquartered in New York City. According to the suit, Michael Kors violated California labor law by not paying Ms. Thomas-Byass overtime, not providing accurate itemized statements with her paycheck, not reimbursing her for Michael Kors apparel purchased as part of the uniform policy and not paying her in full within a reasonable amount of time after her departure. Ms. Thomas-Byass says she worked for Michael Kors between August 2012 and June 2014, and although she was a full-time employee scheduled to work eight-hour days, she often worked more. In their notice of removal, lawyers for Michael Kors estimated this amount at $47,430. Defense attorneys estimated Ms. Thomas-Byass' total claim at about $71,000, not including attorneys' fees. If certified as a class, the lawsuit would include anyone employed by Michael Kors stores in California as shop managers and exempted from overtime pay during the past four years. Ms. Thomas-Byass worked at a Michael Kors store within a Macy's department store in San Bernadino, California. Ms. Thomas-Byass, her lawyer and lawyers for Michael Kors could not be immediately reached for comment on March 2. Ms. Thomas-Byass is represented by Norman B. Blumenthal of Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. Michael Kors is represented by Jill A. Porcaro and Jon D. Meer of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. The case is Thomas-Byass v. Michael Kors Stores (California) Inc. et al, case number 5:15-cv-00369, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Case Title Pamela Thomas-Byass v. Michael Kors Stores (California), Inc. et al Case Number 5:15-cv-00369 Court California Central Nature of Suit Civil Rights: Jobs Judge Jesus G. Bernal Date Filed February 26, 2015 Law Firms Blumenthal Nordrehaug Seyfarth Shaw Companies Macy's Inc. Michael Kors Holdings Ltd. MOUNTAIN STATE UNIV: Former Students Get $11.3MM in Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Quinn, writing for The Charleston Gazette, reports that former Mountain State University students will receive a more than $11.3 million payout from the school, which many of them sued for not providing them a worthy education before it closed. Three judges on a mass litigation panel, led by Circuit Judge Alan Moats of Taylor County, met in Charleston on Feb. 26 to approve the proposed settlement agreement, which was publicly announced in August. Judge Moats called what happened to the former MSU students "more than unfortunate" and "tragic." He thanked lawyers, mediators and others for reaching what he called a fair conclusion to the most complex settlement he's been involved in. "Once Mountain State University lost that accreditation, then everything fell apart, all the pieces came undone, and you all have had to try to put something together again," said Judge Moats, who heard the case with Circuit Judges Derek Swope of Mercer County and James Mazzone of Ohio County. Of a total settlement of more than $18.5 million, $1.5 million of the proceeds will go to the University of Charleston for expenses it incurred related to its takeover of MSU's campuses following the institution's closure. One-third of the remaining $17 million -- about $5.7 million -- will go to paying the 22 law firms that represented students, said Charleston attorney Anthony Majestro. Mr. Majestro, the lead lawyer for the students, said about $360,000 of these legal fees will go to expenses such as travel and filing fees that attorneys incurred while prosecuting the case. He said notices were sent out to more than 10,000 former MSU students to make claims for the remaining $11.3 million but, as of Feb. 20, only 1,071 had submitted claims, and the deadline was March 1. He expects no more than 2,000 total claims. Former MSU students will get money based generally on how many MSU credits they had that wouldn't transfer to another school. An unknown amount of federal loan money owned by the U.S. Department of Education could still be on its way to the students, among other payments, but MSU attorney Dusty Gwinn said on Feb. 26 he wouldn't speculate on how much that could be. The settlement includes an $8.5 million payment from MSU's insurer, United Educators. It also includes about $10 million from the sale of MSU's Beckley campus to West Virginia University and its Martinsburg campus to a limited liability company called Viking Way Holdings. UC has been graduating former MSU students under its name in Beckley and Martinsburg since MSU folded, and it will continue leasing the campuses until June 30. UC has said it will seek another Beckley location to offer academic programs in the future, and classes at the Martinsburg campus are planned to be relocated to the National Guard headquarters there. UC President Ed Welch said the $1.5 million his institution will receive from the final settlement -- in addition to a $750,000 check MSU gave to UC upon the settlement's previous "preliminary approval" -- will still result in a loss to the university, which in 2012 signed 25-year leases on the Beckley and Martinsburg campuses. Mr. Welch said the loss isn't major, but includes administrators' time spent developing programs that UC thought it was going continue offering at the campuses "for a very long time." He said MSU had settled with a few students around the time the leases were signed, but the number of students making claims unexpectedly "mushroomed" to a point that MSU didn't have funds to pay them. Thus, to settle the class-action lawsuit, MSU was forced to sell all of its assets -- including the ones that UC had leased. "Every possible dollar had to go into it," Mr. Welch said. Fighting to defend UC's lease claims could've taken years of litigation, holding up the sale of the property that benefited the former MSU students. "We didn't want to stand in the way of that settlement," Welch said. He noted that UC, in its takeover of the campuses, hired about 90 of MSU's former employees, kept its buildings in shape, leased its equipment and has graduated more than 400 of its students -- likely reducing the number of students who filed suit or claims against MSU. Mr. Majestro said that, as part of the Beckley campus sale, WVU also will take over an MSU endowment fund that has about $1 million left for providing scholarships to students. During the Feb. 26 hearing, the judges inquired about a claim made by a possible donor against more than half the amount in that fund, but MSU lawyers would not discuss the details with the Gazette. Mr. Majestro said WVU has agreed to give those scholarships to former MSU students first, perhaps to those who wish to continue their higher education elsewhere. WVU said it plans to finalize its purchase of the Beckley campus in mid-March. In 2012, MSU had its primary accreditation revoked by the Higher Learning Commission -- a corporation that ensures colleges are upholding national standards -- after years of failing to correct major problems in leadership, program evaluations and campus governance. Higher education officials said it was the first time that had happened in West Virginia history. Hundreds of former students filed lawsuits against the university, claiming, among other things, that they were harmed by the private college's accreditation woes -- left with credits that wouldn't transfer to other institutions and degrees from an unaccredited school. Students who attended classes on or after May 27, 2008, in nursing or any other health sciences program -- such as pre-nursing, the Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist program and/or the Diagnostic Medical Sonography program -- are eligible for money from the settlement. So are students from any other program, as long as they didn't get a national, regional and state accredited degree from UC or MSU before the program closed or before UC's offer to graduate them under its name ended. Those eligible can still submit transcripts and completed claim forms to receive money from the settlement, but they must be postmarked no later than March 1. Mr. Majestro said he expects to distribute the money in about 30 to 45 days, but other uncalculated funds, like those from the Department of Education, could require a later distribution. Students can visit msusettlement.com for directions on filing claims or mail their documentation to: Claims Administrator, Smith, Cochran & Hicks, PLLC, 3510 MacCorkle Ave. SE, Charleston, WV 25304. For more information, call 1-855-829-8121. MRS BPO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Braun" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------- Yoses Braun, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MRS BPO LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01763 (D.N.J., March 10, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's deceptive, misleading and unfair debt collection practices. MRS BPO LLC is a collection agency with a principal place of business at 1930 Olney Ave., Cherry Hill, NJ 08003. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aryeh L. Pomerantz, Esq. POMERANTZ & POMERANTZ, PLLC 3 Whisper Lane. Suffern, NY 10901 Telephone: (845) 547-2600 Facsimile: (845) 547-2601 E-mail: aryeh@pom-law.com NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Trial in Super Bowl XLV Seating Suit Begins -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Mosier, writing for The Associated Press, reports that four other Super Bowl champions have hoisted the Lombardi Trophy since the Green Bay Packers won their title in 2011 at what was then Cowboys Stadium. But the seating scandal that marred this region's first Super Bowl still lingers. On March 2, a federal lawsuit over the failure to finish installing about 1,000 temporary seats was scheduled to go to trial in Dallas. Attorneys representing eight ticketholders, some of whom paid thousands of dollars but had no seat for the game, declined to comment. "The Plaintiffs and their counsel are busy preparing for the start of trial on March 2 and are unavailable for comment," a spokeswoman for lead lawyer Michael J. Avenatti said via email. The attorneys for the National Football League could not be reached for comment. Various NFL executives were apologetic after the seating mess, which was part of a Super Bowl week filled with bad weather and high-profile glitches. "If I could have spent time with every fan at the stadium that day, face to face, and told them how sorry I am that we ruined their dreams, I would have," NFL executive vice president Eric Grubman said at the time. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is expected to be one of the first witnesses called by the plaintiffs' attorney, according to a news release. Criticism of NFL Attorneys representing the fans, however, were critical of the league. They said the NFL low-balled ticketholders and didn't do enough to reimburse them or respond to the problems. A portion of the 15,000 temporary seats could not be completed in time for the Feb. 6, 2011, championship, which led to a cascading set of problems for fans and the league. Some ticketholders didn't have seats and stood for the game. Others were moved to different seats or were delayed getting into the stadium. A few plaintiffs are suing over their seats' obstructed views. The first lawsuit about the seating trouble was filed little more than 48 hours after the game. Eventually, multiple cases were consolidated into this federal lawsuit. A second federal lawsuit was also filed by some of same attorneys and is pending and includes more than 200 plaintiffs. The NFL initially offered about 400 fans who had no seats triple the $800 face value of their tickets and a ticket to the 2012 Super Bowl in Indianapolis. Later, the NFL gave fans a second option that included a free ticket to any future Super Bowl plus roundtrip economy airfare and four nights in a hotel room. The offer was eventually expanded to at least $5,000 in reimbursed expenses, although that could be more if "actual substantiated expenses" were higher. The 2,800 people in temporary seats who were delayed getting into the stadium or relocated were offered a refund of their tickets' face value or a ticket to a future Super Bowl. Those with obstructed views were not offered compensation. Ice, snow blamed The owner of seating contractor Seating Solutions previously said the severe weather -- ice and snow storms -- slowed the process and prevented workers from finishing the job. Documents released by the city of Arlington showed that there were problems with seating long before the storms arrived. Some plans didn't include enough details and weren't drawn to scale. A top Arlington fire official previously said he was concerned about 10 or 12 days before the Super Bowl that the temporary seating wouldn't be completed on time. The plaintiffs originally sought to have this certified as a class-action lawsuit, but that was rejected by the judge. Class- action status makes it easier in many cases for lawyers to represent an entire class of people rather than having to sign up everyone individually. The Dallas Cowboys and owner Jerry Jones had initially been named in the lawsuit but were dismissed. The Cowboys were in charge of installing the stadium's additional seating. An earlier lawsuit associated with the 2011 Super Bowl was settled in March 2014. A worker helping with the halftime show preparations was seriously injured when ice and snow fell from the stadium roof. The NFL, the Cowboys and a pair of Super Bowl contractors settled for an undisclosed amount near the end of that trial. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Judge Tosses Suit Over Super Bowl Tickets ------------------------------------------------------------ Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit against the National Football League a year after it was sued for allegedly violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act in selling Super Bowl tickets. Judge Peter G. Sheridan issued an order granting the NFL's motion to dismiss plaintiffs Josh Finkelman and Ben Hoch-Parker's lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey Jan. 21. According to the plaintiffs' complaint, filed in the federal court Jan. 6, 2014, every year the NFL prints "tens of thousands of Super Bowl tickets, yet it only allocates a meager one percent of these tickets for release to the general public through a lottery system, forcing all other fans into a secondary market for the tickets where they must pay substantially more than the ticket's face value to attend one of the most popular and iconic sporting events of the year." The plaintiffs argue the profits from these secondary market sales are returned to the NFL and its franchisees in lucrative contracts with secondary ticket buyers who must purchase large blocks of tickets to regular season games of a franchise team to secure a small allotment of Super Bowl tickets. They contend the secondary market buyer then enhances their profitability by packaging their tickets into expensive deals requiring the interested fan to purchase extras, such as multi-night minimum stay hotel rooms, pre-game parties and limousine services. The practice of withholding all but one percent of its tickets to the general public constitutes a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, both Mr. Finkelman and Hoch-Parker argue. On Dec. 30, 2013, Mr. Finkelman purchased two tickets to Super Bowl XLVIII for $2,000 per ticket, which was "far in excess" of the face value of the tickets, according to the lawsuit. Mr. Hoch-Parker considered purchasing Super Bowl tickets, but ultimately decided not to because of the cost. Both contend the NFL already has tax-exempt status, and its acts and omissions allow it to gain millions of dollars in profits that it otherwise would not have gained. In January, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of Sheridan's order. They plan to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to the Feb. 13 filing. They are being represented by Bruce H. Nagel and Diane E. Sammons -- dsammons@nagelrice.com -- of Nagel Rice LLP. NEW YORK, NY: Cops File Class Action Over Quota Punishments ----------------------------------------------------------- Dana Sauchelli, Frank Rosario and Leonard Greene, writing for New York Post report that city cops are routinely denied overtime and vacation, demoted to menial posts and ultimately threatened with being fired for not making quotas, a scathing new class-action lawsuit charges. The lawsuit, set to be filed on March 2 in Manhattan Supreme Court, specifically addresses minority officers allegedly being forced to make at least one arrest and issue 20 summonses a month. The plaintiffs claim racial discrimination is at work both because the department is targeting minorities with the quotas -- and because black and Hispanic officers are punished more harshly than white cops when they fail to meet their numbers. "At this point, you either come up with the numbers or there is hell to pay,'' Bronx Officer Adhyl Polanco told The Post on March 1. Mr. Polanco is one of two plaintiffs who have already testified against the city in the now-famous case that challenged the NYPD's use of stop-and-frisk over discrimination issues. The other officer is Pedro Serrano. Other officers have taken on the department over quotas, but Mr. Polanco -- and Serrano's lawyer, Emeka Nwokoro -- say this is the first quota case involving alleged racial bias. Mr. Serrano says he protested to a superior that the Puerto Ricans he was targeting for summonses in his South Bronx precinct couldn't afford the fines, but was told it was OK because they were "animals." The suit notes he was particularly offended because he's Puerto Rican. And Mr. Polanco says that, after he complained about the alleged quotas himself, he was warned, "If you think one and 20 is breaking your balls, guess what you'll be doing. You'll be doing a lot more." Another supervisor even upped the ante for him, Mr. Polanco claims. "Next week, [it'll be] 25 and one, 35 and one, and until you decide to quit this job and go to work at Pizza Hut, this is what you are going to do until then," the second supervisor said, according to court papers. Another plaintiff cop, Sandy Gonzalez, gripes in the suit about allegedly being forced to work alone in a cold, dark and dangerous area after complaining. He said he was advised that "on 128th Street, you can write 100 'C' [criminal] summonses any day." The fourth officer named in the suit, Ritchie Baez, says he was punished for not meeting his quotas by being assigned to "Sky Watch" duty, exiling him to one of the department's mounted street "towers." Seven NYPD traffic cops are set to file a separate class-action federal lawsuit charging that they were denied promotions and punished with no overtime and lost vacation in retaliation for balking at quotas, too. OCWEN LOAN: Removes "Nemerovsky" Class Suit to M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Nemerovsky v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 15-CA-000433, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Lee County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00171-JES-CM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria Alaimo, Esq. VILES & BECKMAN, LLC 6350 Presidential Ct., Suite A Ft. Myers, FL 33919 Telephone: (239) 334-3933 Facsimile: (239) 334-7105 E-mail: maria@vilesandbeckman.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian Pantaleo, Esq. EDWARDS WILDMAN, LLP 525 Okeechobee Blvd., Suite 1600 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6349 E-mail: bpantaleo@edwardswildman.com OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald J. Stefanko, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., Michael A. Narachi, and Joseph P. Hagan, Case No. 3:15-cv-00549 (S.D. Cal., March 11, 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. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the development of pharmaceutical product candidates for the treatment of obesity. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com fmcconville@pomlaw.com jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com PRIMAL PET: Recalls Feline Turkey Raw Frozen Formula ---------------------------------------------------- Primal Pet Foods is voluntarily recalling a single batch production code of Feline Turkey Raw Frozen Formula 3-pound bag. FDA tested product in response to a single consumer complaint. Primal Pet Foods was alerted by FDA that the testing of two bags of this lot resulted in a low thiamine level. Neither FDA nor Primal have received any other reports concerning Thiamine in Primal products. No other product manufactured by Primal Pet Foods is involved in this voluntary recall. Only the product with the following Best By date and production code is included in the voluntary recall. It is best to check the production code on the back of the bag to determine if the product has been recalled or not. The lot involved in this voluntary recall is: Primal Pet Foods Feline Turkey Raw Frozen Formula 3-pound bag (UPC# 8 50334-00414 0) with Best By date 060815 B22 Primal takes very seriously, the need for adequate Thiamine levels in our feline diets. We include Organic Quinoa Sprout Powder as a natural B-Complex supplement to ensure that adequate levels of Thiamine are met. Additionally, Thiamine occurs naturally in other ingredients contained in our Feline Turkey Formula such as: Turkey Muscle Meat (including heart), Turkey Liver, Organic Sunflower Seeds, Dried Organic Kelp, Organic Collard Greens and Organic Squash. Consumers who still have bags of cat food from this lot should stop feeding it to their cats and call us at (866) 566-4652 Monday through Friday, 9:00 am - 4:00 pm PST. Consumers with further questions should visit our website at www.primalpetfoods.com or call us at this same number. Cats fed only diets low in thiamine for several weeks may be at risk for developing a thiamine deficiency. Thiamine is essential for cats. Symptoms of deficiency displayed by an affected cat can be gastrointestinal or neurological in nature. Early signs of thiamine deficiency may include decreased appetite, salivation, vomiting, and weight loss. In advanced cases, neurologic signs can develop, which may include ventriflexion (bending towards the floor) of the neck, wobbly walking, circling, falling, and seizures. If your cat has consumed the recalled lot and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian. If treated promptly, thiamine deficiency is typically reversible. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm438184.htm PRUDENTIAL FIN'L: Cert. Bid Okayed in Part; Expert Report Nixed --------------------------------------------------------------- New Jersey District Judge Claire C. Cecchi granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class and granted the Defendants' Motion to Strike the Expert Report of David M. Denmark in the case captioned BOUDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:06-04359, (D.N.J.) Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a collective action under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and as a class action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated who suffered damages as a result of the violations of the FLSA, and of the Labor Laws of the States of California, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington, and as a result of other wrongful conduct and improper labor practices allegedly committed by Defendants. Plaintiffs sought class certification of four state classes comprised of insurance agents who were employed by Defendants Prudential Financial, Inc. and the Prudential Insurance Company of America either as Prudential Representatives or as Financial Services Associates in the states of California, Illinois, New York, and Pennsylvania. Defendants sought to strike the Expert Report of David M. Denmark. In his Opinion & Order dated February 26, 2015 available at http://is.gd/1wd1pafrom Leagle.com, Judge Cecchi granted the request for class certification, in part, as to the New York and Pennsylvania, California Deductions Subclasses and denied in part as to the Illinois, New York, California and Pennsylvania Overtime Classes. The Court, meanwhile, granted the Defendants' Motion to Strike the Expert Report of David M. Denmark. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. -- clowe@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP serves as counsel for Prudential Financial, Inc. PURINA: Faces Class Action in California Over Beneful Dog Food -------------------------------------------------------------- Kierra Powell, writing for Local Big 2 News, reports that a California class action lawsuit claims Purina's Kibble Style dog food is responsible for the death and injury of several dogs. In the past four years, consumers have made more than 3,000 online complaints about dogs becoming ill or dying after eating Beneful, the lawsuit says. According to Matt Malone, the attorney for the suit, in all of the claims there is one common denominator: "Across different breeds, across different ages, across different locations, we see one common factor, that is this group of dog food," Mr. Malone said. According to Ashley Bloss, a West Texas dog owner, her dog Evie suffered major health issues after eating Beneful dog food. "She started to have seizures which was way out of the norm, she had never had them before. She lost control of her bladder, she wouldn't move, she became real lethargic," Ms. Bloss said. Ms. Bloss says shortly after the seizures started, she rushed Evie to the vets office but they had little luck in determining the cause of the problems. "They didn't know what it was doing or why she got them. So we were pretty much left in the dark after that one," Ms. Bloss said. To make matters worse, Ms. Bloss says her mother's dogs soon became ill with similar symptoms, and they eventually died from the effects. The health problems pushed Ms. Bloss to surf the internet for answers as to what could have caused the problems. Then, she said she came across different materials linking similar problems to Beneful dog food. "After reading so many comments it was Evie all over again, all these people are having the exact same things happen to their dogs," Ms. Bloss said. The lawsuit says the common denominator in their clients sick dogs was propylene glycol, an ingredient listed on the back of a Beneful bag, and believed to be used in anti freeze. Bill Salzman, director of corporate communications for Nestle Purina PetCare, issued a statement denying the allegations in the lawsuit. "We believe the lawsuit is baseless, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and our brand. Beneful had two previous class action suits filed in recent years with similar baseless allegations, and both were dismissed by the courts," Mr. Salzman said. The class action lawsuit, filed February 5 in U.S. District Court in Northern California, seeks $5 million in damages. Although Ms. Bloss is not part of the current lawsuit, she believes Beneful is 100 percent responsible for her dogs recent illness. "My fiance and I we cried for hours on end because we thought we were gonna lose her and it was because of her food," Ms. Bloss said. Ms. Bloss says since changing her dogs food the seizures and other symptoms have stopped. However, when it comes to a final decision on the claims like Ms. Bloss' and the thousands of others, it will be left to the courts to decide. RAMS HEAD: Faces Class Action Over Videotape Recording ------------------------------------------------------ NBC Washington reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against a Maryland restaurant owner after he was accused of secretly videotaping women in the bathroom. Kyle Muehlhauser, 37, was arrested on six counts of visual surveillance with prurient intent. A woman reported last May she was inside a bathroom at the Rams Head Tavern in Savage when a digital camera fell onto the floor. Detectives say footage on the camera showed a man placing the camera in the bathroom, and showed six different women who were secretly recorded. According to court documents, an alleged victim has filed a class action lawsuit against Mr. Muehlhauser and Rams Head Tavern, claiming she visited the restaurant 12 times in the 30 days prior to the camera being discovered. "[The victim] is appalled, disgusted, and angry that anyone would victimize women in this perverse way, but believes that the antidote for such abuse is to confront the victimizers and hold them accountable," according to a release from her attorney, Clarke F. Ahlers. Court documents list punitive damages at $3 million. REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Appeals Court Reinstates Red-Light Camera Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Shaw, writing for NOLA.com, reports that the battle over red-light camera fines in Jefferson Parish is headed back to district court, after appellate judges reversed decisions throwing out ticketed drivers' lawsuits against the parish and Redflex Traffic Systems. The ruling, by a 5th Circuit Court of Appeal panel, raised questions about the parish's liability and Redflex's role in handling violations. The court found that the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Redflex dismissed the plaintiffs' request for an accounting of the money collected during the controversial program's two-year run. Officials have said the program collected nearly $20 million from November 2007 until March 2010, when questions over Redflex payments to lobbyists led officials to suspend the cameras. Two groups sued the parish and Redflex over the program's constitutionality in separate cases that were consolidated and given class-action status. In one suit, plaintiffs sought refunds plus interest for drivers, who had paid the $110 tickets. Appellate Judges Fredericka "Ricky" Wicker, Jude Gravois and Robert Chaisson agreed with Jefferson Parish and Redflex that plaintiffs' claims that the red-light camera system was unconstitutional and illegal under state law had no merit. Judge Henry Sullivan of the 24th Judicial District Court issued a summary judgment in favor of the parish and Redflex in 2012. Judge Sullivan ruled Jefferson Parish was not an appropriate defendant in response to plaintiffs' complaints about the program's administration and enforcement. But the appellate judges said it could not discern whether the parish created the program's regulations or enacted the rules and "left it to independent entities, such as the Sheriff, Clerk of Court, District Attorney and First and Second Parish Courts, to set up enforcement methods.'' The judges also raised other issues, including whether alleged violators were given proper notice of proceedings against them in First and Second Parish Courts, and whether the district attorney's office could prosecute the citations. The appellate judges also questioned whether the program could assess criminal fines and fees in a civil proceeding. "We conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Jefferson Parish may be liable for any of these potential failings," the appellate judges wrote. "Jefferson Parish enacted the law." Regarding Redflex, the appellate panel also raised issues about its part in setting up the program. By issuing a summary judgment in favor of the firm, Judge Sullivan denied the plaintiffs an opportunity to obtain an accounting of the money collected, the appeals court judges ruled. "There is an unresolved genuine question of material fact as to how much money, if any, Redflex would be due under its contract with Jefferson Parish, if the court, in further proceedings, finds the ATSE (Automated Traffic Signal Enforcement) illegal or unconstitutional as applied," the judges wrote. They added that the plaintiffs didn't have "an adequate opportunity to respond" after the parish and the company argued that the Sheriff's Office, and not the parish or Redflex, "possessed and controlled" the escrow account with all the fines and fees in dispute. In 2012, Redflex said it was owed $7.3 million -- $4.7 million in ticket revenue plus a $2.6 million delinquency fee that continued to rise. Jefferson Parish suspended enforcement of the program in January 2010, after officials raised questions over commissions Redflex had agreed to pay local lobbyists, prompting the company to sue. Three years later, the Parish Council voted to refund the balance of $19.7 million drivers paid, but only after the current lawsuit is resolved. REGIONAL ADJUSTMENT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dunstan A. Weerasinghe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Regional Adjustment Bureau Incorporated, Case No. 1:15-cv-01353 (E.D.N.Y., March 16, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. ROYAL BANK: SMEs File Class Action Over Alleged Conspiracy ---------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Broadfoot, writing for Invezz, reports that The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc faces a class action lawsuit from over 250 companies, The Times has reported. The firms have claimed that the FTSE 100-listed lender's "turnaround" division damaged or destroyed their businesses. According to the newspaper, the companies, mostly small and medium sized businesses, accuse RBS of placing them under the control of its Global Restructuring Group (GRG) not in order to help them get back on their feet, but to run them into the ground. As a result RBS was allegedly be able to obtain their assets for next to nothing. The Times quoted Peter Burgess, who is managing director at Treble B Tyre Services, one of the firms taking part in the lawsuit, as saying: "When I sold part of the business, the bank took the proceeds of the sale and reduced our overdraft facility . . . I thought this was just done to me and didn't understand why. But I wasn't the only one." RW INSTALLATION: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Wilmer Hugo Cruz and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. RW Installation Inc., RW Glazing Inc., Robert Wszendybyl, Marlena Stettner, Case No. 1:15-cv-20981 (S.D. Fla., March 10, 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 garage door installation company that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM SALOV: Fraud Class Action Moves Forward in California ----------------------------------------------------- Virginia Brown Keyder, writing for Olive Oil Times, reports that Rohini Kumar, as readers will remember from my earlier article, initiated a class action suit against Salov in the Northern District Federal Court of California in July 2014 alleging that Salov, the importer of Filippo Berio olive oil from Italy, committed fraud by giving prominence on the label of its product to 'Imported from Italy' while minimizing notification of the actual origins of the oil. The plaintiff also alleged that Salov committed fraud by characterizing the oil as extra virgin. This fraud entailed both mixing 'refined' oil with what once may have been extra virgin, the complaint alleges, and by ensuring that even it had been extra virgin, it was degraded by the time it reached the consumer due to the use of clear packaging. On Feb 3, 2015, the court denied Salov's motion to dismiss Ms. Kumar's claims, basically finding that 'the reasonable consumer' could well have been deceived into thinking the oil was in fact from Italian olives (in spite of the fact that Kumar acknowledged having read the 'best by' dates positioned next to the indication of origin) and that the claims for fraudulent labeling of the oil as 'extra-virgin' were sufficiently substantiated for this stage of the pleadings. Three claims that Kumar Lacked Standing Rejected The Court rejected Salov's argument that Ms. Kumar had no standing to bring the action because, having become aware of the misstatement, Ms. Kumar faced no danger of being further deceived in the future. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers stated, "The possibility of future injury is alleged sufficiently if the plaintiff would encounter the same statements today and could not be any more confident that they were true." Salov's second claim that Kumar lacked standing to bring the 'extra-virgin' fraud claim because she failed to show that the actual bottle of olive oil she purchased was not in fact extra- virgin, and therefore failed to show injury in fact, was also rejected. The Judge stated that Kumar needed not "prove that the particular bottle of oil she purchased had, in fact, degraded to the point of not being extra virgin," and quoted Judge Seeborg in a companion case to the effect that "each consumer who purchases extra virgin olive oil, is entitled to receive oil that meets that definition by design, not by happenstance." Salov's third claim that Kumar lacked standing because she purchased only one product and brings claims against a range of products was also rejected as "a matter to be considered at the class certification stage, not the pleading stage." Tariff Act Claim Salov's claim that "Kumar cannot rely on the Tariff Act as a basis for her UCL claim because Congress has vested exclusive enforcement authority in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency", was also rejected. The Judge relied on a 2014 US Supreme Court holding to the effect that "even if a private plaintiff is not permitted to enforce a federal statute or regulation directly, the federal law may form the predicate for a private right of action under another federal or state law where the federal law does not expressly prohibit such an action." Insufficiency of Claim of Fraud Rejected Finally, the Judge rejected Salov's dismissal claim that Ms. Kumar's allegations of fraud were not sufficiently substantiated. She found the claims, which outline the "the who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct charged," adequate for this stage of the pleading. In Salov's Favor The Judge did, however, reject Ms. Kumar's claims for breach of contract (finding no contract existed) and found her claim of breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing insufficiently pleaded and therefore granted Salov's motion to dismiss these claims. No permission to amend these claims was granted. Salov's request for judicial notice of a Filippo Berio Extra Virgin Olive Oil bottle label was granted and Salov was given until February 24 to file a response. SAMARITAN VILLAGE: Accused of Harassment & Gender Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monique Lindeman v. Samaritan Village, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 01969-NRB (S.D.N.Y., March 16, 2015) is brought to vindicate the Defendant's alleged violations of the Plaintiff's civil rights and to redress hostile, severe, persistent, and longstanding harassment and discrimination she experienced at her workplace based on her gender, sexual orientation and disability. Samaritan is a New York domestic corporation with a principal executive office in the County of Queens in Brairwood, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal Eugene Wiesner, Esq. WIESNER LAW FIRM 34 East 23rd Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 732-2225 Facsimile: (646) 678-3532 E-mail: nwiesner@wiesnerfirm.com SEI INVESTMENTS: No Schedule Yet to Respond to Ascension Case ------------------------------------------------------------- The schedule for responding to the petition in the lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension against SEI Investments Company and SEI Private Trust Company and other defendants, has not yet been established, SEI said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Five lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge. One of the five actions purports to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SEI Private Trust Company as a defendant. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant. All five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and, in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of action against SEI and/or SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act. Two of the five actions include claims for violations of the Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy. In addition, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the 23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension against SEI and SPTC and other defendants, asserting claims of negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana Racketeering Act, and conspiracy. The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust Company. The petitions allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted or otherwise participated in the sale of "certificates of deposit" issued by Stanford International Bank. The case filed in Ascension Parish was removed to federal court and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The schedule for responding to that petition has not yet been established. The plaintiffs in two of the cases filed in East Baton Rouge have granted SEI and SPTC an indefinite extension to respond to the petitions. In a third East Baton Rouge action, brought as a class action, SEI and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part, dismissing the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification, and SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court deferred the motion for summary judgment, stating that the motion would not be set for hearing until after the hearing on class certification. After the Court held a hearing on class certification, it certified a class composed of persons who purchased or renewed any Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit (SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009 or any person for whom the Stanford Trust Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and February 13, 2009. SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the class certification judgments. On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for Leave to File a First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition in which they asked the Court to allow them to amend the petition and add claims against certain of SEI's insurance carriers. On February 5, 2013, the Court granted two of the motions for appeal and the motion for leave to amend. On February 28, 2013, SEI responded to the First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition by seeking dismissal of the action. On March 11, 2013, the newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed the case to the Middle District of Louisiana. SEI notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case as a potential tag-along action. Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the action to state court. On March 25, 2013, SEI filed a motion requesting that the federal court decline to adopt the state court's order regarding class certification, which the court dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of the jurisdictional issue. On August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel transferred the matter against SEI to the Northern District of Texas. On October 1, 2014, SEI filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the Northern District of Texas, and on October 6, 2014, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion to remand. This case is now pending in the Northern District of Texas, and SEI is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss. In the two other cases filed in East Baton Rouge, brought by the same counsel who filed the class action, virtually all of the litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate litigation regarding the existence of federal subjection matter jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA). After the matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that court dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on February 26, 2014. The matter was remanded to state court and no material activity has taken place since that date. While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with respect to the foregoing lawsuits. SIRIUS XM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Elickman" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Efim Elickman, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 02093 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2015), seeks to stop Defendant's unlawful telephone solicitation practices in the form of unauthorized telephone calls using an automatic telephone dialing system. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. is a nationwide provider of satellite radio services with its principal place of business located in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Myles McGuire, Esq. Evan M. Meyers, Esq. Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 161 North Clark Street, 47th Fl. Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 216-5179 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com emeyers@mcgpc.com eturin@mcgpc.com SO ROSE: Faces "Gabrielyan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Kaspar Gabrielyan, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. S.O. Rose Apartments LLC, Village Court Apartments LLC, Tuli Realty LLC, Sunny Doe (last name fictitious), and Sam Doe (last name fictitious), Case No. 2:15-cv- 01771 (D.N.J., March 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a chain of residential apartment complexes and developments. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq. NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C. 2747 Coney Island Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11235 Telephone: (718) 808-2224 E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com ST. BARNABAS: Faces "Khansari" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maryam Khansari and Maria Kumagay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. St. Barnabas Hospital, Case No. 1:15-cv-01803 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. St. Barnabas hospital is a New York based hospital. The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Rocco Schirripa, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 185 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-0057 Facsimile: (212) 779-0028 E-mail: fs@hachroselaw.com STATE FARM: Karmeier Ordered to Give Testimony ---------------------------------------------- Brian Brueggemann, writing for BND.com, reports that the Illinois Supreme Court justice from downstate has been ordered to give sworn testimony in a lawsuit that accuses an insurance company of secretly bankrolling his election. Justice Lloyd Karmeier of Washington County has been ordered by U.S. District Judge David Herndon to give sworn testimony in a lawsuit brought by customers of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. It is not common for judges to be ordered to testify in lawsuits, especially regarding their election campaigns. "It's very unusual," said William Schroeder, a law professor at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale. "It's extraordinarily unusual." The lawsuit in federal court in East St. Louis stems from the Illinois Supreme Court deciding in 2005 to overturn a $1 billion verdict against State Farm. That verdict against State Farm was issued in a class-action lawsuit in Williamson County. Mr. Karmeier, a Republican, won a hard-fought, high-dollar election in 2004 over Democrat Gordon Maag. The plaintiff attorneys in the class-action suit had asked Mr. Karmeier to recuse himself from participating in the Supreme Court's consideration of the State Farm appeal. Mr. Karmeier denied the request, and took part in the decision to overturn the verdict. He cast the deciding fourth vote to throw out the verdict. The attorneys in the federal lawsuit allege that State Farm conspired to elect Mr. Karmeier to the high court, in an effort to get the class-action verdict overturned. The attorneys in the federal suit want to question Mr. Karmeier, in a sworn deposition, about his "recruitment and selection as an Illinois Supreme Court candidate, his campaign and fundraising activities" and his communications and relationships with his campaign supporters. Judge Herndon, in his ruling, said having Mr. Karmeier give testimony is the only way to give both sides a fair opportunity to "explore the facts and for the public, in the face of such allegations, to learn the truth." He added: "Without allowing the inquiry, there will never be light on the facts of this case ..." Judge Herndon ordered that the plaintiff attorneys can question Mr. Karmeier "as to his knowledge concerning all aspects of his campaign, including his decision-making process for running in the first place and the persons with whom he consulted to make that decision, how the campaign was managed, how the campaign was financed, who was involved in the decision-making and strategy of the campaign." Judge Herndon ordered that the plaintiff attorneys can "exhaustively explore" Mr. Karmeier's campaign matters but cannot question him about any of the Supreme Court's deliberations. The federal suit alleges that State Farm funneled as much as $4 million into Mr. Karmeier's political fund and then, while the Supreme Court appeal was pending, concealed the company's involvement in Mr. Karmeier's campaign. The Karmeier-Maag campaign drew more than $10 million in political contributions. Mr. Karmeier was supported mostly by business interests, while Mr. Maag's money came mostly from plaintiff attorneys and labor unions. Mr. Maag, while serving on the 5th District Appellate Court in Mount Vernon, had issued a ruling against State Farm in the class-action suit. In the election in November, Mr. Karmeier narrowly won a retention vote, giving him another 10-year term on the Supreme Court. Plaintiff attorneys spent more than $2 million in a last-minute campaign to get Mr. Karmeier unseated. The federal suit, which names State Farm and others as defendants, seeks $8 billion in damages. The State Farm class-action involved the type of replacement parts the company required in the repair of damaged vehicles. STEWART'S SHOPS: Judge Dismisses Some Claims in Wage Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael DeMasi, writing for Albany Business Review, reports that a federal judge has dismissed several claims brought by three former Stewart's Shops employees who accused the convenience store chain of allegedly violating wage laws, but upheld other claims, enabling the lawsuit to proceed. "I would classify it as another step forward," said attorney Ryan M. Finn of E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy LLP, who is representing the employees. "It's not a complete victory until the people in the class get paid what they are owed from Stewart's, but I think it's an important step along the way." A spokeswoman for Stewart's, Maria D'Amelia, released the following statement: "We are pleased with the judge's decision thus far, but it is too premature to declare victory. We are optimistic about the pending litigation. Stewart's Shops has remained confident all along; striving to treat and pay its partners fairly." The Malta, New York-based chain operates 332 stores in upstate New York and Vermont and has annual sales of $1.6 billion. The company was sued in January 2014 by a former employee claiming she and other workers were not paid for all of the hours they were on the job. The lawsuit sought $20 million in damages and class- action status on behalf of all non-exempt hourly employees who worked for the company the previous three years. Stewart's Shops denied the claims, and filed a motion to dismiss the case. U.S. District Court Judge Thomas J. McAvoy granted part of the dismissal motion, but denied other parts in a ruling released on March 2. Two former employees, Matthew Potter and Astrid Halten, joined the original named plaintiff, Holly Gregory. Finn said the next step will be to seek class-action status for employees. SUFFOLK COUNTY, MA: Immigrant Detainee Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Maria Sacchetti, Michael Levenson and Andrea Estes, writing for The Boston Globe, report that an immigrant detainee has filed a class-action lawsuit against the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department, saying it pays hundreds of detainees only $1 a day to mop floors, scrub toilets, and perform other janitorial duties at the Boston jail. His lawyers are seeking an estimated $4 million in unpaid wages over the last six years. Lawyers for Anthony Whyte, a 40-year-old detainee fighting deportation to Jamaica, said he should be paid at least the state minimum wage, $9 an hour, because he is in custody for alleged civil violations and not crimes. He voluntarily works in the jail's immigration unit. "We're concerned that states and private companies have started using immigration detention as a cash cow, based on the backs of this extremely cheap labor," said Andrew Schmidt, a Portland, Maine, lawyer who is the lead counsel on the case. A spokesman for Suffolk County Sheriff Steven Tompkins said inmates and immigrant detainees are paid solely based on where they are assigned to work. Detainees and inmates can earn $1 a day working indoors doing laundry or other tasks. Convicts doing work outside of jail, such as on a recent snow-shoveling crew, can earn $3 a day and a reduction on their sentence, said the spokesman. He declined to comment on the lawsuit. The civil lawsuit, filed Feb. 18 in Suffolk Superior Court, accuses the Sheriff's Department of misclassifying workers as nonemployees, failing to pay overtime, and other violations of state law. In interviews, the lawyers said the law often allows criminal inmates to be paid less than the minimum wage, but civil immigration detainees should not lose their right to the minimum wage, even if the work is voluntary. The lawsuit follows similar complaints in other states over federal officials using immigrants as cheap labor while seeking to have them expelled from the United States. In Boston, advocates for immigrants have raised concerns about detainee treatment for years. In 2009, a 49-year-old Dominican detainee at Suffolk died after an infection ravaged his body. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which pays the Suffolk sheriff's office about $100 a day for each immigrant housed at the jail during the deportation process, said the dollar-a-day wage is the going rate for its detainees in most facilities nationwide. "The Voluntary Work Program, which allows detainees the opportunity to feel productive and contribute to the orderly operation of facilities, was developed in an effort to improve detainee morale and reduce the frequency of disciplinary incidents," Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Daniel Modricker said in a statement. He said the work is "completely voluntary," does not constitute employment, and is done in exchange for "a small stipend." Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not named in the lawsuit, and agency officials declined to comment on it. In Bristol County, where Mr. Whyte had been detained in the past, Sheriff Thomas Hodgson said jails have no obligation to pay detainees and he does not. "They don't have to do the work," he said, adding that the detainees are already costing taxpayers to house them. "Why would we want to take taxpayers' money to pay you even more to do work that somebody's going to do in there for free?" However, Patrick Long, a co-counsel on Mr. Whyte's case in Boston, said civil immigration detainees should not be treated the same as criminals. "Even if anybody in this case had committed a crime, that's not what they're there for now," Mr. Long said. Mr. Whyte works 20 to 30 hours a week, his lawyers said. His duties have included handing out food trays at meal times, cleaning bathrooms, and emptying the garbage. Other inmates wash laundry, buff floors, and shovel snow. Mr. Modricker said Mr. Whyte is being deported because he is an aggravated felon, although the specifics of his record were unavailable. Mr. Whyte disputes that description of his criminal record, and is challenging his deportation in a separate federal lawsuit. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Mr. Whyte for deportation in February 2012, and he has been detained in Massachusetts and Alabama for more than three years, said Hillary Cheng, another lawyer on his team who discovered Mr. Whyte through her prior volunteer work at Suffolk University's immigration law clinic. Mr. Whyte's lawyers said he arrived in the United States as a child and received a green card. He has seven children, all US citizens. "Some people gripe about having to pay child support," Mr. Long said. "He wishes he could pay his. But on $1 a day that's not something you can do. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Bank Resolved Two Putative Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------- Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Synchrony Bank (a subsidiary of Synchrony), previously known as GE Capital Retail Bank, is a defendant in four putative class actions alleging claims under the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), where the plaintiffs assert that they received calls on their cellular telephones relating to accounts not belonging to them. In each case, the complaints allege that the Bank placed calls to consumers by an automated telephone dialing system or using a pre-recorded message or automated voice without their consent and seek up to $1,500 for each violation. The amount of damages sought in the aggregate is unspecified. Abdeljalil et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on August 22, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, originally naming GECC as the defendant. In August 2013, the Court denied without prejudice GECC's motion to dismiss the class allegations. GECC subsequently was dismissed and the plaintiffs amended the complaint to name the Bank as the defendant. On April 28, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the alleged class. Cowan v. GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on May 14, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. On August 4, 2014, the Bank filed motions to stay and dismiss the action. Pittman et al. v. GE Capital d/b/a GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on July 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. On October 28, 2014, the court stayed the action, pursuant to the parties' agreement, until a ruling on the pending motion for class certification in the Abdeljalil action. Hofer et al. v. Synchrony Bank was filed on November 4, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. On January 15, 2015, the Bank filed a motion to stay the action. In addition to the Abdeljalil , Cowan , Pittman, and Hofer actions, the Bank has resolved two other putative class actions that made similar claims under the TCPA, both of which were settled on an individual basis with the class representative. Travaglio et al. v. GE Capital Retail Bank and Allied Interstate LLC was filed on January 17, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida and dismissed on October 9, 2014. Fitzhenry v. Lowe's Companies Inc. and GE Capital Retail Bank was filed on May 29, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina and dismissed on October 20, 2014. SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: Court Stayed "Belton" Adversary Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Synchrony Financial said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a Court has entered an order staying an adversary proceeding pending the appeal of an order denying Synchrony Bank's motion to compel arbitration. On October 30, 2014, the United States Trustee, which is part of the Department of Justice, filed an application in In re Nyree Belton, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York for orders authorizing discovery of the Bank pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, related to an investigation of the Bank's credit reporting. The proposed discovery concerns allegations made in Belton et al. v. GE Capital Consumer Lending, a putative class action adversary proceeding pending in the same Bankruptcy Court. In the Belton adversary proceeding, which was filed on April 30, 2014, plaintiff alleges that the Bank violates the discharge injunction under Section 524(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code by attempting to collect discharged debts and by failing to update and correct credit information to credit reporting agencies to show that such debts are no longer due and owing because they have been discharged in bankruptcy. Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. On December 15, 2014, the Court entered an order staying the adversary proceeding pending the appeal of an order denying the Bank's motion to compel arbitration. SYNGENTA AG: Wisconsin Corn Growers File Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Chris Mertes, writing for The Star, reports that dozens of Wisconsin corn growers filed a class action lawsuit in federal court on Feb. 13, 2014, seeking redress against Syngenta AG, a manufacturer of genetically-modified corn seed. The farmers are represented by the law firms of Axley Brynelson, LLP, Roethe Pope Roethe LLP, and Gingras, Cates & Luebke. The Wisconsin class action lawsuit coincides with class action lawsuits filed against Syngenta AG in other Midwestern states including Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska. Wisconsin farmers suffered significant financial losses when China rejected corn shipments containing the genetically- modified seed developed by Syngenta AG. The lawsuit claims that Syngenta AG affirmatively misrepresented to U.S. farmers the status of approval of the seed by China, and failed to disclose that the genetically-modified seed had, in fact, not been approved. "Wisconsin grows 9 percent of our nation's corn. Syngenta's misconduct compromised the integrity of the corn market. Syngenta rushed its product to increase its own profits without regard to the fact that its actions significantly damaged the price of corn being sold by Wisconsin farmers," said attorney Jeff Roethe. China, a major buyer of U.S. corn, began a blanket rejection of all U.S. produced corn starting in November of 2013 due to the cross-contamination stemming from Syngenta's genetically-modified product, which caused corn prices to plunge. The National Grain and Feed Association estimated that China's rejection of the corn cost American farmers $1.14 billion for the last nine months of 2014 alone. "The farmers of Wisconsin are an important part of our State's economic engine. Our focus is to protect all of Wisconsin's consumers when they fall victim to bad business practices," said attorney Heath Straka. "The issue is not whether Syngenta should offer a genetically- modified corn seed. The question is whether Syngenta should have first obtained approval from major corn markets like China, or, at least, directly informed the U.S. farmer that Syngenta's product had not been approved before it was sold to U.S. farmers. This is an extremely important question because Syngenta's actions caused the risk of falling prices to be borne by Wisconsin farmers," said Attorney Robert Procter. "Our lawsuit will clarify guidelines for the sale of genetically- modified seeds that have not been approved by major market buyers," add Mr. Procter. Corn growers may still be added to this lawsuit. Any corn grower who sold corn during 2013 and 2014 may be eligible, whether or not the corn grower used Syngenta AG's seeds. Please contact Attorney Procter, Attorney Modl, Attorney Roethe or Attorney Straka with questions. SYRINGA MOBILE: To Pay Damages to Residents Who Lacked Water ------------------------------------------------------------ KXLY.com reports that the owner of an Idaho mobile home park must pay damages to residents who went more than 90 days without potable drinking water. The Lewiston Tribune reports about 140 residents filed a class- action lawsuit last year against the owner of the Syringa Mobile Home Park in Moscow. Documents filed in Latah County 2nd District Court show the sides reached a settlement. The owner, Magar E. Magar, can't close the park for at least the next year and must pay $2,000 per mobile home unit to all current park residents. T UP TRADING: Recalls Corn Bba Korean Snacks Due to Milk -------------------------------------------------------- T. Up Trading, Inc. of Secaucus, NJ is recalling Korean snack named Corn Bba, because it may contain undeclared milk. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk related ingredient run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. Crown Confectionery Co. Corn Bba was distributed in NJ, NY, PA, and MA to only selective Korean retail stores. The product's net weight is 72g and packed in Polypropylene. The product has a flavor of banana with real banana cream frosting. The product was manufactured by Crown Confectionery Co., Ltd. (Choong Chung Nam Do, S.Korea) on 11/28/2014 and 12/1/2014. The product bears UPC code 8801111910743 and Expiration date 5/27/2015 and 5/31/2015. One illness has been reported due to the undeclared milk ingredient to date. The recall was initiated after it was discovered the product containing milk was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of milk ingredient. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the company's item and labeling processes. Consumers who have purchased Crown Confectionery Co.'s Corn Bba are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-201-864- 2300, Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm EST. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm438137.htm TALLAHASSEE, FL: Commissioners OK Funding for Class Action Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Tallahassee Democrat reports that Tallahassee city commissioners on Feb. 25 approved transferring $300,000 from the city's Deficiencies Fund to help pay for legal counsel in a 2012 lawsuit filed against the city of Tallahassee and Leon County. Plaintiffs in the class-action suit have asked the court to declare it illegal for non-property owners to have paid into a fire service fee through utility accounts since 2009. The city estimates there are more than 50,000 utility accounts involved and about $40 million collected since 1990. The city and county have retained Ausley & McMullen and Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson to represent them. TARGET CORP: Data Breach Costs to Reach $1 Billion -------------------------------------------------- Tara Seals, writing for Info Security, reports that the data breach at Target that affected 70 million US consumers has cost the retail giant $162 million in 2013 and 2014, and could end up totaling $1 billion or more in damages before all is said and done. During its fourth-quarter earnings call, the big-box behemoth said that it booked $4 million related to the breach in Q4, and $191 million in gross expenses for 2014. It also spent $61 million gross for 2013. While the gross expenses were in part offset by insurance receivables ($46 million for 2014 and $44 million for 2013), the losses look to only mount, as lawsuits begin to be filed. Plaintiffs were given the go-ahead for class-action litigation by a judge in January. "The major breaches such as Target, Sony and Anthem damage brand reputation and consumer trust, but they also have a real impact on the bottom line," said Eric Chiu, president and co-founder of HyTrust, in an email. "The $162 million spent so far by Target is just a drop in the bucket given the class-action lawsuits by consumers as well as the recent court ruling that banks can go after Target to recoup their losses." The annual M-Trends report from FireEye noted that the huge number of targeted attacks last year were disproportionately aimed at US retailers. At 14%, retailers accounted for the second largest number of Mandiant engagements in 2014, after business and professional services (17%). This was a rise of 10% from the previous year. Weak authentication when accessing virtualized application environments was found to be a major attack vector in the retail sector, allowing hackers to gain an initial foothold into systems from which they could "roam into other parts." It's an avoidable problem that Target famously has exemplified, leading to several resignations in its C-suite. "Invest now or pay later -- this is the message from one of the largest data beaches reported to date," said Steve Hultquist, chief evangelist at RedSeal, the security analytics company. "Consider the ROI for even a very significant investment in proactive security analytics and process improvements that could have blocked the breach before it even started." As Mr. Hulquist nutshelled it, "The lesson for other organizations is clear: you are under attack. Making strategic investments now is a wise preventative measure to keep your organization and your customers safe." TCP INTERNATIONAL: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------ Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 2 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on behalf of purchasers of TCP International Holdings Ltd. stock in and/or traceable to the initial public offering ("IPO") on or about June 26, 2014. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from March 2, 2015. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/tcpintl/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges certain of TCP's officers and directors, TCP and the underwriters of the IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. TCP designs, develops, manufactures and delivers energy efficient lamps, fixtures and internet-based lighting control solutions. The complaint alleges that on or about June 26, 2014, 7,142,858 shares of TCP stock were sold to the public at $11 per share in a registered IPO. The Company granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 1,071,428 common shares at the IPO price less underwriting discounts and commissions. The complaint further alleges that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO included information that was false. Specifically, the Registration Statement negligently contained statements that falsely described the Company's operations and business, including false statements concerning the Company's important Underwriters Laboratory ("UL") and Energy Star approvals, compliance, and qualifications. In addition, the Registration Statement failed to disclose certain material events known to defendants that caused the information reported in the Registration Statement and other public statements not to be indicative of TCP's actual operations. The IPO was successful for the Company. However, as TCP's post- IPO results began to show the adverse trends that had been concealed in the offering documents, TCP's stock price declined. On February 27, 2015, TCP shares closed at $3.02 per share, or approximately 75% less than the IPO price. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of TCP stock in and/or traceable to the June 26, 2014 IPO. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action judgment. TEXAS BRINE: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Seek $12MM in Legal Fees --------------------------------------------------------- David J. Mitchell, writing for The Advocate, reports that attorneys who represented Bayou Corne residents in a class-action lawsuit over the Assumption Parish sinkhole are asking a federal judge in New Orleans for legal fees that amount to 25 percent of the $48.1 million settlement award. The request, if granted, works out to about $12.03 million in attorneys' fees split among the few dozen lawyers involved in the two-and-a-half-year-old litigation against Texas Brine, the Houston company many blame for the now 31-acre sinkhole. The lawyers also are requesting reimbursement of joint costs in working up the case, which totals another $291,566, the case's special master says. "The value for which the case eventually settled was remarkable, and it provided an extremely satisfactory benefit to members of the class," the attorneys wrote in a Feb. 3 motion to the court. The settlement was reached in April as the litigation was headed to a trial with six bell-weather cases to determine the range of plaintiffs' damages awards. Texas Brine and its insurers agreed to set aside the settlement fund to pay for a buyout of about 86 properties in Bayou Corne and to issue separate checks to residents for mental anguish and other damages. Nearly all buy-outs had been closed by early February, according to court papers. Louisiana Office of Conservation scientists believe years of salt dome mining by Texas Brine triggered formation of the sinkhole when that mining got too close to the outer face of the dome. A breach opened up in the hollow cavern created by years of past mining and surrounding sediments filled the cavity. The sinkhole's formation also opened natural deposits of methane gas that pose an explosive risk, scientists claimed, if the invisible and odorless gas built up inside or under the homes. The threat of the sinkhole and the gas and the weight of an uncertain future led many in the community of 150 families to seek buyouts and leave. Attorneys representing property owners in the class action suit have said they received replacement value for their homes, many of which were on the water in scenic Bayou Corne. U.S. District Judge Jay C. Zainey had not ruled on the attorneys' request for 25 percent of the settlement amount as of Feb. 27. It was not clear on Feb. 27 how much of the settlement fund remains after buyout and damages checks were cut. But before those checks started going out, Judge Zainey set aside 28 percent of the settlement award on Aug. 28 for attorneys' fees and costs. A. Shelby Easterly III, the case's special master who reviewed damage claims and handled other matters in the case, concurred Feb. 4 with the attorneys' requests for compensation. Easterly spoke highly of the attorneys, who he said compressed more than four years of work into about two years, and were able to coalesce into what amounted to a new law firm to divide the work and get it done. "These results have been accomplished in an expedient manner yielding a settlement in what may be record time for similar actions," wrote Easterly, a Denham Springs lawyer. Sonny Cranch, Texas Brine spokesman, said on Feb. 27 that the company takes no position on the legal fees, noting the fees were part of the original settlement agreement. The attorneys want to divide the fees evenly among the four lawyers in the class counsel, who are akin to the case's leadership team and often a case's deep pockets, and the other private attorneys. The class counsel are: Calvin C. Fayard Jr., of Fayard & Honeycutt in Denham Springs; Lawrence J. Centola III, of Martzell & Bickford of New Orleans; Matthew B. Moreland, of Becnel Law Firm of Reserve; and Richard Perque, of Richard Perque LLC. Attorneys for the class could not be reached by the Feb. 27, but Blaine LeCesne, a Loyola University of New Orleans law professor who specializes in class-action legal trends in Louisiana, said that 25 percent for attorneys' fees is reasonable given the complexity of the case and the size of the award. "In any kind of contingency fee arrangement, there is enormous financial risk that the attorneys are undertaking because they could actually end up with nothing and have to eat all those hours and expenses," Mr. LeCesne said. Mr. LeCesne added that the sinkhole plaintiffs' attorneys, in their request for fees, said the case required more than 8,000 attorney hours and more than 700 support staff hours and incurred nearly $300,000 costs. He estimated the attorneys, altogether, probably put about $2 million at risk in the litigation. TGI FRIDAY'S: Black Workers File Discrimination Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Ben Kochman and Denis Slattery, writing for Daily News, report that nearly all of the black waitstaff at a Manhattan TGI Friday's were replaced with light-skinned workers -- mostly Hispanics -- when the chain closed a busy Midtown outpost and opened a new store a block away, according to a lawsuit filed on Feb. 26 in Bronx Supreme Court. Just one black staff member from the eatery near Penn Station was rehired when the company moved to a new location one block east on 34th St. in December, ex-employees charge in the class action discrimination suit. When the workers protested, a restaurant manager told one of them that he preferred Hispanic staffers because they "work harder," the suit alleges. "It was their opinion that black people were lazy," charged plaintiff Lisa Baker, 48, a waitress who says her old manager told her that her job serving guests was unavailable at the new location. "We weren't even given a chance." Managers openly referred to the old location as "the ghetto store," or the "black Friday's," and wanted to rid themselves of that reputation, the suit alleges. Former employees said they were promised a fair shot at reapplying for jobs at the new restaurant, a 15,000-square-foot franchise on 34th St., but never heard from their old employers. "They knew exactly what they were doing," said plaintiff Tony Pringle, 42, who earned $850 a week as a waiter at the old location and was not rehired. "They were basically not hiring blacks." A spokesman for Friday's owners, National Restaurants Management Inc. -- a family-run business long known as the Reise Organization -- said the company "is proud of its 75-year tradition of positive employee relations with a diverse workforce." "The restaurant in question has a workforce, including managers, that is more than 80% non-white," spokesman Pat Smith said in a statement. Lawyers for the former waitstaff are seeking $500,000 for each employee -- a total of $5 million -- for "loss of wages, emotional distress and punitive damages." "The only reason these people are not working right now is because of their skin color," lawyer Matthew Blit said. "Heck, this isn't the 1950's." TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Failure to Ensure Electronic Security ------------------------------------------------------------- Helene Cahen, Kerry J. Tompulis, and Merrill Nisam v. Toyota Motor Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01104 (N.D. Cal., March 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to ensure the basic electronic security of their vehicles thereby, making the sold or leased vehicles susceptible to computer hacking. Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese corporation that designs, manufactures, markets, distributes and sells Toyota, Lexus and Scion automobiles in California and multiple other locations in the United States and worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Zevin, Esq. STANLEY LAW GROUP 225 Broadway, Suite 1350 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 235-5306 Facsimile: (815) 377-8419 E-mail: mzevin@aol.com - and - Marc R. Stanley, Esq. Martin Woodward, Esq. 6116 North Central Expressway, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 443-4300 Facsimile: (214) 443-0358 E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com TRADER JOE'S: Recalls 16 oz. Cinnamon Almonds Due to Peanuts ------------------------------------------------------------ Trader Joe's Company is recalling all lot codes of its 16 ounce packages of Trader Joe's Cinnamon Almonds because they may contain undeclared peanuts. People who have allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. The recalled Trader Joe's Cinnamon Almonds were distributed nationwide in Trader Joe's retail stores. The product comes in a 16 ounce, clear plastic package marked with UPC # 00761437 on the back of the package. The recall was initiated after peanuts were discovered in packages of Trader Joe's Cinnamon Almonds. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in the supplier's production and packaging processes. All product has been removed from store shelves. Sale of this product has been suspended. To date, Trader Joe's has received one report of an allergic reaction potentially linked to this product. Customers who have purchased 16 ounce packages of Trader Joe's Cinnamon Almonds and have a sensitivity to peanuts are urged to discard the product or return it to any Trader Joe's for a full refund. Customers with questions may contact Trader Joe's Customer Relations at 626-599-3817 [Monday through Friday, 6:00AM to 6:00 PM PST]. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm438080.htm TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued in Canada Over Defective Guardrail Design ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cindy Galli, writing for ABC News, reports that the multi-million dollar troubles for an embattled American guardrail maker have extended north of the border as a Canadian city filed a lawsuit over the company's allegedly dangerous and "defective" guardrail design. The complaint, obtained by ABC News, seeks half a billion dollars in damages on behalf of the city of Stratford, located in Ontario, Canada and alleges Trinity Industries of Dallas, the manufacturer of the ET-Plus guardrail system, "misled its customers" by not disclosing "secret" modifications it had made to its product. "Trinity was aware of multiple serious failures of their secretly modified ET-Plus guardrail end terminals, but continued to manufacture and sell the modified version without disclosing the changes, resulting in tens of thousands of the units being installed across Canada," the complaint reads. "It is believed that there are tens of thousands of these defective, secretly modified, ET-Plus guardrail end terminals on the highways, as well as provincial and municipal roadways, across Canada." Reporter's Notebook: Going Inside Emergency Guardrail Testing The ET-Plus guardrail system, which is used in states throughout the U.S., was the subject of an ABC News "20/20" investigation last year. ABC News obtained an internal Trinity email from 2005 in which a Trinity official estimated that making a modification to its widely-used guardrail system -- reducing a piece of metal in the end terminal from five inches to four -- would save the company $2 per end terminal, or $50,000 a year. Trinity made the modification that year without alerting U.S. federal or state officials and critics have since blamed the change for rendering the end terminal defective when hit, sometimes impaling vehicles and causing severe injury or death. The company has maintained that the modified ET-Plus is safe and continues to meet federal standards. News of the complaint from Stratford, which happens to be the hometown of pop star Justin Bieber, was first brought to light by Trinity itself in an annual shareholders report just filed by the publicly-held company in which it disclosed pending litigation. "The Statement of Claim in this litigation generally alleges that Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity Highway Products and Trinity Industries Canada, failed to warn of dangers associated with undisclosed modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals, breached its implied warranty, breached its duty of care, and was negligent," the Trinity earnings report reads. Trinity spokesman Jeff Eller would not comment on the complaint and told ABC News the company has not yet officially been served. The Canadian complaint is the second of three class action lawsuits filed against Trinity surrounding the ET-Plus system. In November, a class action complaint was filed in Illinois on behalf of the counties in that state, alleging fraud on the part of Trinity for not disclosing the modifications. And a class action complaint was filed in Wisconsin, also alleging the company was fraudulent in selling the altered ET-Plus to transportation departments. While three Canadian provinces -- Quebec, Alberta and Nova Scotia -- have suspended the use of the ET-Plus