/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150424.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, April 24, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 82 Headlines AEGON USA: "Dennard" Suit Transferred from California to Iowa ALCAL INDUSTRIES: Gets Final Court Nod on "Thorp" Settlement AMERICAN EAGLE: "Grimm" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Nod AMSCAN HOLDINGS: Cal. App. Flips Ruling in "Aguirre" Case APPLUS TECHNOLOGIES: "Morgret" Settlement Wins Conditional Okay AT&T: To Pay $25MM Fine for Multiple Customer Data Breaches BASIN DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice BLUE BELL: Temporarily Shuts Down Plant Over Listeria BMW AG: To Recall 91,800 Mini Coopers Over Air-Bag Defect BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Oct. 29 Final Settlement Approval Hearing BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: S.D. Fla. Judge Wants Defendants to Post Bond CA PERSONNEL MGMT: Accused of Bias by Blind Rehab Specialist CANADIAN HEATING: May 19 Fireplace Settlement Approval Hearing Set CHICKEN SHACK: Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss Compressor Suit CONTINENTAL GROUP: Court OKs 3 Reports in "McLendon" Suit CONTINENTAL LABORATORIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages COTTER & SONS: Faces "Cervantes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ECOHOUSE: Faces Class Action in Brazil Over Social Housing Scheme EL TIO: Faces "Godinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages EMERITUS CORPORATION: "West" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT FREESE AND GROSS: Class Certification of "Bridges" Suit Denied GAP SPARTA: Faces "Benitez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Kirchinger" Suit Over Car Ignition Switch GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Suit Alleging Zofran-Related Injuries GRAND BAHAMA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Momita" Suit Claims GRAND SICHUAN: Faces "Lin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Morton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT HMO MISSOURI: Removes "Sabatino" Suit to Missouri District Court HORIZON MUD: Faces "Melkoski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports KIMMEL & GODFREY: "Sams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says KRAFT FOODS: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of Wheat Prices KROGER CO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bobko" Suit Claims LAS VEGAS SANDS: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Resort Fees LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Babbitt" Suit Over Harmful Spyware LITTLE LUKE: E.D.N.Y. Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Mendoza Suit MENDEZ CLEANING: Faces "Soriano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MERRILL LYNCH: Faces "Reibum" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MF GLOBAL: June 26 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set MINE SAFETY: "Murray" Personal Injury Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bids for Women's Prison 50% Higher Than Budgeted NEW YORK, NY: To Implement Broad Changes to Summons System NO PLACE: Faces "Glasper" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages OCWEN FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Greco" Suit Claims OHIO: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of "R. Harris" DRC Suit ORLANDO HEALTH: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over FICA Tax Refund PIPE TRADES: Sued Over Failure to Remit Plan Contributions PIZZA PROFITS: Plaintiffs File Amended "Koch" Class Complaint PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Fuerst" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach RAWLINGS FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Papetti" Suit Says REAL TIME: Illegally Collects Debt, "Greco" Suit Claims RHEEM MANUFACTURING: D. Ariz. Judge Narrows Claims in Delta Suit ROBERT M. SPANO: "Boyle" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SABA DIPPING: Recalls Hummus Products Over Listeria Contamination SHOW ME PIES: Plaintiff Files Amended "Washburn" FLSA Complaint SISTAR BEAUTY: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime STATE FARM: Judge Trims Claims in "Thornell" Suit TAISHAN GYPSUM: Homeowners in Drywall Settlement Face Tax Woes TOTAL PERFORMANCE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Lopez" Suit Says TRICAN WELL: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime UNITED SERVICES: "Carlson" Suit Remanded to Muscogee County Court VETERANS AFFAIRS: Carney May Amend Suit Over Unpaid Benefits VOGUE INT'L: May 25 Organix(R) Settlement Approval Hearing Set WALGREENS BOOT: Sued Over Blind-Inaccessible Soda Machines WHOLE FOOD: Failed to Convince Court to Dismiss "Speer" FCRA Suit WINN MANAGEMENT: Faces "Goodwin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT * Businesses Must Invest in Data Security, Prepare for Breaches * Plaintiffs' Class Action Attorneys Balk at "Mooting" Strategy Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Had $10.1-Mil. LAE Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,700 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Appeals vs. EnPro Unit Remain Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Industries Had $100.7MM Fibro Coverage ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $614MM Fibro Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 47,507 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Dismisses PI Claims vs. FMC Trust ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Refuses to Remand "Nesser" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Fined $26,000 for Fibro Removal Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Wins Dismissal of "Juni" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies AB's Bid to Junk "LeFrak" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Seeks to Dismiss "Malone" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order on Limine Motions Issued in "Kelly" Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in NY Suit Enlarged ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Grants Bid for Reimbursement of Atty Fees ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. High Court Flips Non-Suit Ruling in PI Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Super. Affirms $4.8MM Judgment vs. Crane Co. ********* AEGON USA: "Dennard" Suit Transferred from California to Iowa ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action styled Lequita Dennard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Aegon USA LLC, Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company, Transamerica Retirement Solutions Corporation, Kirk Buese, Ralph Arnold, Ken Klinger, Mary Taiber, and Diane Meiners, Case No. 2:15-cv-00896-CBM-E (C.D. Cali., February 6, 2015), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa. The District Court Clerk of Northern District of Iowa assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00030-EJM (N.D. Iowa, April 3, 2015) to the proceeding. The class action alleged violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan S. Maher, Esq. Stris and Maher LLP 725 South Figueroa Street Suite 1830 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 Facsimile: (213) 261-0299 E-mail: brendan.maher@strismaher.com - and - Peter K. Stris, Esq. STRIS AND MAHER LLP 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1830 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 Facsimile: (213) 261-0299 E-mail: peter.stris@strismaher.com - and - Victor A. O'Connell, Esq. STRIS AND MAHER LLP 725 South Figueroa Street Suite 1830 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 Facsimile: (213) 261-0299 E-mail: victor.oconnell@strismaher.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian David Boyle, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 383-5300 Facsimile: (202) 383-5414 E-mail: bboyle@omm.com - and - Brittney Marie Lane O'Melvenyn and Myers LLP 400 South Hope Street 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 Email: blane@omm.com - and - Catalina J. Vergara, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 E-mail: cvergara@omm.com - and - Christopher Brendan Craig, Esq. O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street Suite 1453 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 E-mail: ccraig@omm.com * * * Lequita Dennard, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Aegon USA LLC, Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company, Transamerica Retirement Solutions Corporation, Kirk Buese, Ralph Arnold, Ken Klinger, Mary Taiber, and Diane Meiners, Case No. 1:15-cv-00030-EJM (N.D. Iowa, April 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties, specifically by, failing to offering Plan participant prudent investment options at reasonable cost and failing to adequately monitor and remove or replace AEGON-managed investment products with bloated and superfluous management fees. The Defendants own and operate a financial service company that provides insurance, and pension and asset management. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter K. Stris, Esq. Brendan S. Maher, Esq. Victor O'Connell, Esq. STRIS & MAHER LLP 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1830 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 995-6800 Facsimile: (213) 261-0299 E-mail: peter.stris@strismaher.com brendan.maher@strismaher.com victor.oconnell@strismaher.com ALCAL INDUSTRIES: Gets Final Court Nod on "Thorp" Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting final approval of the class settlement in the lawsuit HEILA L. THORP as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALCAL INDUSTRIES, INC., a California Corporation; ALAMEDA ELECTRIC SUPPLY, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-2289 YGR, (N.D. Calif.). The Class consists of all persons employed by Alcal Industries or Alameda Electric Supply as a non-exempt hourly employee in the state of California during the period from May 20, 2009 through Nov. 10, 2014. Sheila Thorp is appointed as class representative for the settlement class for purposes of the settlement. Hernaldo J. Baltodano of Baltodano & Baltodano LLP and Paul K. Haines of Boren, Osher & Luftman LLP, are appointed as Class Counsel. The Court awards to Class Counsel $135,000 for attorneys' fees and $29,689.04 for costs. A copy of the judge's Order dated March 27, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/KUdW3hfrom Leagle.com. Sheila L. Thorp, Plaintiff, represented by Erica Flores Baltodano,, Hernaldo Jose Baltodano, Baltodano & Baltodano LLP, Paul Haines -- phaines@bollaw.com , Boren Osher & Luftman & Stephen Zachary Boren -- sboren@bollaw.com , Boren, Osher and Luftman, LLP. Alcal Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lee David Stimmel -- lstimmel@stimmel-law.com -- of Stimmel, Stimmel & Smith & Seth John Schwartz -- sschwartz@archernorris.com -- of Archer Norris. Alameda Electric Supply, Defendant, represented by Lee David Stimmel, Stimmel, Stimmel & Smith & Seth John Schwartz, Archer Norris. AMERICAN EAGLE: "Grimm" Class Settlement Gets Final Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John A. Kronstadt entered a final judgment approving the class settlement negotiated in the lawsuit BRADFORD GRIMM, MARGARET MOONEY, AND DINESH PATEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. LA CV11-00406 JAK (MANX), (C.D. Calif.). The California District Court certifies the Class, defined as all current and former employees of American Eagle Airlines, Inc, employed in the State of California who worked in one or more Covered Positions (all Airport Agents, including "Reservation Agents," "Ticket Agents," "Gate Agents," "Customer Service Agents," "Baggage Service Agents," "Passenger Service Agents," "Operations Planning Agents," "Cargo Agents," and similar positions) from September 21, 2006 through September 29, 2014. On the Effective Date, Plaintiffs Bradford Grimm and Margaret Mooney shall be deemed to hold an Allowed Eagle General Unsecured Claim (as defined in Defendant's Fourth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan filed in Defendant's and related debtors' voluntary cases under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York Case No. 11-15463 (SHL)) on behalf of themselves and the Class in the total amount of the Settlement Amount in Defendant's chapter 11 cases to resolve the Settled Lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The distribution mechanics shall be governed by the Plan. Because distributions on an Allowed Eagle General Unsecured Claim (as defined in the Plan) are made in common stock of American Airlines Group, Inc. (AAL), the ultimate dollar value of the Settlement will depend on the trading price of AAL, although the Service Payments, Class Counsel's costs, and Settlement Administration Costs shall at no time exceed the dollar amount approved by the Court in this Judgment. The Court finds that Harris & Ruble and the Law Offices of John P. Dorigan are qualified to represent the Class and confirms their appointment as Class Counsel. The Court grants Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of 25% of the Settlement Amount, approximately some $100,000 depending on the value of AAL stock at the time of liquidation, and attorneys' costs in the amount of 2.99% of the Settlement Amount, approximately some $11,978 depending on the value of AAL stock at the time of liquidation (but which shall not at any time exceed $11,978). Class Representatives Mooney, Patel, and Grimm are to be paid in the amounts of 1.25%., 0.3125%, and 0.125%, respectively, of the Settlement Amount, which is approximately some $5,000, $1,250, and $500, respectively, depending on the value of AAL stock at the time of liquidation (but which shall not at any time exceed $5,000, $1,250, and $500, respectively), as Service Payments in recognition of their efforts in coming forward as Class Representatives and participating in the Settled Lawsuit. Settlement Administration Costs in the amount of 4.5% of the Settlement Amount, approximately some $18,000 depending on the value of AAL stock at the time of liquidation (but which shall not at any time exceed $18,000), will be paid to Rust Consulting, Inc. A copy of the California District Court's Final Judgment dated March 23, 2015 is located at http://is.gd/lLQklGfrom Leagle.com. Bradford Grimm, Plaintiff, represented by Priya Mohan -- pmohan@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble, D Alan Harris -- HarrisA@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble & John Patrick Dorigan, John P Dorigan Law Offices. Margaret Mooney, Plaintiff, represented by Priya Mohan, Harris and Ruble, D Alan Harris, Harris and Ruble & John Patrick Dorigan, John P Dorigan Law Offices. Dinesh Patel, Plaintiff, represented by Priya Mohan, Harris and Ruble, D Alan Harris, Harris and Ruble & John Patrick Dorigan, John P Dorigan Law Offices. American Eagle Airlines Inc, Defendant, represented by Donna Mo - dmo@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & Robert J Hendricks -- rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. AMSCAN HOLDINGS: Cal. App. Flips Ruling in "Aguirre" Case --------------------------------------------------------- Acting Presiding Justice Cole Blease of the Court of Appeals of California reversed and remanded the appealed case entitled DIONE AGUIRRE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMSCAN HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. C073059 (Cal. Ct. App.) Plaintiff Dione Aguirre purchased an item from the Party America store in Placer County using a credit card. During the transaction, the cashier requested plaintiff's ZIP Code, which plaintiff provided, believing she was required to do so to complete the transaction. The cashier then entered plaintiff's ZIP Code into an electronic cash register. Plaintiff sued defendants Amscan Holdings, Inc., and PA Acquisition, doing business as Party America on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals, alleging Party America violated Civil Code section 1747.08 of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (Section 1747 et seq.) by routinely requesting and recording personal identification information, namely ZIP Codes, from customers using credit cards in its retail stores in California. Party America filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the sole ground that a cardholder's ZIP Code does not constitute personal identification information within the meaning of section 1747.08. The trial court granted the motion, and plaintiff appealed. The court reversed the trial court's decision and held that a cardholder's ZIP Code constitutes personal identification information as that phrase is used in section 1747.08. On September 25, 2012, Party America moved for an order striking and dismissing the class allegations from plaintiff's operative complaint and denying class certification on the grounds that there is no ascertainable class, and class certification is not the superior method for adjudication of this matter. The trial court agreed with Party America that plaintiff failed to establish the existence of an ascertainable class, and thus, granted the motion to strike and dismiss the class allegations and to deny class certification. Plaintiff appealed. Acting Presiding Justice Blease reversed the order striking and dismissing the class allegations and denying class certification. Judge Blease remanded the matter to the trial court for consideration of whether class certification is proper. A copy of Presiding Justice Blease's opinion dated March 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/4hOFlWfrom Leagle.com For Plaintiff and Appellant: Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq. Richard D. Lambert, Esq. Elaine W. Yan, Esq. STONEBARGER LAW 75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145 Folsom, CA 95630 Telephone: 916-235-7140 Facsimile: 916-235-7141 Email: zipcode@stonebargerlaw.com - and - James R. Patterson, Esq. PATTERSON LAW GROUP 402 W Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-398-4760 Facsimile: 619-7566991 Todd C. Atkins -- info@atkinsdavidson.com -- at Atkins & Davidson, for The Consumer Federation of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant David F. Faustman -- dfaustman@foxrothschild.com -- Cristina