on its roadways, the province in which the city of Stratford lies, Ontario, Canada's second largest province, has not removed the ET-Plus from its list of approved products. According to the complaint, officials there are "actively monitoring the developments in the United States." U.S. ENGINEERING: "Elsea" Case May Proceed as Class, Mo. App Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mark D. Pfeiffer of the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, reversed an order by the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, denying class certification in, and remanded, the case captioned DAVID M. ELSEA and JEANNE MORGAN, Individually and as Class Representatives, Appellants, v. U.S. Engineering Company, a Corporation, and Jackson County, Missouri, Respondents, Case No. WD 77687, (Mo. Ct. App.). Plaintiffs filed a tort action in circuit court on behalf of a proposed class of persons exposed to asbestos fibers claimed to have been caused by U.S. Engineering Company's generation use, handling, storage, treatment, demolition, removal and disposal of asbestos during the renovation, repair, maintenance and/or remodeling of the Jackson County Courthouse which is owned, operated, and maintained by Jackson County, Missouri. Plaintiffs sought recovery of compensatory damages for the expense of prospective medical monitoring allegedly necessitated by a defined amount of minimum exposure to asbestos fibers at the Jackson County Courthouse. The Jackson County Circuit Court denied the class certification. David M. Elsea and Jeanne Morgan, individually and as class representatives, took an appeal. In a decision dated March 17, 2015 available at http://is.gd/aTwdoufrom Leagle.com, Judge Pfeiffer reversed the circuit court's judgment denying class certification, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the ruling. James D. Griffin, Esq. -- jgriffin@sakg.com and Michele F. Sutton, Esq. -- msutton@sakg.com of Scharnhorst ast Kennard Griffin PC -- Dennis J. Dobbels, Esq. -- ddobbels@polsinelli.com, Anthony J. Romano, Esq. -- aromano@polsinelli.com -- Travis L. Salmon -- tsalmon@polsinelli.com -- and Jennifer J. Eng, Esq. -- jeng@polsinelli.com -- of Polsinelli Shughart PC serve as counsel for U.S. Engineering Company, a Corporation. The Appeals Court panel consists of Mark D. Pfeiffer, Presiding Judge, and Cynthia L. Martin and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Response to Amended Yucesoy Case Due March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward M. Chen signed on March 19, 2015, a stipulation in the case captioned HAKAN YUCESOY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., TRAVIS KALANICK, and RYAN GRAVES, Defendants, CASE NO. 4:15-CV-00262-EMC, (N.D. Cal.). The parties in the case have agreed to Plaintiff's filing of a First Amended Complaint. Pursuant to this stipulation, Plaintiffs withdraw the First Amended Complaint filed on February 26, 2015 and re-file the First Amended Complaint concurrently with the stipulation. Plaintiff agrees that the filing of the Amended Complaint on February 26, 2015 did not constitute filing or service of a pleading on that date. Defendants' time to respond to the First Amended Complaint will be governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, and any response must be filed within 14 days after service of the amended pleading. The First Amended Complaint is substantively identical to the First Amended Complaint filed on February 26, 2015. Defendants' response to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is due March 31, 2015. A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at http://is.gd/y59gWAfrom Leagle.com. SHANNON LISS-RIORDAN, pro hac vice anticipated, ADELAIDE PAGANO, pro hac vice, LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C., Boston, MA, Attorneys for Plaintiff. HAKAN YUCESOY, ROBERT JON HENDRICKS -- rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- SACHA M. STEENHOEK -- ssteenhoek@morganlewis.com -- CAITLIN V. MAY -- cmay@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendants, UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., TRAVIS KALANICK and RYAN GRAVES. ULTRAZX LABS: Recalls Weight Loss Supplements Due to Sibutramine ---------------------------------------------------------------- UltraZx, Labs, L.L.C. is voluntarily recalling "UltraZx" weight loss supplements. This product has been found to contain undeclared Sibutramine and phenolphthalein. FDA laboratory analysis of confirmed that UltraZx contains sibutramine and phenolphthalein. Sibutramine is a controlled substance that was removed from the market in October 2010 for safety reasons. The product poses a threat to consumers because sibutramine is known to substantially increase blood pressure and/or pulse rate in some patients and may present a significant risk for patients with a history of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, arrhythmias or stroke. Phenolphthalein is a chemical that is not an active ingredient in any approved drug in the United States. Studies have indicated that it presents a cancer causing risk. This product may also interact, in life- threating ways, with other medications a consumer may be taking. Ultra ZX LABS, L.L.C. has not received any reports of adverse events related to this recall. UltraZx weight loss supplement is marketed as a dietary supplement used as a weight loss aid and is packaged in bottles of thirty (30) capsules of 300mg. The affected UltraZx weight loss supplement, includes all lots/bottles/ packages. The products were distributed from September 2014 until February 2015. UltraZx Labs, L.L.C. is notifying its distributors and customers by letter and is arranging for return of all recalled products. Consumers and distributors that have product which is being recalled should stop using the product and return the product to UltraZx Labs, L.L.C. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact UltraZx Labs, L.L.C. at (305) 904-9393, Monday through Friday from 9:00am - 5:00pm EST. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using this product. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm437518.htm UNITED AIRLINES: Illegally Collects Tourism Tax, Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Julian Almanza, Alejandro Davison, Nicolas Arroyo, Aida Perez, Ana Escobar, and Miguel Orozco, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Airlines, Inc. et al, Docket No. 2:15-cv-00033 (S.D. Ga., March 10, 2015), arises out of the unlawful scheme developed and implemented by the Defendants to charge Mexican Nationals, children under the age of two and foreigners with resident status in Mexico a Mexico Tourism Tax. United Airlines, Inc. is an international air transportation companies and members of the Camera Nacional de Aerotransporters. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick T. O'Connor, Esq. Benjamin M. Perkins, Esq. OLIVER MANER, LLP P.O. Box 10186 Savannah, GA 31412-0386 Telephone: (912) 236-3311 Facsimile: (912) 236-8725 E-mail: pto@olivermaner.com bperkins@olivermaner.com - and - Matthew J.M. Prebeg, Esq. Chris Faucett, Esq. Stephen Abbott, Esq. Brent T. Cadwell, Esq. PREBEG, FAUCET & ABBOTT, PLLC 8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite 307 Telephone: (832) 742-9260 E-mail: mprebeg@pfalawfirm.com cfaucett@pfalawfirm.com sabbott@pfalawfirm.com bcaldwell@pfalawfirm.com UNITED STATES: Deported Mexicans Can Return for Hearings -------------------------------------------------------- KPBS.org reports that hundreds, if not thousands, of non-citizens who signed "voluntary return" forms in Southern California and were expelled to Mexico will be given the chance to apply to return to the U.S. and seek legal status, a staff attorney at the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties said on Feb. 27. A ruling issued on Feb. 26 by a Los Angeles-based federal judge "acknowledges that the protection of our borders cannot come at the cost of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution," said American Civil Liberties Union attorney Gabriela Rivera. "Now we can begin the process of reuniting some of the families who could have remained together in the United States but were driven apart by government practices that rely upon misinformation, deception, and coercion," she said. U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt approved provisions of the settlement of a class-action complaint that addresses methods used by immigration enforcement officers who allegedly deprived those who signed the voluntary return documents of their right to see a judge and have their fair day in court, according to the ACLU. The 2014 settlement stemmed from a lawsuit brought in June 2013 in Los Angeles by the ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California and the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. They sued on behalf of individual plaintiffs who were expelled from the United States and organizations that used their resources in response. The individual plaintiffs had no significant criminal backgrounds, and their family ties could have helped them obtain relief against deportation had Border Patrol agents or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers not misstated the consequences of signing away their right to see an immigration judge, according to the ACLU. Under the terms of the 2014 settlement, nine plaintiffs returned to the United States last August, with the same legal status they had before signing the documents, according to the ACLU. "The United States derives its core strength from embracing the notions of fairness and due process established by our Constitution," said plaintiffs' attorney Darcie Tilly, adding that the Feb. 26 ruling "will allow for the reunification of numerous families that were wrongfully separated." One of the plaintiffs in the case, Isidora Lopez-Venegas, described how the government's actions affected her and her family. "My expulsion from the United States was incredibly difficult for my family," the ACLU quoted the mother of three as saying. "I know that many others have been harmed by the government's 'voluntary return' practices and I'm happy that today their dream of returning home and hugging their family can come true, like mine did," she said. Ms. Lopez-Venegas said she signed a voluntary return form in 2011 after being told that if she did not, her then 10-year-old son, who had been diagnosed with autism, would be sent to a foster home while she was detained for months. The agents told her she could instead sign for her immediate "voluntary" return and easily "fix" her papers from Mexico, according to the ACLU. Because she was a single mother and her family's only means of financial support, she was anxious to do what was in the best interests of her family and based on the misinformation she was given, she saw no other choice but to sign, the civil rights group said. She was then expelled to Mexico, and her son, a U.S. citizen, was forced to move with her. They lived in Mexico for three years, separated from ms. Lopez- Venegas' two daughters, according to the ACLU. During that time period, she was unable to get her son treatment for his autism, the ACLU said. With Judge Kronstadt's ruling, the ACLU and three organizational plaintiffs -- the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center and the San Bernardino Community Service Center -- will lead the search for potential class members in Mexico, the ACLU said. UNIVERSAL PARKING: Faces Suit Alleging Retaliation Due to Race -------------------------------------------------------------- Winston Quinto v. Universal Parking Of Florida, LLC d/b/a Star Parking Systems, Case No. 1:15-cv-21055-RNS (S.D. Fla., March 16, 2015) seeks to redress alleged injury done to the Plaintiff by the Defendant's discriminatory treatment and retaliation on the basis of his race and color (black). Universal Parking Of Florida, LLC, doing business as Star Parking Systems, is a profit corporation authorized to conduct business in the state of Florida. Universal Parking is a Valet Parking company that provides services at different locations in Dade County. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com V2V HOLDINGS: Removes "Bair" Suit to Northern District of Georgia ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Bair, et al. v. V2V Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 2015CV257139, was removed from the Superior Court of Fulton County to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00783-ELR to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward Adam Webb, Esq. Matthew C. Klase, Esq. WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC 1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 444-0773 Facsimile: (770) 444-0271 E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com mattklase@bellsouth.net The Defendants are represented by: Edward Alexander Marshall, Esq. Robert Leonard Rothman, Esq. ARNALL GOLDEN & GREGORY 171 17th Street, NW, Suite 2100 Atlanta, GA 30363-1031 Telephone: (404) 873-8536 E-mail: edward.marshall@agg.com robert.rothman@agg.com VIRGINIA: Victims of Forced Sterilizations to Get Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Zirpolo, writing for News Leader, reports that victims of Virginia's Forced Eugenical Sterilization Act will receive $25,000 from the General Assembly after a three-year battle to include compensation in the Virginia budget. Virginia is the second state to set aside funds for victims of forced sterilization. State legislators in North Carolina set aside $50,000 per victim as compensation in 2013, which set into motion similar advocacy efforts in Virginia lead by Del. Bob Marshall, R - Prince William, Del. Patrick Hope, D - Arlington and Del. Ben Cline, R - Amherst, as well as the Family Foundation, the Christian Law Institute and the ACLU of Virginia. The forced sterilization program is part of a legacy of eugenics that Del. Ben Cline called "a dark shadow on our Commonwealth's history." From 1924 to 1979 over 7,000 non-consenting Virginians were sterilized, focusing on those the state deemed physically or mentally unfit. "I can think of few greater injustices than a government physically altering human beings without their consent to deny them the right to give life and to have a family," said Victoria Cobb, President of the Family Foundation. "It is long past time for our government to accept responsibility for its actions." The eugenic program in Virginia inspired similar legislation in 32 states during the 1920s and eventually the sterilization of over 65,000 Americans. Even Adolph Hitler based his racial purity efforts on those established in Virginia according to Del. Patrick Hope, D-Arlington. "I hope that at the end we recognize Virginia's role in this repugnant part of our state's history," said Del. Hope. "Recognize that we've done something wrong, and we're going to do something right today." Advocates have located eleven living victims of the program. Lawmakers included extra funding for others who may come forward at a later date. Lewis Reynolds, an 85-year-old electrician and Marine veteran from Lynchburg, was forcibly sterilized when he was 13 years old. Doctors misdiagnosed him with epilepsy after a head injury and did not notify him of the procedure. Reynolds found out years later when he tried to start a family and could not. "I thank you all very much, more than you'll ever know," Mr. Reynolds said in a press conference with lawmakers and advocates at the capitol. Virginia legislators passed the Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act in 1924, the same year as the Racial Integrity Act barring interracial marriage. Three years later the Supreme Court upheld the program in Buck v. Bell. In the majority opinion Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously said, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." In 1980 the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit against Lynchburg Training School & Hospital, one of six sites then carrying out forced sterilizations in Virginia, claiming that the procedures violated victims' constitutional rights. "Politicians, like those who passed the forced sterilization program, should not have the right to decide whether an individual has a child," said Aisha Huertas Michel, director of the Patricia M. Arnold Women's Rights Project for the ACLU of Virginia. "The victims of forced sterilizations were stripped of this right without their knowledge or consent." The case settled in 1985 when the state agreed to launch a media campaign to inform victims of their sterilization and provide counseling services. In 2002 then-Governor Mark Warner formally apologized for the eugenic program. In 2013 the Virginia House of Delegates extended $25,000 to each victim in the state budget, but Senate did not approve the measure. This year no members of the House or Senate objected to the fund. "Although money does not restore the intentional harm perpetrated against these individuals by their own government, it does however provide a great level of healing and forgiveness," said Mark Bold, Executive Director of the Christian Law Institute. "The Commonwealth is finally telling the victims that they matter, their lives have value and they are equally important to us as a community." WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Ellis" Suit Over Product Misbranding ------------------------------------------------------------ Mary Ellis, Julia Jacobus, Theresa Kurdt, and Louetta Schulze, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Walgreen Co., and NBTY, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02167 (N.D. Ill., March 11, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and misleading representation of their store- brand herbal supplements that they contain their namesake ingredients on the label when in fact, they did not contain the herbs identified on their products' labels but rather contain unrecognizable or unrelated substances. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and warehouse stores throughout the United States. Walgreen Co. is an Illinois corporation that operates the largest drug retailing chain in the United States. NBTY, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, which is one of the largest retailers, manufacturers, and distributors of vitamins, nutritional supplements, and related products in the United States, with operations throughout the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq, WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (213) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com aek@wexlerwallace.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Catherine K. Smith, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. Gustafson Gluek PLLC 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com csmith@gustafsongluek.com mlooby@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Robocalls -------------------------------------------------- John Kennedy, Lance Duroni, Caroline Simson and Sean McLernon, writing for Law360, reports that a Georgia man filed a proposed class action against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in federal court on Feb. 27, claiming the retail giant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making at least 33 unsolicited automated calls to his cellphone over an 11-day period. David Dubanoski, who is seeking a jury trial and unspecified damages, has proposed a class that consists of anyone in the U.S. who received automated phone calls to their cellphones from Wal-Mart in the past four years without having given prior consent and were not the intended recipient. Mr. Dubanoski says in his complaint that the calls began on Nov. 26 and continued until Dec. 6, all of them regarding a Wal-Mart credit card he never had. During this time, he received one prerecorded voice message asking him to return the call or visit the store's credit card website. When Mr. Dubanoski called the number provided in the message, an artificial or recorded voice asked for his Wal-Mart credit card number. Since he's never had one, he didn't enter one and was then asked to provide his Social Security number, the complaint says. Mr. Dubanoski refused to disclose this information and was directed to an operator, who asked for his telephone number but not his name. Upon receiving Mr. Dubanoski's phone number, the operator told him she didn't know why Wal-Mart had tried to contact him and assured him his information would be removed from the contact list, the complaint says. But hours later, he received another automated call. According to the complaint, Mr. Dubanoski believes the calls were intended for someone else because he had never given the store permission to call his cellphone. The plaintiff also said that he believes the calls are part of a pattern of TCPA violations by the company. Wal-Mart was previously hit with a similar proposed class action in September, in which a consumer said the company placed numerous unwanted calls to his cellphone to persuade him to fill his prescriptions there, years after he had begun using a different pharmacy. A Florida federal judge rejected class certification in the case in January but said a new attempt at certification could be made before July 15. Mr. Dubanoski's lawyer, Shireen Hormozdi of The Hormozdi Law Firm LLC, declined to comment on March 2. Wal-Mart could not be immediately reached for comment. The plaintiffs are represented by Shireen Hormozdi of The Hormozdi Law Firm LLC and Aaron D. Radbil of Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC. Counsel information for Wal-Mart was not immediately available. The case is Dubanoski v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., case number 4:15- cv-00042, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. WALGREEN CO: Faces "Beal" Suit in Fla. Over Product Misbranding --------------------------------------------------------------- Varonica Beal and Lois Walker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co. and NBTY, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-60504 (S.D. Fla., March 11, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and misleading representation of their store- brand herbal supplements that did not contain the herbs identified on their products' labels but rather contain unlisted fillers such as rice, beans, garlic, wheat, citrus, and house plants. Walgreen Co. is an Illinois corporation that operates the largest drug retailing chain in the United States. NBTY, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, which is one of the largest retailers, manufacturers, and distributors of vitamins, nutritional supplements, and related products in the United States, with operations throughout the world. 