K. Armstrong -- carmstrong@foxrothschild.com -- Tyreen G. Torner -- ttorner@foxrothschild.com -- at Fox Rothschild, for Defendants and Respondents The California Court of Appeals panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice Cole Blease and Justices Harry H. Hull and William J. Murray. APPLUS TECHNOLOGIES: "Morgret" Settlement Wins Conditional Okay --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the Eastern District of California granted plaintiffs' request in the case TIMOTHY MORGRET, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. APPLUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; VALLEY INDUSTRIAL X-RAY AND INSPECTION SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01801-JLT (E.D. Cal.) Plaintiff Timothy Morgret requests preliminary approval of a class settlement reached with defendant Valley Industrial X-Ray and Inspection Services, Inc. Plaintiff seeks: (1) the conditional certification of a settlement class; (2) preliminary approval of the settlement; (3) appointment of Plaintiff as the class representative; (4) appointment of Alexander Dychter and Walter Haines as Class Counsel; (5) approval of the proposed class notice and related materials; (6) appointment of Phoenix Settlement Administrators as the Claims Administrator; (7) approval of the Settlement distribution plan; and (8) scheduling for final approval of the settlement. Defendant does not oppose the motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement. Magistrate Judge Thurston granted plaintiff's request for conditional certification of the Settlement Class, and the class is defined as follows: All individuals who are or previously were employed by VIXR in the State of California as a Technician or Assistant Technician at any time since November 6, 2009 through January 21, 2015. Preliminary approval of the parties; proposed settlement agreement, as modified as well as the proposed notice plan is granted and approved. Timothy Morgret is appointed the class representative for the Settlement Class, Alexander Dychter and Walter Haines are appointed Class Counsel and Phoenix Settlement Administrators is appointed as the Claims Administrator, with responsibilities pursuant to the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Class Representative enhancement requests for plaintiff is granted preliminarily up to the amount of $10,000, subject to a petition and review at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class Members and their counsel may support or oppose this request, if they so desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class Counsel's request for fees in the amount of 25% of the gross settlement fund and expenses in the amount of $20,000 is granted preliminarily, subject to counsel's petition for fees and review at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class Members and their counsel may support or oppose this request, if they so desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. The petition for attorneys' fees and for class representative enhancement fee shall be filed no later than May 8, 2015 and the costs of settlement administration shall not exceed $15,000. The proposed Notice is preliminarily approved, and the parties were directed to file a finalized Notice for the Court's approval no later than March 13, 2015. Class Members shall mail any dispute related to the number of work days to the Claims Administrator later than May 8, 2015. A class member who wishes to be excluded from settlement shall postmark an opt-out request no later than May 8, 2015 and any objections to or comments on the Settlement Agreement must be filed with the Court and mailed to Class Counsel no later than May 8, 2015. A Final Approval and Fairness Hearing is set for May 29, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California. Class Members may appear at the hearing on May 29, 2015, in person or through his or her own attorney, to show cause why this Court should not approve the Settlement Agreement, or to object to the motion for attorneys' fees or class member representative enhancement award. For comments or objections to be considered at the hearing, the Class Member must file comments with the Clerk of this Court indicating briefly the nature of the Class Member's comments, support, or objection. The Court reserves the right to vacate the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing if no comments or objections are filed with this Court on or before May 8, 2015. A copy of Judge Thurston's order dated March 5, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/lNqInefrom Leagle.com Timothy Morgret, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Isaac Dychter -- Alex@DychterLaw.com -- at Dychter Law Offices, APC; Walter L. Haines -- at United Employees Law Group, PC Valley Industrial X-Ray And Inspection Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by John C. Gray -- john.gray@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Robert Michel Dawson -- robert.dawson@nortonrosefulbright.com -- at Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP AT&T: To Pay $25MM Fine for Multiple Customer Data Breaches ----------------------------------------------------------- Brian Fung, writing for The Washington Post, reports that AT&T has agreed to pay a $25 million fine for multiple data breaches that leaked hundreds of thousands of customer records, including names, phone numbers and some Social Security numbers. On at least three occasions, outsiders paid AT&T call center employees to provide them with sensitive customer information, according to the Federal Communications Commission, which announced the settlement on April 8. The breaches occurred in AT&T's foreign call centers in Mexico, Colombia and the Philippines. As many as 279,000 AT&T customers may have been affected by the unauthorized leaks, regulators said. Those customers will receive free credit monitoring as part of the official settlement. The agreement also requires at AT&T to appoint a privacy official who will review the company's policies and strengthen its security. The fine marks the FCC's largest data security action ever. In October, the agency fined two telecom companies $10 million for inadvertently releasing customer data. [With a $10 million fine, the FCC is leaping into data security for the first time] In a statement on April 8, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said his agency would not "stand idly by when a carrier's lax data security practices expose the personal information of hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable Americans to identity theft and fraud." The type of information accessed by the thieves is protected by federal regulations. In the wrong hands, the data can be used by thieves to obtain "unlock" codes that enable phones to be used with any wireless carrier. Stolen phones that have been unlocked are more valuable on the black market because they can be sold virtually anywhere. The FCC said the Mexico breach lasted for more than five months between 2013 and 2014. Three AT&T contractors improperly used 68,000 customer records to request more than 290,000 unlock codes from AT&T. AT&T conceded in a statement on April 8 that "a few of our vendors" failed to uphold subscribers' confidence. "Protecting customer privacy is critical to us," the company said. "We've changed our policies and strengthened our operations. And we have, or are, reaching out to affected customers to provide additional information." BASIN DRILLING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- Troy Verm, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Basin Drilling, LP, Case No. 6:15-cv-00411 (E.D. Tex., April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection with recent a Mass Layoff and Plant Closing at the Defendant's Tyler, Texas site of employment or operational units. Basin Drilling, LP operates drilling rigs in and around Tyler, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq. BARON & BUDD, PC 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com BLUE BELL: Temporarily Shuts Down Plant Over Listeria ----------------------------------------------------- Ben Brumfield and Catherine Shoichet, writing for CNN, report that Blue Bell ice cream has temporarily shut down one of its manufacturing plants over the discovery of listeria contamination in a serving of ice cream originating from that plant. Public health officials warned consumers on April 3 not to eat any Blue Bell-branded products made at the company's Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, plant. That includes 3-ounce servings of Blue Bell ice cream from this plant that went to institutions in containers marked with the letters O, P, Q, R, S or T behind the coding date. The warning by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention does not affect other Blue Bell ice cream, including other 3-ounce servings, not made at the plant. But Blue Bell has recalled other products. The company is shutting down the Broken Arrow facility "out of an abundance of caution" to search for a possible cause of contamination. It is the third time Blue Bell has taken action in light of a listeria outbreak at a Kansas hospital that served the company's ice cream. Listeria at the plant Listeria monocytogenes was recently found in a cup of ice cream recovered from the hospital. The cup contaminated with the bacteria was produced at the Broken Arrow plant in April 2014, Blue Bell said. And, according to the CDC, listeria bacteria was found in additional samples of the same product that were recovered from the plant. The bacteria in the hospital sample and the factory sample appeared to match each other genetically, the CDC said. But they did not appear identical to listeria samples taken from patients infected in the Kansas outbreak. In a separate outbreak in Texas, the CDC did find that listeria samples taken from patients who came down with listeriosis between 2010 and 2014 in a hospital that served 3-ounce Blue Bell cups matched the listeria in recovered samples. None of this means the ice cream is the source of either spate of the infections. "Investigation to determine whether these illnesses are related to exposure to Blue Bell products is ongoing," the CDC said. Recall from Texas plant In early March, in light of the Kansas listeria outbreak, Blue Bell recalled a group of products made at a plant in Texas. It later added 3-ounce cup servings to the recall. Five people were infected and three died in the past year in Kansas from listeria that might be linked to Blue Bell Creameries products, according to the CDC. All five of them were hospitalized at the same hospital before developing listeriosis, the CDC said. At least four of them had consumed milkshakes made with Blue Bell ice cream before developing the infection. "We are devastated and know that Blue Bell has to be and can be better than this," Paul Kruse, Blue Bell CEO and president, said in a statement. "Quality and safety have always been our top priorities. We are deeply saddened and concerned for all those who have been affected." The CDC advises that individuals and institutions should check their freezers for the recalled products and throw them away. In a statement on its website, Blue Bell said "this recall in no way includes Blue Bell ice cream half gallons, pints, quarts, 3 gallons or other 3 oz. cups." This has been the first product recall in the 108-year history of Blue Bell Creameries, the company said. What is listerosis? Listeriosis is a serious infection caused by eating food contaminated with listeria, and primarily affects the elderly, pregnant women, newborns and people with weakened immune systems, according to the CDC. Symptoms of a listeria infection are fever and muscle aches, sometimes associated with diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. In the United States, an estimated 1,600 people become seriously ill each year, and approximately 16% of these illnesses result in death. Cervical infections caused by listeriosis in pregnant women may result in stillbirth or spontaneous abortion during the second or third trimesters. BMW AG: To Recall 91,800 Mini Coopers Over Air-Bag Defect --------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that German auto maker BMW says it is recalling 91,800 Mini Coopers to fix a defect that may prevent the air bag on the front passenger side of the cars from deploying in a crash. The problem affects the 2005 to 2008 models of the Mini Cooper and Cooper S. BMW said the air bag might not work properly because a vehicle's mat detection system might be prevented from sensing a passenger sitting in the front seat. BMW told the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration it has been notified of one minor injury linked to the defect. To repair the problem, BMW will replace the detection mat in the affected models for free. The recall will begin May 1. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Oct. 29 Final Settlement Approval Hearing --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order granting preliminary approval of the class settlement in the lawsuit BARRY JEKOWSKY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02158-VC, (N.D. Calif.). For purposes of the Settlement, the Court conditionally certifies a Settlement Class defined as: All residents of the United States (including Puerto Rico), who currently own or lease, or previously owned or leased, a Class Vehicle. "Class Vehicle" is defined as: 2009 through 2012 model year BMW Z4 vehicles that were sold or leased in the United States or Puerto Rico to residents of the United States and Puerto Rico that were equipped with Class Wheels either as original equipment, or that a Class Member equipped with Class Wheels post-purchase. Barry Jekowsky is appointed as class representative and Kemnitzer, Barron & Krieg and Chavez & Gertler are appointed as class counsel. Gilardi & Co. is approved as the Claims Administrator to perform the duties set forth in the proposed Settlement Agreement. A final approval hearing will be held on October 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Vince Chhabria in California. A copy of the District Court's March 20, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/VrOsTGfrom Leagle.com. CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP, MARK A. CHAVEZ -- mark@chavezgertler.com -- Mill Valley, CA. KEMNITZER, BARRON, & KRIEG, LLP, BRYAN KEMNITZER, NANCY BARRON, ELLIOT CONN, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff Barry Jekowsky and the proposed class. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: S.D. Fla. Judge Wants Defendants to Post Bond ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John J. O'Sullivan of the Southern District of Florida denied defendants' motion in the case BANNING LARY, M.D. and KATHERINE LARY, TODD LARY, AND SCOTT LARY as Successor Trustees of the STARBRIGHT GRANTOR FAMILY TRUST, Plaintiffs, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SCIMED, INC., a Minnesota corporation, Defendants, CASE NO. 11-CV-23820-O'SULLIVAN (S.D. Fla.) A judgment was entered against the defendants for $13,967,911.00. On February 13, 2015, a cost judgment of $60,000.00 was entered against the defendants. The total of the two judgments is $14,027,911.00. On January 26, 2015, the defendants filed a motion and supporting memorandum for a stay of execution of judgment and for waiver of supersedeas bond pending appeal. The defendants have provided affidavits and financial information to support their request to waive the need for a supersedeas bond. The plaintiffs point to a $945 million loss reserve book entry which represents what the defendants believe are its future probable litigation losses. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants' cash on hand is not sufficient to meet the $945 million in projected litigation losses. Judge O'Sullivan denied defendants' motion and supporting memorandum for a stay of execution of judgment and for waiver of supersedeas bond pending appeal and asked the defendants to post a supersedeas bond in the amount of the judgment plus 10% or post the same amount of cash with the Clerk of Court on 03/20/2015. A copy of Judge O'Sullivan's order dated March 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/SruLJwfrom Leagle.com Banning Lary, M.D., Plaintiff, represented by Carly Allison Johnson, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL, Leora Herrmann, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL, Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL & Joel Stephen Perwin Katherine Lary, Plaintiff, represented by Carly Allison Johnson, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL, Leora Herrmann, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL & Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Todd Lary, Plaintiff, represented by Carly Allison Johnson, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL, Leora Herrmann, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL & Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Scott Lary, Plaintiff, represented by Carly Allison Johnson, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL, Leora Herrmann, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL & Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Elizabeth Lary, Plaintiff, represented by Carly Allison Johnson, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL, Leora Herrmann, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL & Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Diane Lary, Plaintiff, represented by Carly Allison Johnson, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL, Leora Herrmann, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann, PL & Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Boston Scientific Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amy DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold & Porter, LLP,Hildy M. Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon & Michael Aaron Holt, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Hildy M. Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon & Michael Aaron Holt, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Amy DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP. Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold & Porter, LLP & Hildy M. Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon Boston Scientific Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Amy DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP,Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold & Porter, LLP & Hildy M. Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon Katherine Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Scott Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Todd Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Banning Lary, M.D., Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Amy DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP,Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold & Porter, LLP & Hildy M. Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon Boston Scientific Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Amy DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP,Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold & Porter, LLP & Hildy M. Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon Diane Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Elizabeth Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Katherine Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Scott Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Todd Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Banning Lary, M.D., Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Amy DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP,Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold & Porter, LLP & Hildy M. Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon Boston Scientific Corporation, Counter Claimant, represented by Amy DeWitt, Arnold & Porter, LLP,Edward Han, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Lea Ann Souza-Rasile, Shook Hardy & Bacon, Matthew Wolf, Arnold & Porter, LLP & Hildy M. Sastre, Shook Hardy & Bacon Diane Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Elizabeth Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Katherine Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Scott Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Todd Lary, Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL Banning Lary, M.D., Counter Defendant, represented by Steven Ira Peretz, Peretz Chesal & Herrmann PL CA PERSONNEL MGMT: Accused of Bias by Blind Rehab Specialist ------------------------------------------------------------ Sarah Hudson v. Office of Personnel Management, Katherine Archuleta, in her official capacity as Director of Office of Personnel Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Robert A. McDonald, in his official capacity as Secretary of Department of Veterans Affairs, Case No. 3:15-cv-01539 (N.D. Cal., April 3, 2015) alleges that the Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff, a female employee with a female spouse, by treating her differently from similarly situated male employees with female spouses, who performed jobs that required equal skill, effort, and responsibility. Ms. Hudson, a woman, has been employed since 2001 as a Blind Rehabilitation Specialist at the Western Blind Rehabilitation Center in Menlo Park, California. The Office of Personnel Management is an independent establishment in the executive branch of the United States. The Federal Health Benefits Act charges OPM with administering the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, which provides health insurance for federal employees, retirees, and their dependents. Katherine Archuleta is the Director of OPM. The Department of Veterans Affairs is Ms. Hudson's employing agency. Robert A. McDonald is the Secretary of the Veterans Affairs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nina Wasow, Esq. Julie Wilensky, Esq. LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE & JACKSON, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 839-6824 Facsimile: (510) 839-7839 E-mail: nwasow@lewisfeinberg.com jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com - and - Judith Galat, Esq. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 80 F Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 639-6425 Facsimile: (202) 379-2928 E-mail: galatj@afge.org CANADIAN HEATING: May 19 Fireplace Settlement Approval Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ NOTICE* OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND CERTIFICATION OF A CLASS ACTION INVOLVING CERTAIN GAS BURNING FIREPLACES, FIREPLACE INSERTS AND STOVES TO: ALL PERSONS IN CANADA WHO OWN, LEASE OR OTHERWISE OCCUPY PRIVATE PROPERTY CONTAINING A FIREPLACE FROM ONE OF THE SETTLING DEFENDANTS DESCRIBED BELOW CERTIFICATION A lawsuit commenced in British Columbia has been certified as a class action against CANADIAN HEATING PRODUCTS INC., MILES INDUSTRIES LTD., MONESSEN HEARTH CANADA, INC., and MONESSEN HEARTH SYSTEMS COMPANY (doing business as VERMONT CASTINGS GROUP) (the "Settling Defendants"), by the Supreme Court of British Columbia (the "Court"). WHAT IS THE LAWSUIT? It is an action concerning the risk of burns from contacting the hot glass fronts of some gas burning fireplaces. WHAT IS THE SETTLEMENT? Under a proposed settlement, the Settling Defendants have agreed to provide, free of charge, barrier screens or screen kits for certain of their Fireplaces to reduce the burn risk. WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT? All persons in British Columbia, plus all persons elsewhere in Canada who choose to "opt in", who have one of the Settling Defendants' gas fireplaces, inserts or stoves ("Fireplaces") in their home that was installed between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2014. Class Members shall exclude non-natural persons and those natural persons whose Fireplace is located outdoors or is in business or commercial use. If you live in British Columbia and have such a Fireplace you are automatically included in the class action settlement, unless you choose to exclude yourself (opt out). If you live elsewhere in Canada you may choose to opt into the settlement. You should immediately review the full legal notice in this matter to ensure that you understand your legal rights. Further details on the proposed settlement and on opting in and opting out are available via the telephone numbers and email & website addresses set out in this notice. Opt in requests MUST BE SUBMITTED within one year of notice that the Court has approved the settlement. If your request is not received in time it will not be considered valid. WHAT IF I WISH TO COMMENT ON OR OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT? The settlement must be approved by the Court before it can become effective. An application to approve the settlement will be heard by the Court at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, British Columbia at 10:00 a.m. on May 19, 2015. If you fit the above description you are entitled to appear and make submissions at the settlement approval hearing. If you wish to comment on or make an objection to the settlement, a written submission must be delivered to Class Counsel at the address listed below, postmarked no later than May 5, 2015. If you do not do so, you may not be entitled to participate in the settlement approval hearing. WHAT IF I DO NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE? If you live in British Columbia and you fit the class definition but do not wish to participate in the class action, you must submit a written request to opt out of the class action to: Crawford Class Action Services (the "Administrator") Suite 3-505, 133 Weber Street North Waterloo, ON N2J 3G9 Toll Free: 1-877-739-8933 Fax: 519-578-4016 Email: fireplaceclassaction@crawco.ca Opt out requests MUST BE SUBMITTED BY May 11, 2015. Persons who submit valid requests to opt out by the deadline will not be eligible to receive any compensation or benefits that may be achieved as a result of the class action. DO I NEED TO PAY ANYTHING TO PARTICIPATE? No. You do not need to pay any money to participate in the settlement. Class members pay nothing. The lawyers appointed by the Court to represent the Class will be paid by the defendants under the settlement, and will be seeking court approval of legal fees not to exceed $1,160,000 plus tax. WHO ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CLASS? The following law firm represents the plaintiffs and the class, and will answer questions about the class action: Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy LLP 25th Floor 700 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC, V7Y1B3 Contact: fireplaceclassaction@farris.com -- or -- Mike Wagner Tel: 604-661-9388 -- or -- Robert Anderson, QC Tel: 604-661-9372 (*) This Notice is just a summary. For more detailed information, including a list of all defendants and the definitions used in this Notice, please go to www.fireplaceclassaction.com or contact one of the lawyers listed above. Do Not Contact the Court about this Notice. For any questions, please contact the Administrator or the lawyers listed above THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE BRITISH COLUMBIA SUPREME COURT CHICKEN SHACK: Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss Compressor Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Paul D. Borman of the Eastern District of Michigan denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case COMPRESSOR ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES J. THOMAS, JR., Defendant, CASE NO. 10-10059 (E.D. Mich.) The plaintiff Compressor Engineering Corporation filed a class action complaint under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227 against defendants Chicken Shack, Inc., Chicken Shack Depot, Inc., and Charles Thomas, Jr. Plaintiff alleges that Charles Thomas sent an unsolicited advertisement to plaintiff's fax machine on November 6, 2005. Plaintiff further alleges that Thomas has sent similar unsolicited advertisements via fax machine to at least 39 other recipients. Plaintiff is attempting to bring this class action on behalf of "All persons that are holders of telephone numbers to which a facsimile transmission was sent on behalf of defendant advertising or promoting the goods or services of defendant at any time from August 13, 2005 to present. Defendant Thomas served plaintiff with an offer of Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 68, and on February 27, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on plaintiff's failure to respond or accept the offer of judgment. Judge Borman denied defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A copy of Judge Borman's opinion and order dated February 19, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/6gjoerfrom Leagle.com. CONTINENTAL GROUP: Court OKs 3 Reports in "McLendon" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Dickinson R. DeBevoise reviewed and approved three Reports and Recommendations filed by Special Master George L. Priest in the action CECIL McLENDON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. ALBERT J. JAKUB, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. ROBERT GAVALIK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE CONTINENTAL GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, (N.J.). The action was settled through a Settlement Agreement dated December 19, 1990, pursuant to which settlement amounts were distributed in accordance with a Plan of Distribution. Special Master George L. Priest supervised the extraordinarily complex distribution process, complicated by the length of time required to effect distributions, the necessity to apply for FICA tax refunds, dispersal and deaths of class members. The Reports and Recommendations filed by the Special Master are: (1) the Second Supplemental Report and Recommendation of the Special Master with Respect to the Waiver of Certain Settlement Payments, (2) the Second Supplemental Report of the Special Master with Respect to Certain Class Members Overpaid during the Distribution of the Settlement, and (3) the Report and Recommendation of the Special Master with Regard to the Termination of the Settlement. In sum, a total of $418,047,492 was disbursed to class members and Special Settlement participants or successors; another $7,110,888 in tax refunds. A copy of the District Court's Order and Opinion dated March 26, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/gR0gCLfrom Leagle.com. Rose A. Wehner, Esq., Law Office of Rose A. Wehner PC, Chicago, IL, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Cecil McLendon, et al. John G. Jacobs, Esq. Jacobs Kolton, Chartered, Chicago, IL, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Cecil McLendon, et al. Roslyn Litman, Esq., The Litman Law Firm, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Albert J. Jakub, et al. and Robert Gavalik, et al. Martha Helmreich, Esq., Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Albert J. Jakub, et al. and Robert Gavalik, et al. Fred H. Bartlit, Jr., Esq., Don Scott, Esq. Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Chicago, IL, Attorney for Defendants. Timothy J. Thalken, Esq., Fraser Stryker PC LLO, Omaha, NE, Attorney for Defendants. George L. Priest, New Haven, CT, Special Master. CONTINENTAL LABORATORIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Luke Arnold, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Continental Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00084 (S.D. Tex., April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a single workweek. Continental Laboratories, Inc. is a global oilfield Services Company headquartered in the Southern District of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet Street Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com COTTER & SONS: Faces "Cervantes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Russell R. Cervantes, Stephanie Faz, Daniel Young and John Ward on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cotter & Sons, Inc., James A. Cotter, Jr., and James Cotter, Sr., Case No. 5:15-cv-00287 (W.D. Tex., April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a Texas bases company that provides real estate management and leasing services to customers throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell R. Cervantes, Esq. VETHAN LAW FIRM, PC 3501 Allen Parkway Houston, TX 77019 Telephone: (713) 526-2222 Facsimile: (713) 526-2230 E-mail: edocs@vwtexlaw.com ECOHOUSE: Faces Class Action in Brazil Over Social Housing Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wong Wei Han, writing for The China Post, reports that founded in 2009, the London-based EcoHouse enticed many investors with its unique proposition of investing in social housing in Brazil as part of the government's low-cost program My House, My Life. Investors were asked to fork out at least 23,000 pounds per unit to help fund EcoHouse's development in exchange for an impressive 20-percent fixed rate of return for a 12-month contract. The scheme reportedly attracted over 2,000 investors globally, while at least 800 people in Singapore were said to have ploughed about SG$65 million into the scheme. Initially, investment returns were paid promptly, but concerns about EcoHouse's legitimacy started to emerge last year when investors did not receive payments on time. After its Singapore office was abruptly closed down in August, the Brazilian government said that EcoHouse had no links with the social housing scheme. EcoHouse subsequently announced the suspension of its global operations and filed for voluntary winding-up in the UK. Reports against EcoHouse have been filed with Singapore's Commercial Affairs Department's , and a class-action suit has also been lodged in Brazil by a group of more than 100 Singapore investors. EL TIO: Faces "Godinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Godinez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. El Tio Loco, Inc. and Andres Soto, Case No. 1:15-cv-03386 (N.D. Ill., April 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Dupage County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com EMERITUS CORPORATION: "West" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Cara L. West, on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Emeritus Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00437 (M.D. Tenn., April 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable expenses of litigation, and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Emeritus Corporation owns and operates a health care facility located at 2908 Poston Avenue, Nashville, Tennessee 37203. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mathieu R. Berman, Esq. PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC 1441 Dunwoody Village Parkway, Suite 200 Dunwoody, GA 30338 Telephone: (615) 403-1297 E-mail: mathieurberman@yahoo.com FREESE AND GROSS: Class Certification of "Bridges" Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Tomm S. Lee denied class certification of the action MARY BRIDGES, BOBBY GORDON, AND JOHNNIE GRIFFIN, ALL INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF 345 OTHER NAMED PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD A. FREESE; TIM K. GOSS; SHEILA M. BOSSIER; DENNIS C. SWEET, III; FREESE AND GOSS PLLC; SWEET AND FREESE PLLC; BOSSIER AND ASSOCIATES PLLC; AND DENNIS C. SWEET, D/B/A SWEET AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Defendants, v. DON A. MITCHELL, Third-Party Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13CV457TSL-JCG, (S.D. Miss.) Plaintiffs Mary Bridges, Bobby Gordon and Johnnie Griffin, along with 345 others, were previously represented by defendants Freese, Goss, Sweet and Bossier (and their respective law firms) and by third-party defendant Don Mitchell in three separate lawsuits brought against, inter alia, BorgWarner Corporation, in which the plaintiffs sought to recover damages for injuries they claimed to have suffered as the result of the alleged release and improper disposal and elimination of those certain toxic chemicals (polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs) at a Crystal Springs manufacturing facility. Plaintiffs' counsel ultimately reached a global settlement of nearly $28,000,000 with BorgWarner on behalf of the 348 plaintiffs (Filed Claimants), and on behalf of an additional 2,471 clients (Unfiled Claimants) who were not plaintiffs in the PCB litigation but who also claimed they were injured from exposure to PCBs. The terms of the settlement were finalized in mid-2010 and in early 2011, defendants began the process of disbursing settlement funds to the PCB claimants, filed and unfiled. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs Bridges, Gordon and Griffin filed the present lawsuit for themselves and on behalf of a putative class comprised of the other 345 former clients represented by defendants, asserting myriad claims relating to defendants' representation of plaintiffs in the PCB litigation, with particular reference to their handling of litigation expenses and disbursement of settlement proceeds. The complaint purports to set forth claims for breach of fiduciary duty, tortious breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, conversion, tortious interference with contract, unjust enrichment and bad faith based on allegations that defendants failed to properly allocate litigation expenses among the Filed and Unfiled Claimants; charged plaintiffs expenses that were exorbitant and unreasonable; converted funds from the PCB settlement for their own personal and unjust benefit; had an undisclosed conflict of interest related to their ongoing representation of the State of Mississippi for recovery of Medicaid and Medicare liens in other mass tort litigation, while at the same time negotiating the PCB plaintiffs' Medicaid and Medicare liens; improperly paid expenses and fees to themselves before disbursing settlement funds to plaintiffs; and unreasonably delayed payment to plaintiffs so as to use the settlement funds to further defendants' own monetary interests. Among other things, the Court concludes that the named plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives. A copy of the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 26, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/NbZxClfrom Leagle.com. Mary Bridges, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. McRae, CHUCK MCRAE LAW OFFICE & Shane F. Langston, LANGSTON & LANGSTON, PLLC. Bobby Gordon, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. McRae, CHUCK MCRAE LAW OFFICE & Shane F. Langston, LANGSTON & LANGSTON, PLLC. Johnnie Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by Charles R. McRae, CHUCK MCRAE LAW OFFICE & Shane F. Langston, LANGSTON & LANGSTON, PLLC. Richard A. Freese, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Tim K. Goss, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Sheila M. Bossier, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Dennis C. Sweet, III, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Freese and Goss PLLC, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Sweet and Freese PLLC, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Bossier and Associates PLLC, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Dennis C. Sweet, Defendant, represented by Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC, Christopher J. Schwegmann, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Jeffrey M. Tillotson, LYNN, TILLOTSON, PINKER & COX, LLP, Martin Patrick McDowell, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Don A. Mitchell, Defendant, represented by J. Wyatt Hazard, DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL, Jesse Allan Okiror, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP, Mikel J. Bowers, BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN, LLP & Christy Vinson Malatesta, DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL. James W. Shelson, Material Witness, represented by Fred L. Banks, Jr., PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP. Freese and Goss PLLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Richard A. Freese, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Sheila M. Bossier, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Sweet and Freese PLLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Dennis C. Sweet, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Tim K. Goss, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Bossier and Associates PLLC, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Dennis C. Sweet, III, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by R. David Kaufman, BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC & Robert Richard Cirilli, Jr., BRUNINI, GRANTHAM, GROWER & HEWES, PLLC. Don A. Mitchell, Third Party Defendant, represented by J. Wyatt Hazard, DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL & Christy Vinson Malatesta, DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL. GAP SPARTA: Faces "Benitez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- David Benitez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. G.A.P. Sparta Food Service, Inc. d/b/a Savoury Restaurant And Pancake Cafe, Ltd., and Peter Panagakis, Case No. 1:15-cv-03355 (N.D. Ill., April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Kirchinger" Suit Over Car Ignition Switch ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Kirchinger v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02588-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2015) arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on September 12, 2013, involving the Plaintiff. Mr. Kirchinger alleges that on that date, while driving his 2010 Chevrolet Cobalt north on 1-275 in Saint Petersburg, Florida, he figured in an accident with another vehicle. He contends that his airbags failed to deploy causing severe injuries and damages. He alleges that the airbags failed to deploy due to a design defect in the vehicle's ignition switch. Detroit-based General Motors LLC is a citizen of Delaware and Michigan, and does business in all 50 states, including the state of Florida. GM, through its various entities, designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold Chevrolet, Pontiac, Saturn, and other brand automobiles in Florida, elsewhere in the United States, and worldwide. The lawsuit is related to the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14-md-02543-JMF. The litigation involves an alleged unprecedented failure to disclose, indeed, affirmatively to conceal, known dangerous defects in GM vehicles. Since 2002, GM has allegedly sold millions of vehicles throughout the United States and worldwide that have a safety defect in which the vehicle's ignition switch can unintentionally move from the "run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position, resulting in a loss of power, vehicle speed control, and braking, as well as a failure of the vehicle's airbags to deploy, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy M. Carter, Esq. SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, PC 3232 Mckinney Ave., Suite 610 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 276-7680 Facsimile: (214) 276-7699 E-mail: acarter@sgpblaw.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces Suit Alleging Zofran-Related Injuries ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leslie "Casey" and Pam Marlenee, each Individually, and on behalf of M.M., their minor child v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 1:15- cv-00026-SPW-CSO (D. Mont., April 3, 2015) arises from the alleged injuries to M.M. as a result of her prenatal exposures to the prescription drug Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron. Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those patients, who were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable -- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in cancer patients. GSK is a Delaware limited liability company. GSK is the successor in interest to Glaxo, Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome Incorporated. Glaxo, Inc. was the sponsor of the original New Drug Application for Zofran. The Plaintiffs are represented by: A. Clifford Edwards, Esq. Triel D. Culver, Esq. A. Christopher Edwards, Esq. EDWARDS, FRICKLE & CULVER 1648 Poly Drive, Suite 206 Billings, MT 59102 Telephone: (406) 256-8155 Facsimile: (406) 256-8159 E-mail: jenny@edwardslawfirm.org triel@edwardslawfirm.org - and - Peter L. Helland, Esq. HELLAND LAW FIRM 311 Klein Avenue Glasgow, MT 59230 Telephone: (406) 228-9331 Facsimile: (406) 228-9335 E-mail: phelland@nemont.net GRAND BAHAMA: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Momita" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Sonia Momita, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Grand Bahama Cruise Line, LLC, and does 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:15-cv-02828 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of contacting the Plaintiff and Class members on their cellular telephone for non-emergency purposes using a prerecorded message or artificial voice in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Grand Bahama Cruise Line, LLC is a Florida limited liability corporation with its principal place of business at 801 International Parkway, 5th Floor, Lake Mary, Florida 32746 that operates cruise ships. The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. David L. Weisberg, Esq. KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP 12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310)507-7924 Facsimile: (310) 507-7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com david@kristensenlaw.com GRAND SICHUAN: Faces "Lin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Yunjian Lin, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Grand Sichuan 74 St Inc. d/b/a Grand Sichuan 74, Grand Sichuan 75 St Inc. d/b/a Grand Sichuan 74, Li Jiang, and Guang Li Li, Case No. 1:15-cv-02950 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 307 Amsterdam Ave, New York, NY 10023. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Steven Samuel, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: michael@samuelandstein.com GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Morton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Morton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gyro Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Vaughn Energy Services, Case No. 5:15-cv-00290 (W.D. Tex., April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Gyro Technologies, Inc. provides equipment and services to customers in the oil and gas industry and maintains its principle place of business in Corpus Christi, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremi K. Young, Esq. THE YOUNG LAW FIRM 1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200 Amarillo, TX 79101 Telephone: (806) 331-1800 Facsimile: (806) 398-9095 E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com HMO MISSOURI: Removes "Sabatino" Suit to Missouri District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Sabatino, et al. v. HMO Missouri, Inc., et al., Case No. 1522-CC00367, was removed from the Circuit Court of St. Louis City, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00575 to the proceeding. The Action arises from a computer security breach alleged to have compromised the Plaintiffs' personal information. The Plaintiffs' claims include: (1) violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; (2) breach of fiduciary duty based on standards set forth in regulations promulgated pursuant to the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; (3) breach of contract; and (4) negligence. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. Lucy McShane, Esq. MCSHANE AND BRADY LLC 1656 Washington, Suite 140 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Matthew L. Dameron, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON, LLC 1100 Main Street, Ste. 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876-2600 Facsimile: (816) 221-8763 E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com The Defendants are represented by: Neal F. Perryman, Esq. Ronald A. Norwood, Esq. David W. Gearhart, Esq. LEWIS RICE, LLC 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500 St. Louis, MO 63101-1311 Telephone: (314) 444-7661 Facsimile: (314) 612-7661 E-mail: nperryman@lewisrice.com rnorwood@lewisrice.com dgearhart@lewisrice.com - and - Craig A. Hoover, Esq. E. Desmond Hogan, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 Facsimile: (202) 637-5910 E-mail: craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com - and - Michael M. Maddigan, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 785-4600 Facsimile: (310) 785-4601 E-mail: michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com HORIZON MUD: Faces "Melkoski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Melkoski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Horizon Mud Co., Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 00177 (S.D. Tex., April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of forty 40 per week. Horizon Mud Co., Inc. is a drilling fluids company that provides customized fluid solutions and well-site services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet Street Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ James Patrick Griffith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. iDreamSky Technology Limited, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02944-UA (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 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. iDreamSky Technology Limited is a China corporation with its principal executive offices located at 16/F, A3 Building, Kexing Science Park, 15 Keyuan Road North, Nanshan District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 51805 7, People's Republic of China that is purportedly the largest independent mobile game publishing platform in China. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dov Berger, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. GALLET DREYER & BERKEY LLP 845 Third Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 935-3131 Facsimile: (212) 935-4514 E-mail: dab@gdblaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, 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 pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com KIMMEL & GODFREY: "Sams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Casey Sams and Jillian Lockwood, both individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Kimmel & Godfrey Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Fine and Small Homes, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01643-SB (D.S.C., April 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Kimmel & Godfrey Enterprises, LLC owns and operates a digital manufacturing start-up company doing business in Charleston County, South Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Scott Falls, Esq. FALLS LEGAL 245 Seven Farms Drive, Suite 250 Charleston, SC 29492 Telephone: (843) 737-6040 Facsimile: (843) 737-6140 E-mail: scott@falls-legal.com KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Desmond Adams, on behalf of himself and of all others similarly situated v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., and Does 1 to 10, Case No. 8:15-cv-00598 (C.D. Cal., April 16, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of sending automated SMS text messages to mobile telephones for the purpose of marketing or advertising without first obtaining the prior express written consent of the called party. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. is a California corporation that owns and operates a chain of department stores throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent D. Howard, Esq. Gregory H. D. Alumit, Esq. HOWARD LAW, PC 675 Anton Boulevard, First Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 872-5925 Facsimile: (888) 533-7310 E-mail: vhoward@howardlawpc.com galumit@howardlawpc.com - and - David M. Arbogast, Esq. ARBOGAST LAW 8117 W. Manchester Ave., Suite 530 Playa Del Rey, CA 90293 Telephone: (310) 477-7200 Facsimile: (310) 943-0416 E-mail: david@arbogastlawpc.com KRAFT FOODS: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of Wheat Prices ----------------------------------------------------------- Henrik Christensen, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. and Modelez Global LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03367 (N.D. Ill., April 16, 2015), arises from the Defendants' unlawful and intentional manipulation of the prices of cash wheat and wheat futures contracts traded on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) during the period of at least January 1, 2003 through January 2014, in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. is a Virginia corporation, with its corporate headquarters located at Three Lakes Drive, Northfield, Illinois 60093-2753 and is one of the largest consumer packaged food and beverage companies in North America and worldwide. Modelez Global LLC is a Virginia corporation with its principal place of business also located at Three Parkway North, Deerfield, Illinois 60015, which manufactures and markets snack food and beverage products. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Lesht, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE M. CUMMINGS, P.C. 55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 984-0144 Telephone: (312) 948-4403 (direct with voicemail) Facsimile: (312) 984-0146 E-mail: dlesht@emcpc.com KROGER CO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bobko" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Bobko, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Kroger Co. d/b/a King Soopers, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 1:15-cv-00798 (D. Colo., April 15, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of contacting the Plaintiff and Class members on their cellular telephone for non-emergency purposes using a prerecorded message or artificial voice in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Kroger Co. is an Ohio corporation that maintains its headquarters at 1014 Vine Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, which owns and operates 2,625 grocery retail stores throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jenny Diane DeFrancisco, Esq. LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES L.L.C. 1100 Summer Street, 3rd Floor Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 Facsimile: (203) 653-3424 E-mail: jdefrancisco@lemberglaw.com LAS VEGAS SANDS: Faces Class Action Over Hidden Resort Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- Hugo Martin, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that if you have ever glanced at your hotel receipt only to be stunned to see an unexpected $28 resort fee, help may be on the way. A Studio City man has filed a class-action suit against a Las Vegas casino, claiming that the resort is guilty of false and misleading advertising for failing to clearly disclose a mandatory resort fee at the time that he booked the room. The practice is not unique to Las Vegas. Undisclosed resort fees are such a prevalent problem that the Federal Trade Commission sent out a letter to 22 hotel companies in 2012, warning that their online reservation sites "may violate the law by providing a deceptively low estimate of what consumers can expect to pay for their hotel rooms." In the lawsuit, Benjamin Brin said he booked a three-night stay at the Palazzo hotel in Las Vegas in June of last year. The booking website said he would pay a total rate of $209, excluding taxes and fees. Once he received his billing receipt, Mr. Brin learned that he was charged a "resort fee" of $28 a night. "This rate is not the accurate quote of the nightly cost of the hotel per night," the lawsuit contends. "Nowhere in the reservation system page, including the price, is the resort fee specified." A spokesman for Las Vegas Sands Corp., the owner of the Palazzo and the Venetian casinos, declined to comment on the suit. Brian Kabateck, an attorney for Mr. Brin, said he has heard from many hotel guests who have groused about being surprised by resort fees on their hotel receipts. "This is really an insidious practice," he said. Although the U.S. Department of Transportation regularly imposes fines against airlines that fail to disclose the full airfare, there may be too many hotels in the U.S. for the Federal Trade Commission to enforce the disclosure law on hotels, Mr. Kabateck said. "The U.S. has a very definite number of airlines," he said. "When you are dealing with hotels, you have too many to track. Just consider in Las Vegas alone how many hotels you have." LENOVO (US) INC: Faces "Babbitt" Suit Over Harmful Spyware ---------------------------------------------------------- Ross M. Babbitt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc. and Superfish, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01712 (N.D. Cal., April 15, 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: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com - and - Daniel R. Karon, Esq. Beau D. Hollowell, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. Saint Clair Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 551-9175 Facsimile: (216) 241-8175 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com bhollowell@karonllc.com - and - Vincent J. Esades, Esq. James W. Anderson, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON PLC 310 Clifton Ave. Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 Facsimile: (612) 338-4692 E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com janderson@heinsmills.com LITTLE LUKE: E.D.N.Y. Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss Mendoza Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Joanna Seybert of the Eastern District of New York denied defendants' motion in the case OSCAR G. MERCADO MENDOZA, FRANKLIN ORTIZ, and NOHVIS REYES, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LITTLE LUKE, INC. d/b/a PEDESTALS FLORIST; and PHILIP SAMMUT, jointly and severally, Defendants, NO. 14-CV-3416 (JS)(GRB) (E.D.N.Y.) Little Luke is a New York corporation d/b/a Pedestals Florist in Garden City Park, New York and Philip Sammut is the owner, officer, and manager of the business. The plaintiffs Oscar G. Mercado Mendoza, Franklin Ortiz, and Nohvis Reyes were employed by the defendants as florists. Plaintiffs commenced a putative collective and class action on May 30, 2014 against defendants, asserting several violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law (NYLL), N.Y. LAB. LAW Section 190 et seq. Plaintiffs specifically claim that defendants failed to pay overtime compensation and minimum wage, failed to pay uniform maintenance as required by the NYLL and had failed to post and provide certain notices required by the FLSA and the NYLL. The Amended Complaint alleges that plaintiffs worked in excess of forty hours many workweeks but defendants willfully failed to pay overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay as required by the FLSA and the NYLL. Defendants move to dismiss the original and amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Judge Seybert denied defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and denied the motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot. A copy of Judge Seybert's memorandum and order dated March 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/n49eCRfrom Leagle.com For Plaintiffs: Justin A. Zeller, Esq. Brandon David Sherr, Esq. The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C. 277 Broadway #408 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: 212-229-2249 For Defendants Jonathan Michael Bardavid, Esq. Jael Dumornay, Esq. Trivella & Forte, LLP 1311 Mamaroneck Ave # 170 White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: 914-949-9075 MENDEZ CLEANING: Faces "Soriano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose M. Soriano, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Mendez Cleaning Services Corporation, and Mirna I. Mendez, Case No. 1:15-cv-03371 (N.D. Ill., April 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a cleaning service business in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com MERRILL LYNCH: Faces "Reibum" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Ronni Reibum and Samuel Jorgenson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and Bank Of America Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-02960 (S.D.N.Y., April 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Bank of America Corporation, provide financial and investment services to customers across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo Chagas Meireles, Esq. Susan Hilary Stern, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A 1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com sstern@shavitzlaw.com - and - Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com - and - Juno Emmeline Turner, Esq. Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. Katrina L. Eiland, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (212) 977-4005 E-mail: jturner@outtengolden.com jms@outtengolden.com keiland@outtengolden.com MF GLOBAL: June 26 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Bleichmar Fonti Tountas & Auld LLP on April 9 issued a statement regarding the In re MF Global Holdings Limited Securities Litigation. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE MF GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION, Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-07866-VM THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Securities Actions, (DeAngelis v. Corzine), ECF CASE SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS; (II) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT WITH CERTAIN UNDERWRITER DEFENDANTS; AND (III) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING TO: All persons and entities who or which, during the period beginning on May 20, 2010 through and including November 21, 2011, purchased or otherwise acquired MF Global Settling Underwriter Securities1 and were damaged thereby (the "Underwriter Settlement Class") PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above- captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action for the purposes of settlement only on behalf of the Underwriter Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Underwriter Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Certification of Settlement Class; (II) Proposed Settlement with Certain Underwriter Defendants; and (III) Settlement Fairness Hearing (the "Underwriter Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed partial settlement of the Action for $74,000,000 in cash (the "Underwriter Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims asserted against certain of the underwriter defendants in the Action. A complete list of the Settling Underwriter Defendants is set forth in the Underwriter Notice. The proposed Underwriter Settlement does not resolve any claims against the other Defendants in the Action, which is continuing to be litigated. A hearing will be held on June 26, 2015 at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Victor Marrero at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Courtroom 11B of the United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 to determine: (i) whether the proposed Underwriter Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as against the Settling Underwriter Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Certain Underwriter Defendants dated November 25, 2014 (and in the Underwriter Notice) should be granted. If you are a member of the Underwriter Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the proposed Underwriter Settlement and any orders or judgments related to the Underwriter Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Underwriter Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Underwriter Notice, you may obtain a copy by contacting the Notice Administrator at In re MF Global Holdings Limited Securities Litigation, c/o Garden City Group, LLC, P.O. Box 10164, Dublin, OH 43017-3164, or calling toll-free 1-877-940-5045. Copies of the Underwriter Notice can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Notice Administrator, www.MFGlobalSecuritiesClassAction.com A Proof of Claim Form is not being disseminated at this time. To participate in the Underwriter Settlement, you will be required to submit a Proof of Claim Form that will be disseminated at a future date. Many copies of the full notice are being forwarded to potential settlement class members through brokers and other nominees. If you have not yet received the full Underwriter Notice by mail, or if you do not receive a copy in the mail in the next few weeks, please contact the Notice Administrator at the address above to request that you be added to its mailing list for the In re MF Global Holdings Limited Securities Litigation. PLEASE NOTE: The Proof of Claim Form, when it becomes available, and other notices in the Action will be posted on the website referred to in the preceding paragraph. Please check it periodically. If you are a member of the Underwriter Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the class, you must submit a written request for exclusion such that it is received no later than May 29, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Underwriter Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Underwriter Settlement Class, you will also be excluded from any other classes that may be certified in the Action in which you would otherwise be a member, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Underwriter Settlement or any other recoveries that might be obtained in the Action. Any objections to the proposed Underwriter Settlement must be filed with the Court and delivered to Co-Lead Counsel and Settling Underwriter Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than May 29, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Underwriter Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants or their counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice or the proposed Underwriter Settlement should be directed to Co-Lead Counsel or the Notice Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Underwriter Notice, should be made to Co-Lead Counsel: BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 (800) 380-8496 blbg@blbglaw.com or BLEICHMAR FONTI TOUNTAS & AULD LLP Javier Bleichmar, Esq. 7 Times Square, 27th Floor New York, NY 10036 (212) 789-1341 bfta@bftalaw.com Requests for the Underwriter Notice or to be added to the mailing list for future notices in the Action should be made to: In re MF Global Holdings Limited Securities Litigation c/o Garden City Group, LLC P.O. Box 10164 Dublin, OH 43017-3164 (877) 940-5045 www.MFGlobalSecuritiesClassAction.com By Order of the Court 1 The MF Global Settling Underwriter Securities are: MF Global common stock purchased in or traceable to the secondary offering pursuant to a Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-162119, dated February 24, 2010, a Preliminary Prospectus Supplement dated June 1, 2010, and a Final Prospectus supplement dated June 3, 2010 (CUSIP 55277J108); MF Global's 1.875% Convertible Senior Notes due February 1, 2016 issued on or about February 7, 2011 (CUSIP 55277JAA6); MF Global's 3.375% Convertible Senior Notes due August 1, 2018 issued on or about July 28, 2011 (CUSIP 55277JAB4); and MF Global's 6.25% Senior Notes due August 8, 2016 issued on or about August 1, 2011 (CUSIP 55277JAC2). MINE SAFETY: "Murray" Personal Injury Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant 3M Company removed the lawsuit titled Murray v. Mine Safety Appliances Company, et al., Case No. CV-2014-451-2, from the Jefferson County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Pine Bluff). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00101-JM to the proceeding. The action is brought for personal injuries arising under the Federal Employers Liability Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick C. Malouf, Esq. Timothy W. Porter, Esq. John T. Givens, Esq. PORTER & MALOUF, PA Post Office Box 12768 Jackson, MS 39236-2768 Telephone: (601) 957-1173 Facsimile: (601) 957-7366 E-mail: patrick@portermalouf.com tim@portermalouf.com johnny@potermalouf.com - and - R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq. THE SMITH LAW FIRM, PLLC 681 Towne Center Blvd., Suite B Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 952-1422 Facsimile: (601) 952-1426 E-mail: allen@smith-law.org Defendant and Cross Defendant 3M Company is represented by: Mary Clay Morgan, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLC 188 East Capitol Street, Suite 400 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8000 Facsimile: (601) 948-3000 E-mail: mmorgan@babc.com Defendant and Cross Claimant E D Bullard Company is represented by: D. Michael Huckabay, Jr., Esq. James Tucker Sayes, Esq. HUCKABAY LAW FIRM Simmons Tower, Suite 1575 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 375-5600 Facsimile: (501) 375-5605 E-mail: michael@huckabaylawfirm.com jay@huckabaylawfirm.com NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bids for Women's Prison 50% Higher Than Budgeted --------------------------------------------------------------- WMUR9abc reports that construction bids for the new women's prison have come in over 50 percent higher than budgeted, requiring a redesign and delaying its opening at least a year, until late 2017, state officials say. A class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of inmates over conditions and lack of programming at the women's prison in Goffstown was put on hold last year after the legislature approved $38 million for the new women's prison. But the bids came in April at $58 million, and officials say they are going back to the drawing board to radically amend the design. Elliott Berry, one of the lead lawyers for the inmates, said the legal team will be meeting to consider what action to take. "It's been a long time since they were first ordered to do this," Mr. Berry said, referring to nearly three decades of court orders to build a new women's prison to remedy disparities in the programs and facilities for male and female inmates. At the request of Corrections and Administrative Services officials, Gov. Maggie Hassan in her budget proposal last month allocated an additional $12.6 million for construction of the new prison, originally slated to open in late 2016. Officials say they are going to scale back what was expected to be a four- building, campus-style prison behind the men's prison in Concord. Both designs aim to house 224 inmates. "It's a no-brainer," said Michael Connor, deputy commissioner of the Department of Administrative Services. "We may be looking more monolithic than campus." Mr. Connor said that the construction industry is picking up and that contractors are getting picky. About 20 contracts were put out for bid on the project, and some, such as fencing, netted only one bidder. "Disappointment would be an understatement," Mr. Connor said. Corrections Commissioner William Wrenn said he's open to any design that allows his department to provide programs and treatment facilities the women need. "Any delay is a disservice to the inmates," he said. House Finance Committee Chairman Neal Kurk said another concern with the four-building campus approach is spiraling staffing costs. Gov. Hassan's budget request for permanent, classified positions at the women's prison in fiscal year 2017 is $3.7 million more than triple that of 2014. "I think it would be much more cost-efficient from a labor point of view to have all these facilities in a single structure," Mr. Kurk said. Rep. Gene Chandler (R-Carroll), chairman of the Public Works and Highways Committee, agrees. "Once it's built, it gets staffed forever," Mr. Chandler said. NEW YORK, NY: To Implement Broad Changes to Summons System ---------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Davis O'Brien and Pervaiz Shallwani, writing for The Wall Street Journal, report that New York officials are pursuing broad changes to the city's overwhelmed summons system, part of an effort to handle low-level offenses more efficiently and fairly, officials and advocates say. The changes, which city and state officials are expected to announce in the coming days, include providing more ways for summons recipients to pay fines, tighter controls for police- issued summonses and better training for judicial-hearing officers and assigned counsel in the summons courts, according to people familiar with the discussions. "What we want to do is examine this whole issue from top to bottom," said Jonathan Lippman, chief judge for the New York State Court of Appeals, whose office has been working on the changes with the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice and the New York Police Department. "Not just how those parts run, what the experiences of people who come into those parts are, but also, what are we trying to do there?" he added. "I