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. 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 - and - Robert Baldwin Brown, III PENNEKAMP LAW, P.A. 2811 SW 3rd Avenue Miami, FL 33129 Telephone: (305) 860-4445 Facsimile: (866) 353-5529 E-mail: pleading@pennekamplaw.com WALGREEN CO: Goldenberg Heller Files Suit Over Herbal Supplements ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sanford Schmidt, writing for The Telegraph, reports that an Edwardsville law firm has filed a class action suit against the Walgreen's Drug Store chain, claiming the stores sell herbal supplements that actually contain such substances as rice, tropical houseplant and material originating in the daisy family. The suit claims the New York attorney general issued cease and desist letters to the chain on Feb. 2. The letter said the six Walgreen's "Finest Nutrition" brands were tested, but all but one, Saw Palmetto, were unrecognizable or a substance other than what they claim to be. According to the test results obtained by the New York Attorney General's Office, only 18 percent of the tests yield DNA matching the product label; 45 percent tested for botanical material other that what was on the label; and 37 percent yielded no plant DNA at all. The suit was filed by Kevin Green -- kevin@ghalaw.com -- and Thomas P. Rosenfeld -- tom@ghalaw.com -- of the Goldenberg Heller Antognoli & Rowland law firm. The named plaintiff is Donald Weeks, who bought supplements at the Edwardsville store. A judge must certify the case before it can proceed as a class action. The class would be all Illinois consumers who purchased the Finest Nutrition products within the last three years. The suit claims that that the Walgreen's gingko biloba does not contain gingko biloba, but oryza, commonly known as rice. The suit also claims that St. John's Wort contains garlic, rice and a tropical houseplant, that ginseng contains garlic and rice; garlic does not primarily contain garlic but primarily palm, wheat and rice, and echinacea contains rice and a material originating in the daisy family. The suit claims that dietary supplements are becoming increasingly popular, and the global market is estimated to be $100 billion. They are advertised as having therapeutic properties. For instance echinacea is supposed to prevent colds, while gingko biloba is taken to improve memory. The suit claims the firm violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Act, which covers alleged false claims about products. The suit is also asking for an injunction to prevent continued sale of the products, as well as damages, including punitive damages. The proceeds of any verdict would be distributed, once any amount of damages is set. Typically, people may be awarded a portion of the funds by submitting a claim after an advertising campaign. WELLMARK INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Price-Fixing Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the Iowa Supreme Court rejected claims by chiropractors on Feb. 27 that the state's dominant health insurer was engaging in illegal price-fixing. A class-action lawsuit challenged Wellmark Inc.'s practice of making its reimbursement rates for providers in its network available to self-insured employers who hire Wellmark to administer their plans. The suit also challenged Wellmark's practice of making the same rates available to out-of-state insurers who are affiliated with Blue Cross and Blue Shield. It contended those agreements violated Iowa antitrust law by restricting competition. Chiropractors have long contended that Wellmark's reimbursement rates and coverage for their services is inadequate and unfair, particularly since the company controls most of Iowa's health insurance market. But in a 5-0 ruling, the court said Wellmark's relationships with self-insured employers and health insurers do not amount to price-fixing agreements with competitors. Instead, the court said, the arrangements allow employers to purchase health insurance services from Wellmark that they couldn't provide themselves and out-of-state insurers to use an existing provider network instead of creating their own. In both cases, the agreements use purchasing power to achieve market efficiencies and therefore are legal, the court ruled. "We are pleased with the ruling and feel the outcome in favor of Wellmark speaks for itself," said Traci McBee, a spokeswoman for Des Moines-based Wellmark, which covers nearly 1.8 million Iowa residents and 300,000 in South Dakota. Steven Wandro, an attorney for the chiropractors, said he expects his clients will push for changes to state law to address the issue, and are pursuing a separate lawsuit alleging Wellmark's rates are discriminatory. Chiropractors receive smaller reimbursements than doctors even when they provide the same services, he said. WELLPOINT INC: High Court Won't Hear Premium-Hike Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2 declined to hear a proposed class action accusing Wellpoint Inc. of orchestrating an illegal plot to shave unhealthy policyholders from its rolls and force them to reapply for coverage with higher premiums after its 2001 merger with Rightchoice Managed Care Inc. The high court's refusal to take up the case leaves in place the Seventh Circuit's August 2014 ruling affirming an Illinois federal judge's 2012 decision declining to certify the proposed class and rejecting the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract and unfair trade practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act against Wellpoint. The plaintiffs are former Illinois customers of Rightchoice Managed Care Inc. who have been fighting to revive their proposed class action accusing Wellpoint of orchestrating a plot to shave policyholders with pre-existing conditions from its rolls after the insurers merged in an act of "abominable intentional corporate wrongdoing" that stripped the plaintiffs of their renewable health insurance, according to court documents. After the Seventh Circuit denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing en banc in October 2014, the plaintiffs petitioned the high court for review in January. In a statement to Law360 on March 2, the plaintiffs' attorney Clinton Krislov -- clint@krislovlaw.com -- of Krislov & Associates Ltd. said he was very disappointed in the high court's decision not to hear the case, which involved seriously ill people being forced off of their guaranteed renewable health insurance by a manipulation that the district judge recognized as "immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous." "Wellpoint grew to be the largest health insurer by acquiring regional health insurers throughout the nation," Mr. Krislov said. "In this case, acquiring the Missouri Blue Cross business, and maximizing its profitability by forcing off those people who needed their guaranteed renewability, because they had become otherwise uninsurable." Mr. Krislov added that it was also troubling that the Seventh Circuit panel seemed more motivated to criticize counsel, than to concern itself with obtaining justice for an abused class of very ill individuals, who could have been easily redressed by simply enforcing their guaranteed rights to renew their health insurance without reconsideration of their worsened health. "Class actions like this one can and should be certified as perhaps the most effective vehicle for obtaining justice and accountability for consumers and insureds, and we regret the relegation of this case to those involving trivial pursuits," Mr. Krislov said in the statement. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that after Wellpoint's $1.3 billion acquisition of Rightchoice in 2001, it moved to wind down Rightchoice's money-losing Illinois operations by purporting to withdraw from that market in 2002. The plaintiffs alleged that as a result, they were forced to reapply for insurance as new customers of Wellpoint's UniCare subsidiary and pay much higher rates or else go without private insurance altogether, according to court documents. The plaintiffs challenged the legality of WellPoint's purported "market withdrawal" from Illinois in 2002 and forced "conversion" of its RightChoice insureds and whether the move was actionably "unfair" under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. According to the complaint, Wellpoint bamboozled insurance regulators in both Missouri and Illinois by assuring them that it wouldn't alter Rightchoice's business operations after it acquired the company, while plotting all along to shut down its business in Illinois after the deal closed. The plaintiffs had pressed the court to determine whether WellPoint illegally breached its health insurance policy contract and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act statutory obligations to renew policyholders without regard to their health conditions, according to court documents. But the plaintiffs' claims were rejected on the merits by U.S. District Judge J. Phil Gilbert in 2012 and the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision. The Seventh Circuit panel said that a claim that WellPoint misrepresented its plans to state insurance regulators when acquiring Rightchoice may entitle the regulators to seek redress, but regulators didn't express any dissatisfaction. As such, private litigants cannot enforce state regulators' entitlements, the panel said. In addition, because Rightchoice was losing money in 2001, it is unlikely that the acquisition -- or a statement made to an agency -- was the cause of the policy's discontinuation or its replacement by a different policy with a higher premium, the panel said. Furthermore, the Illinois Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act cannot be enforced by a private suit when there are other public or private means to implement its terms, the panel had said. WellPoint Inc. changed its corporate name to Anthem Inc. in December 2014 and is one of the largest for-profit managed health care companies in the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Mr. Myrick is represented by Clinton A. Krislov and Kenneth T. Goldstein of Krislov & Associates Ltd. Wellpoint is represented by Margo Weinstein -- mweinstein@millershakman.com -- of Miller Shakman & Beem LLP. The case is Bob Myrick et al. v. Wellpoint Inc. et al., case number 14-859, in the U.S. Supreme Court. WRIGHT MEDICAL: Defense Must Prepare Witness in Profemur Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP on March 1 disclosed that a federal court overseeing a Wright Profemur hip lawsuit scheduled to go to trial in October has ruled that the defense must prepare a witness to provide testimony regarding the role an Italian hip implant played in the development of the Profemur device, Bernstein Liebhard LLP comments. According to an Order filed in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Iowa on February 25th, Wright Medical Technology had asserted, among other things, that it was unreasonable to expect the witness to testify regarding the design, development, and testing of the device prior to 1999, which is when Wright acquired Cremascoli, the Italian company that developed and marketed the prototype. However, the Court disagreed, and found that the plaintiffs are entitled to discover the role that the Italian hip implant played in the development of the Profemur hip. (Kuennen, et ux. v. Wright Medical Techonology Inc., No. C14-2045) "This Order will provide insight into matters relevant to the plaintiffs, including the extent to which the Cremascoli device served as a model for the Profemur hip, the manner in which the Italian hip implant may have been modified, and whether or not Cremascoli received any complaints of product failure prior to Wright's acquisition of the company," says Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing the victims of defective drugs and medical devices. The Firm is actively filing Wright hip lawsuits, and continues to offer free legal evaluations to individuals who were allegedly injured due to Wright Profemur hips, as well as Wright Conserve hip replacements. Wright Hip Litigation According to a regulatory filing issued by Wright Medical Group on February 18th, the company had been named in 34 Wright Profemur hip lawsuits as of February 15, 2015 that allege personal injuries due to the Profemur long titanium neck product. The filing also noted that Wright has been named in more than 1,000 lawsuits involving its Conserve line of metal-on-metal hips, and has been participating in court supervised mediation in a multidistrict litigation underway in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia.* (In re: Wright Medical Technology, Inc., Conserve Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2329) Court documents indicate that Wright has reached settlements in a small number of claims, including one Profemur lawsuit that was set to go to trial in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of Georgia in December 2012. (Courson, et ux. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-173) Court papers filed in March 2013 in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California indicated a settlement had also been struck in a similar claim that was pending in that jurisdiction. (Tucker, et ux. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., et al., No. 4:11-cv- 03086) Individuals who have allegedly suffered serious and debilitating complications due to the Wright Profemur hip replacement or a Wright Conserve hip implant may be entitled to compensation for their injury-related damages. Learn more about filing a Wright hip lawsuit at Bernstein Liebhard LLP's website, or call one of the Firm's attorneys today for a free case review, at 800-511-5092. About Bernstein Liebhard LLP Bernstein Liebhard LLP is a New York-based law firm exclusively representing injured persons in complex individual and class action lawsuits nationwide since 1993 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Had $100-Mil. Fibro Reserves --------------------------------------------------------------- One of Exelon Corporation's subsidiaries had reserved approximately $100 million for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, 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. Exelon Generation Company, LLC ("Generation") maintains a reserve for claims associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by Commonwealth Edison Company ("ComEd") and PECO Energy Company ("PECO"). The reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis and excludes the estimated legal costs associated with handling these matters, which could be material. At December 31, 2014 and 2013, Generation had reserved approximately $100 million and $90 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of December 31, 2014, approximately $22 million of this amount related to 255 open claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $78 million of the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is necessary. During the second quarter of 2014, Generation increased its reserve by approximately $15 million, primarily due to increased actual and projected number and severity of claims. On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an employee's disability or death resulting from occupational disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity provision of the Act does not apply to preclude such employee from suing his or her employer in court. The Supreme Court's ruling reverses previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding current and former employees from suing their employers in court, despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than 300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure to asbestos. Currently, Exelon, Generation and PECO are unable to predict whether and to what extent they may experience additional claims in the future as a result of this ruling; as such no increase to the asbestos-related bodily injury liability has been recorded as of December 31, 2014. Increased claims activity resulting from this ruling could have a material adverse impact on Exelon, Generation's and PECO's future results of operations and cash flows. Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation (now Generation) subsidiaries have been involved in several actions concerning asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of "premises liability," alleging that BGE and Generation knew of and exposed individuals to an asbestos hazard. In addition to BGE and Generation, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases. Approximately 486 individuals who were never employees of BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries have pending claims each seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages. Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other defendants may also be filed against BGE and certain Constellation subsidiaries in these actions. To date, most asbestos claims which have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without any payment by BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries and a small minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that were not material to BGE or Generation's financial results. Discovery begins in these cases after they are placed on the trial docket. At present, only two of the pending cases are set for trial. Given the limited discovery in these cases, BGE and Generation do not know the specific facts that are necessary to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss relating to these claims; as such, no accrual has been made and a range of loss is not estimable. The specific facts not known include: * the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs allegedly worked as contractors; * the names of the plaintiffs' employers; * the dates on which and the places where the exposure allegedly occurred; and * the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged exposure. Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the actions. Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries. Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and contracted electric generating facilities and investments in generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing activities. ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the provision of transmission and distribution services to retail customers in northern Illinois. PECO's energy delivery business in southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ingersoll-Rand's Fibro Liability Totals $776.6MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ingersoll-Rand plc's total liability for asbestos-related matters and its total asset for possible asbestos-related insurance recoveries was $776.6 million, 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: "Certain of our wholly-owned subsidiaries are named as defendants in asbestos-related lawsuits in state and federal courts. In virtually all of the suits, a large number of other companies have also been named as defendants. The vast majority of those claims have been filed against either Ingersoll- Rand Company (IR-New Jersey) or Trane U.S. Inc. (Trane) and generally allege injury caused by exposure to asbestos contained in certain historical products sold by IR-New Jersey or Trane, primarily pumps, boilers and railroad brake shoes. Neither IR-New Jersey nor Trane was a producer or manufacturer of asbestos, however, some formerly manufactured products utilized asbestos- containing components such as gaskets and packings purchased from third-party suppliers. "We incurred net costs after insurance recoveries of $(64.9) million, $56.2 million, and $7.8 million during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, respectively, related to the settlement and defense of asbestos-related claims. Our total liability for asbestos-related matters and our total asset for probable asbestos-related insurance recoveries were $776.6 million and $335.7 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2014 and $846.2 million and $321.8 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2013." Ingersoll-Rand plc (IR-Ireland) is a diversified, global company that provides products, services and solutions to enhance the comfort of air in homes and buildings, transport and protect food and perishables, secure homes and commercial properties. IR- Ireland operates in four business segments: Climate Solutions, Residential Solutions, Industrial Technologies and Security Technologies. It generates revenue and cash primarily through the design, manufacture, sale and service of a diverse portfolio of industrial and commercial products that include Club Car, Ingersoll-Rand, Schlage, Thermo King and Trane. On September 30, 2011, IR-Ireland completed the transaction to sell 60% in the Hussmann business. In December 2013, the Company announced that it has completed the spinoff of the Company's commercial and residential security businesses named Allegion. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has 9,700 Corhart Cases ----------------------------------------------------- Corning Incorporated is defendant in approximately 9,700 cases alleging injuries from asbestos related to its Corhart business, 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. Pittsburgh Corning Corporation and Asbestos Litigation. Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. ("PPG") each own 50% of the capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC"). Over a period of more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there were approximately 11,800 claims pending against Corning in state court lawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's asbestos products and typically requesting monetary damages in excess of one million dollars per claim. Corning has defended those claims on the basis of the separate corporate status of PCC and the absence of any facts supporting claims of direct liability arising from PCC's asbestos products. Corning, with other relevant parties, has been involved in ongoing efforts to develop a Plan of Reorganization that would resolve the concerns and objections of the relevant courts and parties. On November 12, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision finally confirming an Amended PCC Plan of Reorganization (the "Amended PCC Plan" or the "Plan"). On September 30, 2014, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "District Court") affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision confirming the Amended PCC Plan. On October 30, 2014, one of the objectors to the Plan appealed the District Court's affirmation of the Plan to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the "Third Circuit Court of Appeals"), and that appeal is currently being scheduled for briefing. It will likely take many months for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to render its decision. Under the Plan as affirmed by the Bankruptcy Court and affirmed by the District Court, Corning is required to contribute its equity interests in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. ("PCE"), a Belgian corporation, and to contribute $290 million in a fixed series of payments, recorded at present value. Corning has the option to use its shares rather than cash to make these payments, but the liability is fixed by dollar value and not the number of shares. The Plan requires Corning to make: (1) one payment of $70 million one year from the date the Plan becomes effective and certain conditions are met; and (2) five additional payments of $35 million, $50 million, $35 million, $50 million, and $50 million, respectively, on each of the five subsequent anniversaries of the first payment, the final payment of which is subject to reduction based on the application of credits under certain circumstances. In addition to the claims against Corning related to its ownership interest in PCC, Corning is also the defendant in approximately 9,700 other cases (approximately 37,300 claims) alleging injuries from asbestos related to its Corhart business and similar amounts of monetary damages per case. When PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, the Court granted a preliminary injunction to suspend all asbestos cases against PCC, PPG and Corning -- including these non-PCC asbestos cases (the "stay"). The stay remains in place as of the date of this filing. Under the Bankruptcy Court's order confirming the Amended PCC Plan, the stay will remain in place until the Amended PCC Plan is finally affirmed by the District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. These non-PCC asbestos cases have been covered by insurance without material impact to Corning to date. As of December 31, 2014, Corning had received for these cases approximately $19 million in insurance payments related to those claims. If and when the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of the Amended PCC Plan is finally affirmed, these non-PCC asbestos claims would be allowed to proceed against Corning. Corning has recorded in its estimated asbestos litigation liability an additional $150 million for these and any future non- PCC asbestos cases. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Continues to Defend PI Suits -------------------------------------------------------- Ford Motor Company continues to defend itself against numerous asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, 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: "Asbestos was used in some brakes, clutches, and other automotive components from the early 1900s. Along with other vehicle manufacturers, we have been the target of asbestos litigation and, as a result, are a defendant in various actions for injuries claimed to have resulted from alleged exposure to Ford parts and other products containing asbestos. Plaintiffs in these personal injury cases allege various health problems as a result of asbestos exposure, either from component parts found in older vehicles, insulation or other asbestos products in our facilities, or asbestos aboard our former maritime fleet. We believe that we are being targeted more aggressively in asbestos suits because many previously-targeted companies have filed for bankruptcy, or emerged from bankruptcy relieved of liability for such claims. "Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles over the years. We are prepared to defend these cases, and believe that the scientific evidence confirms our long-standing position that there is no increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our vehicles. The extent of our financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very difficult to estimate and could include both compensatory and punitive damage awards. The majority of our asbestos cases do not specify a dollar amount for damages; in many of the other cases the dollar amount specified is the jurisdictional minimum, and the vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants, sometimes more than one hundred. Many of these cases also involve multiple plaintiffs, and often we are unable to tell from the pleadings which plaintiffs are making claims against us (as opposed to other defendants). Annual payout and defense costs may become significant in the future." Ford Motor Company (Ford) is a manufacturer of automobiles. The Company together with its subsidiaries is engaged in other businesses, including financing vehicles. The Company operates in two segments: Automotive and Financial Services. Automotive includes Ford North America, Ford South America, Ford Europe, Ford Middle East & Africa and Ford Asia Pacific. Financial services include Ford Motor Credit Company and Other Financial Service. The Company manufactures or distributes automobiles across six continents. Its automotive brands include Ford and Lincoln. Other Financial Services includes a range of businesses, including holding companies and real estate. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dow Chemical Units Had 17,907 Fibro Claimants -------------------------------------------------------------- The Dow Chemical Company had 17,907 asbestos-related claimants against Union Carbide Corporation and Amchem Products Inc., 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. Union Carbide, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Union Carbide's premises, and Union Carbide's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to Union Carbide's products. It is the opinion of Dow's management that it is reasonably possible that the cost of Union Carbide disposing of its asbestos- related claims, including future defense costs, could have a material impact on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position of the Company. At December 31, 2014, the Company had 17,907 asbestos-related claimants against Union Carbide and Amchem based on criteria developed by Union Carbide and its external consultant. Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants. As a result, the damages alleged are not expressly identified as to Union Carbide, Amchem or any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury. In fact, there are no personal injury cases in which only Union Carbide and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants. For these reasons and based upon Union Carbide's litigation and settlement experience, Union Carbide does not consider the damages alleged against Union Carbide and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its determination of any potential asbestos-related liability. The Dow Chemical Company is as an integrated science and technology company. It is a worldwide manufacturer and supplier of products used primarily as raw materials in the manufacture of customer products and services. The Company serves various industries, including appliance; automotive; agricultural; building and construction; chemical processing; electronics; furniture; housewares; oil and gas; packaging; paints, coatings and adhesives; personal care; pharmaceutical; processed foods; pulp and paper; textile and carpet; utilities, and water treatment. The Company delivers a range of technology-based products and solutions to customers in approximately 180 countries and in sectors such as electronics, water, energy, coatings and agriculture. The Company operates through six operating segments: Electronic and Functional Materials, Coatings and Infrastructure Solutions, Agricultural Sciences, Performance Materials, Performance Plastics and Feedstocks and Energy. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Court Affirms Ruling in "Wygant" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Wygant, administratrix of the Estate of Margaret H. Klan, deceased, filed an appeal involving the timeliness of an asbestos-related wrongful death action in light of the State's High Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Neiman, 84 A.3d 603 (Pa. 2013), which struck down Act 152 and its statute of limitations for asbestos actions, 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5524.1, as violative of the Single Subject Rule of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in an opinion dated March 19, 2015, affirmed the orders entered March 19 and 20, 2014, granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of General Electric Company, Hunter Sales Corporation, and Reading Crane & Engineering Co., based upon the court's finding that the action was time-barred under 42 Pa.C.S. Section 5524(8). The cases are ELIZABETH WYGANT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET H. KLAN, DECEASED, Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; HUNTER SALES CORPORATION; READING CRANE & ENGINEERING CO., Appellees; ELIZABETH WYGANT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET H. KLAN, DECEASED, Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; HUNTER SALES CORPORATION; READING CRANE & ENGINEERING CO., Appellees; ELIZABETH WYGANT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET H. KLAN, DECEASED, Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; HUNTER SALES CORPORATION; READING CRANE & ENGINEERING CO., Appellees, NOS. 470 WDA 2014, 471 WDA 2014, 472 WDA 2014 (Pa. Sup.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/mmMsmmfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodrich's Bid to Dismiss "Storey" Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant Goodrich Corporation moves for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212 on the ground that plaintiff John F. Storey has not provided any admissible evidence that he was exposed to an asbestos-containing Goodrich floor title. In a decision and order dated March 9, 2015, Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion. The case is JOHN F. STOREY and CANDACE STOREY, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190283/13, MOTION SEQ. NO. 002 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Heitler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/aAj3rqfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer's Bid to Compel Fin'l Info Denied ---------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Employers Insurance Company filed a complaining seeking a judgment declaring the rights and duties of all of the named parties with respect to their obligations as to the defense and indemnification of Troy Belting, a defendant in asbestos bodily injury claims. Pacific Employers also seek reimbursement for monies paid by it in defending and indemnifying Troy Belting for prior settlements related to these asbestos claims. More precisely, Pacific Employers state that it and The Hartford Insurance Company and its affiliates have been paying 100 percent of the defense and indemnity costs in connection with the asbestos related suits brought against Troy Belting. Essentially, Pacific Employers and the Hartford seek a judgment determining that they are only obligated to pay their appropriate pro rata share of the defense and indemnity costs and that Troy Belting, in particular, is required to pay for periods when it was self-insured, uninsured, or underinsured, and for periods covered by now insolvent insurers. And, for those amounts paid in excess of their pro rata shares, Pacific Employers and the Hartford seek reimbursement from Troy Belting. Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, denied the Hartford's Motion to Compel Troy Belting to disclose its financial information, at this juncture, although the court preserves for the Hartford and Pacific Employers the right to return to the Court at any future occasion should Troy Belting raise prejudgment the specter that it is placing its inability to pay as a defense to the claims. The Court guaranteed that should this occur, they will be granted a full and complete opportunity to seek discovery of Troy Belting's financial condition. Magistrate Treece granted in part and denied in part Troy Belting's Motion for a Protective Order. The case is PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. TROY BELTING & SUPPLY COMPANY, THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, AND ABC COMPANIES 1 THROUGH 20, Defendants. TROY BELTING & SUPPLY COMPANY, Third Party Plaintiff, v. UNIGARD INSURANCE COMPANY, QBE AMERICAS, INC., ST PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP, INC., HARLEYSVILLE GROUP INC., HARLEYSVILLE INSURANCE COMPANY, HARLEYSVILLE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK and BERSHIRE MUTUAL INSURANCE GROUP, Third Party Defendants, CIV. NO. 1:11-CV-912 (TJM/RFT)(N.D.N.Y.). A full-text copy of Magistrate Treece's memorandum-decision and order dated March 17, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/lzoejDfrom Leagle.com. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Brian G. Fox, Siegal, Park Law Firm, David M. Cost, Esq. -- dcost@hblaw.com -- Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm, Linda J. Clark, Esq. -- lclark@hblaw.com -- Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm & Scott E. Levens, Siegal, Park Law Firm. Troy Belting & Supply Company, Defendant, represented by Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Defendant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Troy Belting & Supply Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm. Troy Belting & Supply Company, Counter Claimant, represented by Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian G. Fox, Siegal, Park Law Firm, David M. Cost, Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm, Linda J. Clark, Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm & Scott E. Levens, Siegal, Park Law Firm. Troy Belting & Supply Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. The Hartford Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Cross Defendant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Troy Belting & Supply Company, Counter Claimant, represented by Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian G. Fox, Siegal, Park Law Firm, David M. Cost, Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm, Linda J. Clark, Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm & Scott E. Levens, Siegal, Park Law Firm. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Cross Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Troy Belting & Supply Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Counter Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Counter Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian G. Fox, Siegal, Park Law Firm, David M. Cost, Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm, Joseph A. Murphy, Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm, Linda J. Clark, Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm & Scott E. Levens, Siegal, Park Law Firm. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Cross Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Troy Belting & Supply Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Counter Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Counter Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian G. Fox, Siegal, Park Law Firm, David M. Cost, Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm, Linda J. Clark, Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm & Scott E. Levens, Siegal, Park Law Firm. Troy Belting & Supply Company, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm. Unigard Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Barbara L. Schifeling, Damon, Morey Law Firm & Hedwig M. Auletta, Esq. -- hauletta@damonmorey.com -- Damon, Morey Law Firm. QBE Americas, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Barbara L. Schifeling, Damon, Morey Law Firm & Hedwig M. Auletta, Damon, Morey Law Firm. Continental Casualty Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Kristin V. Gallagher, Esq. -- kgallagher@cmk.com -- Carroll, McNulty Law Firm & Joanna L. Young, Esq. -- jyoung@cmk.com -- Carroll, McNulty Law Firm. The North River Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Dianne C. Bresee, O'Connor, O'Connor Law Firm. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Lloyd A. Gura, Esq. -- lgura@moundcotton.com -- Mound, Cotton Law Firm, Mark E. Haas, Esq., Mound, Cotton Law Firm & Mark J. Weber, Esq. -- mweber@moundcotton.com -- Mound, Cotton Law Firm. Harleysville Group, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Lance J. Kalik, Esq. -- lkalik@riker.com -- Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K. Wishert, Esq. -- twishert@riker.com -- Riker, Danzig Law Firm. Harleysville Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K. Wishert, Riker, Danzig Law Firm. Harleysville Insurance Company of New York, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K. Wishert, Riker, Danzig Law Firm. Berkshire Mutual Insurance Group, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K. Wishert, Riker, Danzig Law Firm. Troy Belting & Supply Company, ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Barbara M. Almeida, Esq. -- barbara.almeida@clydeco.us -- Clyde & Co. US LLP, Daren S. McNally, Esq., Clyde & Co. US LLP & Cara C. Vecchione, Esq. -- cara.vecchione@clydeco.us -- Clyde & Co. US LLP. Berkshire Mutual Insurance Group, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K. Wishert, Riker, Danzig Law Firm. Continental Casualty Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Kristin V. Gallagher, Carroll, McNulty Law Firm & Joanna L. Young, Carroll, McNulty Law Firm. Harleysville Group, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K. Wishert, Riker, Danzig Law Firm. Harleysville Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K. Wishert, Riker, Danzig Law Firm. Harleysville Insurance Company of New York, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K. Wishert, Riker, Danzig Law Firm. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Lloyd A. Gura, Mound, Cotton Law Firm & Mark J. Weber, Mound, Cotton Law Firm. QBE Americas, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Barbara L. Schifeling, Damon, Morey Law Firm & Hedwig M. Auletta, Damon, Morey Law Firm. The North River Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Dianne C. Bresee, O'Connor, O'Connor Law Firm. Unigard Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Barbara L. Schifeling, Damon, Morey Law Firm & Hedwig M. Auletta, Damon, Morey Law Firm. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Counter Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Counter Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Pacific Employers Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian G. Fox, Siegal, Park Law Firm, David M. Cost, Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm, Linda J. Clark, Hiscock, Barclay Law Firm & Scott E. Levens, Siegal, Park Law Firm. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest, Cross Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Edward B. Parks, II, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Eric D. Sidler, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Gregory L. Mokodean, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, James P. Ruggeri, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Mark K. Ostrowski, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Michele L. Backus, Shipman, Goodwin Law Firm, Walter L. Meagher, Jr., Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm & James P. Youngs, Hancock, Estabrook Law Firm. Troy Belting & Supply Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Timothy S. Brennan, Phelan, Phelan Law Firm. Liberty Mutual Group, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Lloyd A. Gura, Mound, Cotton Law Firm & Mark J. Weber, Mound, Cotton Law Firm. Unigard Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara L. Schifeling, Damon, Morey Law Firm & Hedwig M. Auletta, Damon, Morey Law Firm. Continental Casualty Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Kristin V. Gallagher, Carroll, McNulty Law Firm & Joanna L. Young, Carroll, McNulty Law Firm. Harleysville Group, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K. Wishert, Riker, Danzig Law Firm. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Barbara M. Almeida, Clyde & Co. US LLP & Daren S. McNally, Clyde & Co. US LLP. Berkshire Mutual Insurance Group, Cross Defendant, represented by Lance J. Kalik, Riker, Danzig Law Firm & Tracey K. Wishert, Riker, Danzig Law Firm. The North River Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Dianne C. Bresee, O'Connor, O'Connor Law Firm. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Court Refuses to Dismiss "Wilson" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ On February 15, 2015, Plaintiff Bonnie Wilson filed a second motion to dismiss his asbestos-related action voluntarily and with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Wilson's motion also seeks leave to reinstate the case within 90 days of dismissal should any issues arise in winding up the case and a settlement. In an opinion and order dated March 16, 2015, Chief District Judge Philip P. Simon of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, denied Wilson's motion, holding that under Rule 41(a)(2), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request "only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper," and the terms set out in Wilson's motion are not proper in the Seventh Circuit. The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI). BONNIE WILSON, Plaintiff, v. CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, NOS. MDL 875, 2:98-CV-00095-PPS (N.D. Ind.). A full-text copy of Judge Simon's Decision is available at http://is.gd/K5iKIzfrom Leagle.com. Bonnie L Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. AC and S Inc, Defendant, represented by Andrea L Cohen, Lewis and Wagner & Susan E Mehringer, Esq. -- smehringer@csmlawfirm.com -- Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer LLP. Anchor Packing Company, Defendant, represented by Edward J McCambridge, Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd, Jennifer Kelly Fardy, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & William F Mahoney, Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd. AP Green Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Jason L Kennedy, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd, John K McDavid, Tucker Hester LLC, Karl M Koons, III, Locke Reynolds LLP & Michael A Bergin, Frost Brown Todd LLC. Asbestos Claims Management Corporation, Defendant, represented by John K McDavid, Tucker Hester LLC, Karl M Koons, III, Locke Reynolds LLP & Michael A Bergin, Frost Brown Todd LLC. Dresser Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel D Trachtman, -- dtrachtman@woodmclaw.com -- Wooden & McLaughlin LLP, Douglas B King, -- dking@woodmclaw.com -- Wooden & McLaughlin LLP, Jennifer Kelly Fardy, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & William F Mahoney, Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd. Durabla Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Donald K Broad & Donald G Orzeske, Esq. -- dorzeske@goblaw.com -- Goodin Orzeske & Blackwell PC. GAF Corp, Defendant, represented by John K McDavid, Tucker Hester LLC, Karl M Koons, III, Locke Reynolds LLP & Michael A Bergin, Frost Brown Todd LLC. Garlock Inc, Defendant, represented by Edward J McCambridge, Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd, Jason L Kennedy, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney Ltd & William F Mahoney, Segal McCambridge Singer and Mahoney Ltd. General Refractories Company, Defendant, represented by Randall J Nye, Esq. -- rnye@omwlegal.com -- O'Neill McFadden & Willett LLP. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrew J Detherage, Esq. -- andy.detherage@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg LLP. John Crane Company, Defendant, represented by David A Temple, Drewry Simmons Vornehm LLP & Thomas W Hayes, Law Office of William M Koziol. JP Bushnell Packing & Supply, Defendant, represented by Andrea L Cohen, Lewis and Wagner, Bryce H Bennett, Jr, Riley Bennett & Egloff LLP, Julia Bunton Jackson, Riley Bennett and Egloff & Susan E Mehringer, Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer LLP. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co, Defendant, represented by Douglas B King, Wooden & McLaughlin LLP & Jeffrey L McKean, Wooden & McLaughlin LLP. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Keith A Kinney, Kinney Law Firm LLC & Knight S Anderson, Tucker Ellis LLP. PPG Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Cynthia M Locke, Cantrell Strenski & Mehringer LLP. Rapid-American Corp, Defendant, represented by Douglas B King, Wooden & McLaughlin LLP. Rhone Poulenc Ag Co, Defendant, represented by John K McDavid, Tucker Hester LLC, Karl M Koons, III, Locke Reynolds LLP & Michael A Bergin, Frost Brown Todd LLC. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher N Wahl, Hill Fulwider PC, Knight S Anderson, Tucker Ellis LLP & Keith J Hays, Hill Fulwider PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Denies Bids to Dismiss PI Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- William Hasenberg, Jr., and Linda Hasenberg, allege that Mr. Hasenberg was exposed to asbestos from Air and Liquid Systems Corporation, as successor by merger to Buffalo Pump, and Warren Pumps LLC's products during his employment with the United States Navy and that said exposure resulted in his current diagnosis. The Defendants filed separate Motions for Summary Judgment arguing that the Plaintiffs fail to offer evidence that the Defendants manufactured or distributed asbestos-containing components attached to or within pumps used at the Plaintiff's work sites, that the Defendants are not liable for the Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos arising from components not manufactured or supplied by the respective Defendants and that the claim for Loss of Consortium must fail if Summary Judgment is granted on the products liability claims. Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois denied both motions, finding that circumstantial evidence in the case suggests that asbestos- containing materials supplied by the Defendants were used on the ships at the time of the Plaintiff's service. Judge Yandle noted that although the Plaintiff cannot present direct evidence that the Defendants manufactured or supplied the materials in question, the Plaintiff's claim does not fail simply because it is impossible to locate direct evidence specifically identifying the maker of the replacement gaskets and packing that the Plaintiff worked with over forty years ago. The record contains enough circumstantial evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact, and when looking at the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a reasonable jury could infer that the Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos-containing products from both companies while performing his duties aboard both ships, Judge Yandle said. The case is WILLIAM HASENBERG, JR. and LINDA HASENBERG, Plaintiffs, v. ASBESTOS CORPORATION LTD., ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-01325-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.). A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's memorandum and order dated March 18, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/G2gBpTfrom Leagle.com. William Hasenberg, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Jackstadt, Napoli Bern, et al. & Ryan P. Horace, Napoli Bern, et al.. Linda Hasenberg, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Jackstadt, Napoli Bern, et al. & Ryan P. Horace, Napoli Bern, et al.. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al. & Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al.. 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.. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Continental Teves, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC, Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC, Eric D. Rosser, HeplerBroom LLC & Noel L. Smith, Jr., HeplerBroom LLC. Cummins Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Edward E Fu, Donohue, Brown et al.. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al. & William R. Irwin, Segal, McCambridge et al. Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC, Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. 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 & Laurie J. McLeRoy, von Briesen & Roper. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC, Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by William D. Cross, Rasmussen, Willis, Dickey & Moore, LLC. Kelsey-Hayes Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew M. Voss, Greensfelder, Hemker et al.. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Maureen A. McGlynn, Kortenhof McGlynn & Burns LLC & Joseph B. McGlynn, Jr., Kortenhof McGlynn & Burns LLC. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Charles L. Joley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al. & Laura K Beasley, Joley, Nussbaumer, et al.. Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, Defendant, represented by Marcie J. Vantine, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP & Thomas J. Kernell, Kernell Law Firm, P.C.. Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael J Chessler, HeplerBroom LLC, Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling Denying Class Cert. of PI Suit Reversed --------------------------------------------------------------- David M. Elsea and Jeanne Morgan, individually and as class representatives, appeal from the decision of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, denying class certification. The Plaintiffs filed a tort action in the circuit court on behalf of a proposed class of persons exposed to asbestos fibers claimed to have been caused by U.S. Engineering Company's "generation, use, handling, storage, treatment, demolition, removal and disposal of asbestos during the renovation, repair, maintenance and/or remodeling of the [Jackson County Courthouse]," which is owned, operated, and maintained by Jackson County, Missouri. The Plaintiffs seek recovery of compensatory damages for the expense of prospective medical monitoring allegedly necessitated by a defined amount of minimum exposure to asbestos fibers at the Jackson County Courthouse. The Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, concluded that the circuit court erred in denying class certification, thus the circuit court's class certification ruling is reversed, and the case is remanded. The case is DAVID M. ELSEA and JEANNE MORGAN, Individually and as Class Representatives, Appellants, v. U.S. ENGINEERING COMPANY, a Corporation, and JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, Respondents, NO. WD 77687 (Mo. App.). A full-text copy of the Opinion dated March 17, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/5MHSA4from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Strike Affidavit in Insurance Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- CNH Industrial America LLC filed an action for declaratory relief and breach of contract against a number of insurance companies, including Travelers Indemnity Company, alleging that the defendant insurance companies have failed to honor defense and coverage obligations arising from asbestos-related lawsuits filed against CNH. Travelers filed summary judgment motions, and partially supported the motions with the Affidavit of Gary C. Bennett. In response, CNH filed a Motion to Strike the Affidavit of Gary Bennett. The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, in a decision dated March 10, 2015, denied CNH's motion, although the Court will disregard certain paragraphs and documents of the Affidavit. The case is CNH INDUSTRIAL AMERICA LLC, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, PENNSYLVANIA, et al. Defendants, C.A. NO. N12C-07-108 EMD CCLD (Del. Sup.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/UNv6jGfrom Leagle.com. Brian M. Rostocki, Esq. -- brostocki@reedsmith.com -- and John C. Cordrey, Esq. -- jcordrey@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Attorneys for CNH Industrial America LLC. Neal J. Levitsky, Esq. -- mlevitsky@foxrothschild.com -- and Seth A. Niederman, Esq. -- sniederman@foxrothschild.com -- Fox Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, Delaware and Richard L. McConnell, Esq. -- rmcconnell@wileyrein.com -- and Dale E. Hausman, Esq. -- dhausman@wileyrein.com -- Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC. Attorneys for The Travelers Indemnity Company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Flips Ruling in "Calewarts" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ On appeal, June Calewarts, individually and as special administrator for the estate of Robert J. Calewarts, who died of malignant pleural mesothelioma, argues that the circuit court erred by granting 12 of the defendants' motions in limine. The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District III, agreed with Calewarts that the circuit court erred by granting some of these motions, but rejected the appellant's arguments regarding others. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment dismissing Calewarts' claims and remanded the case with directions. The case is JUNE CALEWARTS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF ROBERT J. CALEWARTS, PLAINTIFF- APPELLANT, v. CR MEYER & SONS COMPANY, COLONIAL HEIGHTS PACKAGING, INC., INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO. AND THILMANY, LLC, DEFENDANTS- RESPONDENTS, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC., DEFENDANTS, APPEAL NO. 2014AP531 (Wis. App.). A full- text copy of the Opinion dated March 17, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/bUWpqpfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Reargue in "Brown" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Phyllis Brown, as Administratrix of the Estate of Harry E. Brown and Phyllis Brown, moved for an order granting leave to reargue and/or renew her opposition to defendant Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.'s post-trial motion for an order setting aside the jury verdict rendered against it, and upon renewal and reargument, vacating the decision and order dated August 29, 2014, and denying Con Edison's motion. In the prior decision, Judge Barbara Jaffe of the Supreme Court, New York County, held, in pertinent part, that "absent legally sufficient evidence demonstrating, as a matter of law, that Con Edison supervised or controlled Brown's work at Ravenswood, [the] defendant has sustained its burden of proving that the jury could not have reached its verdict on the issue of Con Edison's liability pursuant to Labor Law Section 200 on any fair interpretation of the evidence." As an insulator, Mr. Brown regularly applied asbestos insulation to various components at Ravenswood, and was exposed to asbestos dust from his own work and from that of his co-workers. In a decision and order dated March 12, 2015, Judge Jaffe denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew and denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue, except to the extent of vacating that portion of the prior decision finding that the plaintiff waived the issue of whether Con Edison should have filed a notice of motion. The case is PHYLLIS BROWN, as Administratrix of the Estate of HARRY E. BROWN, and PHYLLIS BROWN, Individually, Plaintiff, v. BELL & GOSSETT COMPANY, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190415/12, MOT. SEQ. NO. 018 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Jaffe's Decision is available at http://is.gd/wDEsmEfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: $14-Mil. Award in Reinsurance Suit Confirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- After a nine-day, highly-contentious arbitration hearing in the reinsurance coverage dispute between Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company, and its reinsurer, Everest Reinsurance Company, an arbitration panel awarded Amerisure over $14 million. Amerisure provided insurance coverage to a steam trap manufacturer, and one of the company's affiliates manufactured products that included parts containing asbestos. Certain individuals made claims against the steam trap manufacturer and its affiliate for asbestos-related injuries that were allegedly caused by these products. Amerisure moves to confirm the arbitration award; Everest moves to vacate it. In an opinion and order dated March 18, 2015, Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted Amerisure's motion and denied Everest's motion. The case is AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a Michigan Mutual Insurance Company), Movant, v. EVEREST REINSURANCE COMPANY (f/k/a Prudential Reinsurance Company), Respondent, CASE NO. 14- CV-13060 (E.D. Mich.). A full-text copy of Judge Leitman's Decision is available at http://is.gd/FIQRPGfrom Leagle.com. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company, Petitioner, represented by Aaron L. Vorce, Esq. -- avorce@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, Lori M. McAllister, Esq. -- lmcallister@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, Christopher Michael Assise, Esq. -- cassise@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Daniel Joseph Neppl, Esq. -- dneppl@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP & Susan Ann Stone, Esq. -- sstone@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP. Everest Reinsurance Company, Respondent, represented by Joseph J Schiavone, Esq. -- jschiavone@buddlarner.com -- Budd Larner, Mark D. Hoerrner, Esq. -- mhoerrner@buddlarner.com -- Budd Larner, P.C., Michael J. Sheehan, Esq. -- MSheehan@howardandhoward.com -- Howard & Howard, Robert E. Graziani, Esq. -- RGraziani@howardandhoward.com -- Howard & Howard Attorneys, PLLC & Vincent John Proto, Bud Larner, P.C.. Everest Reinsurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by Mark D. Hoerrner, Budd Larner, P.C., Michael J. Sheehan, Howard & Howard & Robert E. Graziani, Howard & Howard Attorneys, PLLC. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented by Aaron L. Vorce, Dykema Gossett & Lori M. McAllister, Dykema Gossett. ********* 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 * * *