don't think that's crystal clear right now." Summonses are tickets issued by NYPD and other law-enforcement agencies for low-level infractions, most of which must be answered and paid in person on a specific date in one of the city's eight summons courts. In 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, more than 458,000 summonses -- for offenses such as public urination, riding bicycles on the sidewalk and drinking alcohol from open containers in public places -- were filed in the city. More than 19% were dismissed for defects in the complaint or legal insufficiencies, while about 5% were paid by mail. Almost a quarter of those who received a summons pleaded guilty but never paid the fines. Fewer than 1% went to trial, according to city statistics. Summons payments in 2013 totaled $8.8 million, more than a quarter of the city criminal-court-system's revenue. Rory Lancman, a Queens Democrat who is chairman of the City Council committee on courts and legal services, called summons court "a broken-windows court," referring to the law-enforcement strategy popularized by Police Commissioner William Bratton. In December, Mr. Lancman led a council hearing at which representatives from public-defense and civil-rights groups said summons courts were marked by opaque proceedings and poor legal representation. They also described the far-reaching effects of summonses. Though the fines are typically less than $100, paying them amounts to pleading guilty, which can result in summons recipients losing jobs, financial aid and even beds in homeless shelters, as well as delayed immigration hearings, the lawyers and advocates said. Elizabeth Glazer, director of the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice, which has coordinated the summons overhaul effort, told the council there was a need to "tighten up" the system. Since then, summons courts have become a "very high priority" in City Hall, said Mr. Lancman, who has dubbed the system "Turnstile Justice." Another concern among those pursuing changes to the summons system is the proliferation of bench warrants, according to people familiar with the discussions. If someone fails to appear in court on his or her assigned day, an arrest warrant can be issued. About 73,000 such warrants were active in 2014 stemming from summonses issued in 2013, officials said. Officials have discussed changing the summons form to include the recipient's race and ethnicity, which could be used to monitor how summonses are issued. Other proposed changes include a hotline offering summons-payment options and treating more summonses like traffic tickets, which could be paid by mail, said an NYPD official familiar with the discussions. The push for change in the summons system comes as other aspects of New York's criminal-justice practices are being debated. In recent months, there have been proposals to move 16- and 17-year- olds out of adult courts, as well as calls for a more open grand- jury process and more attention to mental-health issues in the criminal-justice system. "We are doing this wholesale re-evaluation of the gradation of crimes," said Richard Aborn, president of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York, a criminal-justice advocacy group. In November, the city switched to summonses, rather than arrests, for people stopped with small amounts of marijuana. Despite fears that this would lead to summons courts flooded with marijuana cases, from Nov. 19, 2014, to March 15, 2015, marijuana summonses decreased 1.2% from the same period a year earlier. Marijuana arrests dropped 60% over the same period, NYPD data show. Total summons filings in New York City have fallen from a high of 648,638 in 2005, and records show further declines in 2014 and 2015. Summonses issued by the NYPD, aside from those related to parking or traffic violations, are down 35% so far this year compared with the same period in 2014, according to police records. The city's summons system faces challenges in federal court and from local law enforcement. A civil-rights class-action lawsuit pending against the city in Manhattan federal court alleges that summonses were issued without probable cause to satisfy police quotas and disproportionately affected minority communities. The city has denied the charges. Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson raised alarm about the system last fall, when he visited the summons court at 346 Broadway, a dingy building that serves Manhattan and Brooklyn and handled about 145,000 scheduled arraignments in 2013. Its courtrooms can be crowded and disorderly, with summons recipients called to the bench in quick succession, without time to confer with court-assigned counsel and often without an explanation of their rights as they are urged to pay their fines. "That assembly-line approach I think raises some due-process concerns," Mr. Thompson said last fall. "I didn't see individuals being told the consequences of their plea. The fact that bench warrants are almost automatically issued for people who don't appear even once is troubling." The court faces an additional problem: The city's lease at 346 Broadway expires this year, and the building is set to be converted to luxury condominiums. A new location for the court hasn't been announced. NO PLACE: Faces "Glasper" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Darrick Glasper, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. No Place Like Home, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02253 (W.D. Tenn., April 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. No Place Like Home, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation that provides home healthcare services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Randolph Scott Jackson Jr., Esq. R. SCOTT JACKSON JR. LAW FIRM 4525 Harding Road, Ste 200 Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (615) 313-8188 E-mail: rsjackson@rsjacksonlaw.com OCWEN FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Greco" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Greco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and John Doe (1-10), Case No. 2:15-cv-02669 -CCC-MF (D.N.J., April 15, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of contacting the Plaintiff and Class members on their cellular telephone for non-emergency purposes using a prerecorded message or artificial voice in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendants are providers of residential and commercial mortgage loan servicing, special servicing and asset management services The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW, LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, New Jersey 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com OHIO: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of "R. Harris" DRC Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, affirmed the July 23, 2014 judgment of the Court of Claims dismissing appellant's complaint in Ronald E. Harris, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 14AP-668. Mr. Harris filed the complaint in April 2014 against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) making various allegations, the essence of which was that he was purportedly exposed to asbestos while an inmate at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution and was denied participation in a class action lawsuit, and settlement regarding the same, in the federal courts. See Smith v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., S.D.Ohio No. 2:08-CV-15 (Apr. 26, 2012). In a decision dated March 31, 2015 available at http://is.gd/btjzZifrom Leagle.com, the Ohio appeals court hold that: -- The Court of Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider appellant's claims for relief grounded upon the DRC's alleged violations of appellant's constitutional rights as specified in the complaint. Thus, the Court of Claims did not err when it dismissed those claims. -- Appellant filed his complaint in 2014, over two years from when he first learned of his injury. The trial court properly applied R.C. 2743.16(A) to bar appellant's complaint pursuant to the statute of limitations. -- Appellant states that "all courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and shall have justice administered without denial or delays. To the extent appellant assigns error that he is being denied due process, the Ohio appeals court overrules that assignment of error. Ronald E. Harris, II, pro se. Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Amber Wootoon Hertlein and Peter E. DeMarco, for appellee. ORLANDO HEALTH: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over FICA Tax Refund ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Bryan Reuss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Orlando Health, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-60808-RNS (S.D. Fla., April 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose or otherwise act on the existence of the 2001- 05 refund opportunity pertaining to Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) employer and employee payments made on behalf of medical residents. Orlando Health, Inc. operates eight hospitals in Orlando, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jordan M. Lewis, Esq. KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC 700 S. E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 522-6601 Facsimile: (954) 522-6608 E-mail: jml@kulaw.com - and - T. Scott Tufts, Esq. TUFTS LAW FIRM, PLLC 111 South Maitland Avenue, Suite 101 Maitland, FL 32751 Telephone: (407) 647-8886 Facsimile: (407) 641-8082 E-mail: stufts@tuftslawfirm.com PIPE TRADES: Sued Over Failure to Remit Plan Contributions ---------------------------------------------------------- Jack E. Neal, Jr., James Johnson, and United Association of Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 440 Health and Welfare Fund v. Pipe Trades Industry Health and Welfare Fund, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00609 (S.D. Ind., April 16, 2015), alleges that the Defendant failed to reciprocate all contributions made on behalf of the Local 661 members based upon all hours worked in October 2013 and all subsequent months. Pipe Trades Industry Health and Welfare Fund is an employee benefit plan maintains its office and principal place of business in Terre Haute, Indiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Richard Myers Jr., Esq. Frederick W. Dennerline III, Esq. FILLENWARTH DENNERLINE GROTH & TOWE LLP 429 E. Vermont Street, Suite 200 Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: (317) 353-9363 Facsimile: (317) 391-7232 E-mail: jmyers@fdgtlaborlaw.com fdennerline@fdgtlaborlaw.com PIZZA PROFITS: Plaintiffs File Amended "Koch" Class Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to a February 20, 2015 order granting the Defendants' motion to sever, Chief Judge Brian S. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas directed the Clerk of Court to sever the case captioned Jacqueline L. Conners, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Catfish Pies, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14CV000002 BSM, and to open two new cases and docket the lawsuits of (1) Whitney Koch and Maria Campanelli against Pizza Profits, Three Buddies, and Ben Biesenthal; and (2) Cecilie Washburn against Show Me Pies, Three Buddies, and Ben Biesenthal. On April 3, 2015, Whitney Koch and Maria Campanelli filed their amended complaint captioned Koch, et al. v. Pizza Profits Inc., et al. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00190-BSM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is a collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for wages owed. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John T. Holleman, Esq. Maryna O. Jackson, Esq. Matthew Michael Ford, Esq. Timothy A. Steadman, Esq. HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1008 West 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 975-5040 Facsimile: (501) 975-5043 E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net maryna@johnholleman.net matthew@johnholleman.net tim@johnholleman.net Defendants Pizza Profits Inc., Three Buddies Incorporated and Benjamin Biesenthal are represented by: Ashley R. Hudson, Esq. Genoveva Gilbert, Esq. James Matthew Gary, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3740 Telephone: (501) 975-3116 Facsimile: (501) 975-3001 E-mail: ashley.hudson@kutakrock.com genoveva.gilbert@kutakrock.com james.gary@kutakrock.com - and - Matthew Scott Jackson, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 234 East Millsap Road, Suite 400 Fayetteville, AR 72703-4099 Telephone: (479) 973-4200 Facsimile: (479) 973-0007 E-mail: scott.jackson@kutakrock.com PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Fuerst" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Mary Fuerst, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 3:15-cv-00060- TBM (D. Alaska, April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to properly secure and protect its users' sensitive, personally-identifiable information and personal health information. Premera Blue Cross is a health plan provider headquartered in Montlake Terrace, Washington. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas V. Wang, Esq. ASHBURN & MASON, P.C. 1227 West 9th Ave., Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 276-4331 Facsimile: (907) 277-8235 E-mail: thomas@anchorlaw.com - and - Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Theodore W. Maya, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 1016 Palm Ave. West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq. KYROS LAW OFFICES 17 Miles Road Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (800) 934-2921 Facsimile: (617) 583-1905 E-mail: kon@kyroslaw.com RAWLINGS FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Papetti" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Papetti, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rawlings Financial Services, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:15-cv-02933 (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Rawlings Financial Services, LLC is engage in business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another with it business located at 1 Eden Parkway, LaGrange, Kentucky 40031-2020. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 459-7971 Facsimile: (646) 459-7973 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com - and - Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 459-797 Facsimile: (646) 459-7973 E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com REAL TIME: Illegally Collects Debt, "Greco" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Greco, Executor of the Estate of Frank W. Greco and all others similarly situated v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:15-cv-02931-CM (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Real Time Resolutions, Inc. is a collection agency with its principal office located at 1349 Empire Central Drive, Ste 150, Dallas, Texas 75247. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (646) 459-7971 Facsimile: (646) 459-7973 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com - and - Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, New York 10017 Telephone: (646) 459-7971 Facsimile: (646) 459-7973 E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com - and - Ari Marcus, Esq. MARCUS LAW, LLC 15 00 Allaire A venue, Suite 101 Ocean, New Jersey 07712 Telephone: (732) 660-8169 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 RHEEM MANUFACTURING: D. Ariz. Judge Narrows Claims in Delta Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick of the District of Arizona granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case Delta Mechanical, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Rheem Manufacturing Company, et al., Defendants, NO. 2:06-CV-01095-JWS (D. Ariz.) The defendants Rheem Manufacturing Company, American Water Heater Company, Bradford White Corporation, A.O. Smith Corporation, and Lochnivar Corporation are manufacturers of water heater tanks. Defendants were involved in a class action lawsuit, by which they agreed to facilitate the repair of defective water heaters that they had manufactured. Delta Mechanical, Inc. is a plumbing company and was among the authorized service providers enlisted to perform dip tube replacements. In applying to be an authorized service provider, Delta agreed to abide by the terms set forth in a pamphlet entitled. Delta filed a lawsuit in Arizona state court, asserting claims against defendants and the administrator of the settlement agreement for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. Delta maintains in its complaint that it performed hundreds of dip tube replacements between January 2000 and December 2001 for class members who had submitted proof-of-claim forms, but that defendants, through the claims administrator, never issued certificates to those class members despite their eligibility for benefits. Specifically, Delta seeks payment from defendants for 2,611 dip tube services it allegedly performed for customers it believes are entitled to benefits under the agreement. The case was removed to federal court on the basis of diversity. In June 2007, the court dismissed Delta's promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment claims based on the applicable statutes of limitation. In a separate order, the court dismissed Delta's breach-of-contract and good faith claims, holding that Delta was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the court's determination, stating that the evidentiary record on this issue demonstrates that at this early stage of the case, whether Delta was or was not a third-party beneficiary is a genuine issue of material fact that might survive summary judgment. Defendants again moved for summary judgment as to whether Delta was a third-party beneficiary. The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the ground that Delta was not a third- party beneficiary of the Agreement under Missouri law. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals again reversed and remanded the case to the district. Defendants again move for summary judgment. They argue that Delta has not and cannot establish compliance with the claims protocol as to any of the 2,611 service claims Delta contends are eligible for payment under the Agreement, and because compliance with the claims protocol was a condition that must have been followed before a class member could avail herself of the benefits under the Agreement, payment is not due. Judge Sedwick granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing is dismissed. Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract survives because there appears to be a genuine issue of fact as to whether defendants impliedly waived the requirement that a class member receive a certificate before obtaining repair services. A copy of Judge Sedwick's final order and opinion dated March 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/K6sDCofrom Leagle.com Delta Mechanical Incorporated, an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff, represented by: Claudio Eduardo Iannitelli, Esq. Paul Keith Frame, Esq. CHEIFETZ IANNITELLI MARCOLINI PC 111 West Monroe Street, 17th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: 602-952-6000 Facsimile: 602-952-7020 Rheem Manufacturing Company, A Delaware corporation, American Water Heater Company, a Nevada corporation, A.O. Smith Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Lochinvar Corporation, a Tennessee corporation, and Bradford White Corporation, Defendants, represented by: Kenneth Harold Brendel, Esq. MANGUM WALL STOOPS & WARDEN PLLC 100 North Elden Street Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Telephone: 928-779-6951 ROBERT M. SPANO: "Boyle" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Boyle, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by Robert M. Spano Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Robert M. Spano Plumbing & Heating, Inc. et al, Case No. 7:15-cv-02899-KMK (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Robert M. Spano Plumbing & Heating, Inc. is a New York corporation, with its principal place of business located at 152 Adams St., Bedford Hills, NY 10507, which is engaged in plumbing business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Kevin Brown, Esq. LEEDS MORELLI & BROWN One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Karl Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Facsimile: (516) 747-5024 E-mail: jbrown@lmblaw.com - and - Lloyd Robert Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: lambinder@bivas.net SABA DIPPING: Recalls Hummus Products Over Listeria Contamination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Abrams, writing for The New York Times, reports that two food manufacturers have issued nationwide recalls of products because of the discovery of the potentially lethal bacterium listeria, which federal authorities have now linked to three deaths and five illnesses in Texas and Kansas. On April 8, the Sabra Dipping Company recalled 30,000 cases of its classic hummus after one tub in Michigan tested positive for the food-borne bacteria. No illnesses related to the hummus have been reported so far, according to Jennifer Holton, a spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Separately, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed that three people in Texas fell ill after eating Blue Bell ice cream from 2011 to 2014. The agency had already connected the company with three listeria-related deaths and two additional cases. The agency is investigating three more potential cases, according to Dr. Rob Tauxe, deputy director of the C.D.C.'s Division of Foodborne, Waterborne and Environmental Diseases, which would bring the total number of cases to 11. The agency initially linked five patients at a hospital in Kansas who fell ill from January 2014 to January 2015 to Blue Bell Products. The C.D.C. determined that at least four had consumed milkshakes made with Blue Bell ice cream. Listeria is among the most dangerous food-borne illnesses, particularly to people with compromised immune systems, although it is much more rare than other common diseases like salmonella poisoning. The C.D.C. estimates that about 380 people die of salmonella every year, which translates to less than 1 percent of about one million annual cases. About 260 people, or about 16 percent of about 1,600 cases, die of listeria every year. Symptoms include headaches, fever and abdominal pain. Consumers who were exposed to Blue Bell or Sabra products and exhibit signs of illness should contact their doctors, Dr. Tauxe said. Consumers who have been exposed but do not exhibit symptoms probably have little reason to worry, he added. Health officials say that consumers should wrap potentially contaminated products in plastic before throwing them away. Closed containers that have not spilled do not pose a significant risk of spreading listeria to other areas of the home. Blue Bell has been expanding a recall of its products over listeria concerns since March, when the company recalled 10 frozen snack items manufactured at a plant in Brenham, Tex., where Blue Bell is based. The company said it was its first recall in 108 years. "This is really surprising, very startling and distressing to the company," said Gene Grabowski, a Blue Bell spokesman. Days later, the company recalled its chocolate, vanilla and strawberry three-ounce cups manufactured at a second plant in Broken Arrow, Okla. Those cups were available only to institutional buyers like schools and hospitals, Mr. Grabowski said, and not to the public. Blue Bell expanded the recall a third time in April to include banana pudding, butter crunch, mint chocolate chip, cookies 'n cream, homemade vanilla, Dutch chocolate and "moo-llennium crunch" flavors of ice cream manufactured from Feb. 12 through March 27 at the Broken Arrow plant. In a statement on its website, Blue Bell said that it suspended operations at the Broken Arrow plant on April 3, and that it was "working with retail outlets to remove all products" made there. The company hopes to resume operations at the plant in the next seven to 10 days, Mr. Grabowski said, once it has identified the source of the contamination and sterilized the facilities. Blue Bell is offering a full refund for all products made at its Broken Arrow plant. Such products are stamped with a six-digit code and the letter "O," "P," "Q," "R," "S" or "T." Ice cream, unlike hummus, can stay good in a freezer for years, posing a challenge to health officials. "We are concerned that there may be contaminated ice cream still in people's freezers," Dr. Tauxe said. "It appears that products from the Oklahoma facility may have been contaminated for some time." An outbreak of listeria traced to cantaloupe killed 33 people in 2011 and sickened more than 140 others. In March, a district court judge approved settlements for the families of 30 people who died. The Sabra and Blue Bell recalls follow three other recent food recalls over listeria concerns. Amy's Kitchen, the maker of organic frozen meals, recalled about 74,000 cases of prepackaged products. Wegmans Food Markets issued a recall of more than 12,000 packages of organic spinach, while the Carmel Food Group recalled some of its Rising Moon Organics frozen ravioli. SHOW ME PIES: Plaintiff Files Amended "Washburn" FLSA Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to a February 20, 2015 order granting the Defendants' motion to sever, Chief Judge Brian S. Miller of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas directed the Clerk of Court to sever the case captioned Jacqueline L. Conners, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Catfish Pies, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14CV000002 BSM, and to open two new cases and docket the lawsuits of (1) Whitney Koch and Maria Campanelli against Pizza Profits, Three Buddies, and Ben Biesenthal; and (2) Cecilie Washburn against Show Me Pies, Three Buddies, and Ben Biesenthal. On April 3, 2015, Cecilie Washburn filed an amended complaint captioned Washburn v. Show Me Pies Inc., et al. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00191-BSM to the proceeding. The lawsuit is a collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act for wages owed. The Plaintiff is represented by: John T. Holleman, Esq. Maryna O. Jackson, Esq. Matthew Michael Ford, Esq. Timothy A. Steadman, Esq. HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1008 West 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 975-5040 Facsimile: (501) 975-5043 E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net maryna@johnholleman.net matthew@johnholleman.net tim@johnholleman.net Defendants Show Me Pies Inc., Three Buddies Incorporated and Ben Bisenthal are represented by: Ashley R. Hudson, Esq. Genoveva Gilbert, Esq. James Matthew Gary, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201-3740 Telephone: (501) 975-3116 Facsimile: (501) 975-3001 E-mail: ashley.hudson@kutakrock.com genoveva.gilbert@kutakrock.com james.gary@kutakrock.com - and - Matthew Scott Jackson, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 234 East Millsap Road, Suite 400 Fayetteville, AR 72703-4099 Telephone: (479) 973-4200 Facsimile: (479) 973-0007 E-mail: scott.jackson@kutakrock.com SISTAR BEAUTY: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Lyndsy Jones, Shadiy Smith, LaShear Allen, Jakia Neeley and Tsedkeyah Pittman, on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly situated known and unknown v. Sistar Beauty Corporation and Sang W. Lew, Case No. 1:15-cv-03359 (N.D. Ill., April 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Sistar Beauty Corporation is an Illinois corporation that is a retailer of beauty and hair supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarmistha Banerjee, Esq. David J. Fish, Esq. THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C. 200 E 5th Ave Suite 123 Naperville, IL 60563 Telephone: (630) 355-7590 Facsimile: (630) 929-7590 E-mail: buri@fishlawfirm.com dfish@fishlawfirm.com STATE FARM: Judge Trims Claims in "Thornell" Suit ------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the Western District of Washington granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions in the case SANDRA THORNELL, Plaintiff, v. SEATTLE SERV. BUREAU, INC., and STATE FARM MUT. AUTO INS. CO., Defendants, CASE NO. C14- 1601 MJP (W.D. Wash.) The plaintiff Sandra Thornell is a resident of Texas, who brought a putative class action against State Farm, an Illinois corporation, and Seattle Service Bureau (SSB), a Washington corporation, alleging unjust enrichment and Washington Consumer Protection Act violations (WCPA). The violations stem from an allegedly deceptive practice by State Farm of referring unliquidated subrogation claims to SSB, which then sends debt collection letters demanding a specified sum to persons against whom the claims could be brought. Plaintiff further alleges she enrolled in a credit monitoring program at her expense and sought and retained counsel as a result of the debt collection letters she received from SSB on behalf of State Farm. Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company's filed a motion to dismiss and motion to Strike and defendant SSB Joins State Farm's motion to dismiss and motion to strike. Defendant State Farm first asserts it is not directly or vicariously liable for the actions of SSB. Also defendant State Farm argues the Washington Consumer Protection Act does not apply to claims made by plaintiffs who are not Washington citizens, particularly against non-Washington corporations. Defendant Seattle Service Bureau incorporates the arguments made by State Farm on this topic and further argues that Texas law should control. State Farm and SSB argue plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim fails because plaintiff cannot allege she conferred any benefit on State Farm or SSB. Defendant State Farm argues plaintiff's requests for injunctive and declaratory relief must be dismissed because plaintiff's injuries are adequately addressed by monetary relief. Finally, defendants ask that plaintiff's class allegation be struck under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). Chief District Judge Pechman granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim and also granted defendants' request to certify questions regarding extraterritorial application of the WCPA. Judge Pechman denied defendants' motions to strike class allegations and the motion to dismiss plaintiff's request for injunctive and declaratory relief. A copy of Chief Judge Pechman's order dated March 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/tZEjEm from Leagle.com Sandra Thornell, Plaintiff, represented by James L Kauffman -- jkauffman@baileyglasser.com -- Michael L Murphy -- mmurphy@baileyglasser.com -- at Bailey & Glasser LLP; Beth E Terrell -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC Seattle Serv. Bureau, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey I Hasson -- hasson@dhlaw.biz -- at DAVENPORT & HASSON State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Defendant, represented by Cornelius M. Murphy -- nmurphy@winston.com -- Thomas J. Frederick -- tfrederi@winston.com -- at WINSTON & STRAWN; Daniel L Syhre -- dsyhre@bpmlaw.com -- Joseph D Hampton -- jhampton@bpmlaw.com -- at BETTS PATTERSON & MINES TAISHAN GYPSUM: Homeowners in Drywall Settlement Face Tax Woes -------------------------------------------------------------- Josh Salman, writing for Herald Tribune, reports that Colleen Stephens discovered her Virginia home was built with toxic Chinese drywall six years ago. Even today, many homeowners are still battling to receive reimbursements for damage and health effects of the faulty drywall. U.S. consumers who have been hurt by defective products made by in China often have little recourse. But in a recent turn of events, Chinese drywall manufacturer Taishan Gypsum Co. has agreed to pay the damages owed to some impacted homeowners. The judgment against the Taishan, a state-controlled company, dates to 2010, when a New Orleans federal judge ruled that the drywall maker was liable for $2.6 million to fix the homes of seven Virginia families. The seven were used as a so-called bellwether case -- a test trial of sorts for the issues surrounding complex litigation -- to represent the owners of about 4,000 houses nationwide built with Taishan's drywall. But the company never paid. The company dismissed its lawyers and stopped showing up in court, and a judge last summer found Taishan in civil and criminal contempt -- banning the company and its affiliates from doing business in the United States. The company just recently agreed to honor its court-mandated payments. Taxation meets contamination Forced to leave, she bunked with friends, stayed in a travel trailer and eventually moved into a small rental while waiting for the legal saga surrounding the house and scores of others like it to play out. She was ultimately forced to walk away from the uninhabitable property in 2012, agreeing to a short sale. Ms. Stephens received just a sliver of the tens of thousands of dollars she had invested into the house, by way of class-action settlements in the drywall lawsuits. Now the government wants Ms. Stephens -- and thousands of others like her -- to pay taxes on those reimbursements. "Our losses far outweighed what we earned back," Ms. Stephens said. "This is our money, and we already paid taxes on it. "Why should we have to pay again?" The organization hired to oversee the distribution of checks in at least one of the Chinese drywall lawsuits has sent 1099 tax forms to thousands of homeowners across the Southeast. Many of the homeowners already are out hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are struggling to overcome credit scars from foreclosures and bankruptcies. In many cases, they are still grappling with health issues after having living with the tainted building material. There are varying opinions from attorneys and accountants familiar with these types of settlement reimbursements about whether the drywall victims should be taxed. But some of the homeowners who spoke to the Herald-Tribune said just they can't afford the latest financial burden. They are calling on Congress for help. Wide distribution Shipments of Chinese drywall made their way to Florida in 2001, and by the height of the region's real estate boom four years later, the faulty material was widespread -- especially in ballooning markets such as North Port, Cape Coral and Lehigh Acres. An investigation by the Herald-Tribune and the watchdog group ProPublica found that nearly 7,000 U.S. houses were built using bad drywall, but enough of the material was imported to raise at least 100,000. The material, notorious for producing a sulfurous, rotten-egg smell in homes -- has also been known to corrode the metal found in pipes, wiring, air-conditioners and appliances. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the tainted material can also lead to a slew of adverse health effects, ranging from headaches to breathing problems, increased blood pressure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, neuropathy and extreme fatigue. A federal judge in 2013 approved five class-action settlements calling on Chinese drywall manufacturers and others to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to repair homes in Gulf Coast states damaged by the product. Many of the victims are now being asked to pay taxes on those disbursements, which the federal government is classifying as income, according to records obtained by the Herald-Tribune. The 1099 The 1099 forms include information about the drywall victim, and the amount each received in the class-action settlement. They are designed to be given to accountants or tax preparers, to be factored into homeowners' total earnings for the year. Many of the victims that received these notices have paid the requested taxes at the advice of accountants. Others say they are still waiting for greater clarity. U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson's staff had a call with the Internal Revenue Service recently to discuss the issue. The IRS told the Florida congressman that it is trying to formalize some guidance for drywall victims, but the tax officials said that it is taking time. "We told them we don't believe people receiving these settlements should be receiving income statements," Dan McLaughlin, a spokesman for Nelson's office, said in an email. "In most cases they probably shouldn't be taxed." Erroneous At least one Sarasota construction attorney involved in many of drywall lawsuits also does not believe the victims should pay. Alan Tannenbaum said he thought the notices were most likely based on an erroneous interpretation by the government. He suggested a construction defect -- like the Chinese drywall cases -- ought to involve the same sort of legal standard that applies to an accident. The money for repairs should not qualify as a taxable income, he said. "It makes absolutely no sense at all," Mr. Tannenbaum said. "If a plane crashes into someone's home, and the homeowner files an insurance claim to fix that, the money to repair the home doesn't qualify as a taxable event." Mr. Tannenbaum urges impacted victims to fight the tax request. "People need to understand that just because the government takes a position that a tax is owed, it doesn't mean it is owed. It's just the start of the conversation," he said. "To me, they should fight it." TOTAL PERFORMANCE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Lopez" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Federico Lopez and Armando Gonzales, on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Timothy Edwards, Case No. 5:15-cv- 00103 (N.D. Tex., April 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of forty 40 per week. Timothy Edwards is the owner of Total Performance, Inc., a trailer manufacturing company in Northern Texas that specializes in manufacturing and customizing trailers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremi K. Young, Esq. Rachael Victoria Rustmann, Esq. THE YOUNG LAW FIRM 1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200 Amarillo, TX 79101 Telephone: (806) 331-1800 E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com rachael@youngfirm.com TRICAN WELL: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trican Well Service, L.P., Case No. 2:15-cv- 00176 (S.D. Tex., April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Trican Well Service, L.P. provides oil and gas related services to oil and gas companies with a principal place of business located at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet Street Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com UNITED SERVICES: "Carlson" Suit Remanded to Muscogee County Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Christopher Carlson was insured under an automobile insurance policy issued by Defendants United Services Automobile Association, USAA Casualty Insurance Company, and USAA General Indemnity Company (collectively, "USAA"). Carlson alleges that after his 2013 Toyota Prius V was damaged due to a flood in 2013, USAA paid to have the car repaired but denied Carlson's request for diminution in value. Carlson claims that he was entitled to $9,750 for diminution in value under his insurance policy. Carlson filed an action in the Muscogee County Superior Court, seeking to represent a class of Georgia USAA insureds who suffered a non-total loss due to water damage and did not receive a payment for diminution in value. USAA removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Carlson now asks the Court to remand the action to the state court. Chief District Judge Clay A. Land finds thatUSAA did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement is met, so Carlson's Motion to Remand is granted, and the action is remanded to the Superior Court of Muscogee County, Georgia. The class action is CHRISTOPHER CARLSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendants, CASE NO. 4:15-CV-6 (CDL), (M.D. Ga.). A copy of the judge's Order dated March 30, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/kgDsTSfrom Leagle.com. CHRISTOPHER CARLSON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Neal Pope, David C. Rayfield -- davidrayfield@pmkm.com -- of Pope, McGlamry, Kilpatrick, Morrison & Norwood, LLP, SHAUN O'HARA & Wade H. Tomlinson, III -- triptomlinson@pmkm.com UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by CANNON C ALSOBROOK, Christopher C. Frost -- cca@savellwilliams.com , JOHN A LITTLE, JR, Jeffrey Alan Van Duyne -- little@maynardcooper.com , LEE E BAINS, JR & MICHAEL D MULVANEY -- mmulvaney@maynardcooper.com USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by CANNON C ALSOBROOK, Christopher C. Frost, JOHN A LITTLE, JR, Jeffrey Alan Van Duyne, LEE E BAINS, JR & MICHAEL D MULVANEY. USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, represented by CANNON C ALSOBROOK, Christopher C. Frost, JOHN A LITTLE, JR, Jeffrey Alan Van Duyne, LEE E BAINS, JR & MICHAEL D MULVANEY. VETERANS AFFAIRS: Carney May Amend Suit Over Unpaid Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Richard F. Boulware of the District of Nevada ruled on the parties' motions in the case Ronald Carney, Plaintiff, v. B John Kaufman, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-00565-RFB-GWF (D. Nev.) Plaintiff Ronald Carney filed a suit against B. John Kaufman alleging that the later conspired with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, had fraudulently deprived him of his disability benefits. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages. Kaufman moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, failure to join a necessary party, improper venue, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Carney moved for entry of proposed stipulated order and consent judgment. Carney proposed that the court certify a class action, enjoin defendants from wrongfully taking money, inflicting harm, interfere with legitimate government functions, collecting unlawful debt, and applying the Fiduciary Program Services, declare the Fiduciary Program Services unconstitutional, order plaintiff free to exercise his rights without systematic interference regarding benefits or employment and award Carney damages. On August 29, 2014, Carney moved to amend his complaint to adjust the naming of the defendant. Judge Boulware dismisses Carney's complaint without prejudice and affords Carney 45 days to file an amended complaint. Kaufman will then have 21 days to file a motion to dismiss, should he feel it necessary. Carney's motion to amend complaint is dismissed as moot and denied Carney's motion for entry of proposed stipulated order and consent judgment. A copy of Judge Boulware's order dated March 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/qy31qH from Leagle.com Ronald Carney, Plaintiff, Pro Se B John Kaufman, Defendant, Pro Se VOGUE INT'L: May 25 Organix(R) Settlement Approval Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-Approval Notice - If you purchased Organix(R)brand hair care and skin care products your rights may be affected by a proposed class action settlement A proposed class action settlement has been reached involving Organix(R) brand hair are and skin care products Products. WHO IS INCLUDED? You may be a Class Member if you purchased Organix Products in Canada from October 25, 2008 until May 25, 2015. WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT? The lawsuit claims that Vogue International LLC and related companies made certain misrepresentations regarding the ingredients of their Organix(R) brand hair care and skin care products in their marketing and sales. Vogue denies it did anything wrong. The Court did not decide which side was right. Instead, the parties have decided to settle. WHAT DOES THIS SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? A maximum Settlement Cap of not more than CDN $325,000 is intended to pay claims eligible Class Members, the costs of the settlement notice, attorneys' fees, an award the representative Plaintiff and the costs of settlement administration as of April 2nd, 2015. Vogue is also agreeing to refrain from certain practices. Full details about the Settlement are on the website www.haircaresettlement.ca WHAT TYPE OF COMPENSATION CAN YOU RECEIVE? Vogue will provide to each individual Class Member that qualifies for Compensation the following: CDN $4.00 for each Organix Product purchased in Canada during the Class Period, up to a total of CDN $28 less any applicable deductions and adjustments as specified below. For Quebec residents, it is understood that the Fonds d'aide aux recours collectifs will be entitled to claim 2% on each individual Compensation paid in money to Class Members. For each Claimant who submits a valid Claim, Vogue shall provide payment as described above, so long as providing such Compensation does not exceed the Settlement Cap. If providing each Claimant with such Compensation will exceed the Settlement Cap, then in such circumstances each Claimant's Compensation shall be reduced on a pro rata basis. HOW DO YOU ASK FOR A PAYMENT? To receive money, eligible Class Members must submit a claim form through the Settlement Website, by email, or by mail sent no later than July 20, 2015. WHAT ARE YOUR OPTIONS? If you are a Class Member, you may (1) do nothing; (2) exclude yourself; (3) send in a Claim Form; and/or (4) object to the settlement. If you don't want to be bound by the settlement, you must exclude yourself. However, if you exclude yourself, you can't get a payment, but you can sue Vogue for these claims. If you stay in the Class, you may submit a Claim Form and/or object to the settlement. WHAT ARE THE IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES? A motion to approve the Settlement will be heard by the Superior Court of Quebec, 1 Notre Dame Street East, Montreal, Quebec on May 25, 2015 at 3:00 P.M. in room 15.07. If the proposed Settlement is approved, it will be binding on all Class Members except those who timely opt out. If you wish to opt out, you must no later than June 19, 2015: i) complete and submit by mail the Opt Out Form; ii) the Opt Out Form is available on the Settlement Website at www.haircaresettlement.ca Class Members who want to opt out and who are residents of Quebec must IN ADDITION give written notice to the Clerk of the Superior Court of Quebec. If you wish to object to the proposed settlement, you must send a written notice of objection to Class Counsel and Defence Counsel by no later than May 15, 2015. Your written objection should include: (a) your name, address, e-mail address and telephone number; (b) a brief statement of the reasons for your objection; and (c) whether you plan to attend at the hearing in person or through a lawyer, and if by lawyer, the name, address, e-mail address and telephone number of the lawyer. Class Members who do not oppose the proposed settlement need not appear at the settlement approval hearing or take any other action at this time. WHEN SHOULD I MAKE A CLAIM? The Claim Form is available on the Settlement Website at www.haircaresettlement.ca A Claim Form must be sent no later than July 20, 2015. The Claim form must be sent through the Settlement Website, by email, or by mail to: Vogue Settlement Canada c/o Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, attention Marie Jose Grandmaitre at 1000, de la Gauchetiere Street West, Suite 900, Montreal, Quebec, H3B 5H4. There will be no further notice in the newspapers of this Settlement Agreement. WHEN DO I GET PAID? Cheques will only begin to be mailed to eligible Class Members for Compensation at the earliest starting on September 1, 2015, assuming that the Settlement is approved and that such judgment has become final. HOW CAN YOU GET MORE INFORMATION? A complete copy of the Settlement Agreement and detailed information on how to obtain or file a Claim are available on the Settlement Website at www.haircaresettlement.ca To obtain a paper copy or for any other information, please communicate with Class Counsel at the phone numbers below. WHO REPRESENTS ME? The Class Counsel, or law firm representing the petitioner, is the following: Jeff Orenstein Consumer Law Group Inc. 1030 Berri St., Suite 102 Montreal, Quebec, H3Z 2Y5 Telephone: 1-888-909-7863 514-266-7863 416-479-4493 613-627-4894 Email: jorenstein@clg.orq Website: www.clq.orq If there is a conflict between the provisions of this Notice and the Settlement Agreement and any of its Schedules, the terms of the Settlement Agreement shall prevail. This notice has been approved by the Superior Court of Quebec. WALGREENS BOOT: Sued Over Blind-Inaccessible Soda Machines ---------------------------------------------------------- David Dicarlo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Walgreens Boot Alliance, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02919- JPO (S.D.N.Y., April 15, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's discriminatory practices of replacing traditional soda fountains with new touch-screen Coca-Cola Freestyle machines, which deny blind individuals equal access to the goods and services at Walgreens Stores. Walgreens Boot Alliance, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal executive office at 108 Wilmot Road, Deerfield, Illinois, which owns and operates a chain of drugstores and pharmacies throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com WHOLE FOOD: Failed to Convince Court to Dismiss "Speer" FCRA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Richard A. Lazzara denied Defendant's bid to dismiss the first amended complaint alleged in COLIN SPEER, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. WHOLE FOOD MARKET GROUP, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 8:14-CV-3035-T-26TBM, (M.D. Fla.). Colin Speer brought the lawsuit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against Whole Foods for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiff worked for Defendant in Tampa, Florida, until June 20, 2013, when he was terminated. Plaintiff notes that Whole Foods "conducts background checks on many of its job applicants as part of a standard screening process." It also conducts background checks "on existing employees from time-to-time during the course of their employment" through a third party, LexisNexis, which gathers and reports this information. The applicant must read and sign two forms: a "Disclosure Statement" and the "Consent and Release of Information." In the class action, Plaintiff alleges in Count I violations of the FCRA for failure to make proper disclosure, and in Count II, violations for failure to obtain proper authorization. In his order dated March 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/4mO08a from Leagle.com, Judge Lazaara denied dismissal of the class action based on these reasons: -- Based on the allegations, with all inferences drawn in favor of Plaintiff, if both the disclosure and the consent forms combined and read as one document with the waiver and release included simultaneously with the disclosure, the complaint states a claim for relief. -- Based on Plaintiff's allegations that both forms constituted one combined form, Count II states a claim for relief. -- Allegations that Defendant had access to legal advice and guidance from the Federal Trade Commission yet it knew that its conduct was inconsistent with that guidance and the plain terms of the statute, are sufficient to withstand attack at this stage of the proceedings on a motion to dismiss. Colin Speer, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Brandon J. Hill, Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA & Luis A. Cabassa, Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony J. Petrillo -- AJP@LS-law.com -- of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones, LLC & Michael H. Kestenbaum - mkestenbaum@LS-Law.com -- of Luks, Santaniello, Petrillo & Jones, LLC. WINN MANAGEMENT: Faces "Goodwin" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Adam Goodwin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Winn Management Group LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00606-GSA (E.D. Cal., April 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Winn Management Group LLC owns and operates a real estate company with its headquarters and principal place of business in Six Faneuil Hall Marketplace, Boston, Massachusetts 02109 and a regional headquarters located at 2350 West Shaw Avenue, Suite 142, Fresno, California 93711. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Malk, Esq. MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 302 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 203-0016 Facsimile: (310) 499-5210 E-mail: mm@malklawfirm.com * Businesses Must Invest in Data Security, Prepare for Breaches --------------------------------------------------------------- John R. Squitero, Esq. and Matan A. Scheier, Esq. -- mas@katzbarron.com -- of Katz Barron Squitero Faust, in an article for Miami Herald, reports that on Dec. 16, 2014, a group of former Sony employees filed a class action lawsuit in Federal Court in Los Angeles against Sony for negligently failing to protect its computer systems from hackers, resulting in the employees' personal information being leaked to the public, and potentially ending up in the hands of criminals. In addition, the former employees allege that Sony failed to adequately notify the employees that their confidential, personal information was breached. The Sony breach is the latest in a string of recent high-profile data thefts in the news. However, data theft is not only a threat to large multinational corporations such as Sony. Florida companies of all sizes are at risk, and face stiff penalties under the Florida Information Protection Act of 2014 (FIPA) for the failure to notify any Florida resident of the breach of his/her personal information. To assist in complying with this statute, Florida attorneys should counsel their clients to invest in data security, especially those who own or manage a business, to have a plan in place to respond to breaches as they occur, and to promptly notify all "persons" whose data has been breached. Passed during 2014's Legislative session, FIPA represents the first expansion of the State's data breach notification laws in nine years. Its goal is to require the State's private sector as well as State government entities to promptly inform aggrieved parties when cyber thieves appear to have stolen their unencrypted personal information from computer records. FIPA defines personal information as a person's first name, middle initial, or any middle name and last name in combination with unencrypted records containing: -- A driver's license, passport, military identification or Florida Identification Card number; -- A Social Security number; -- A financial account number, credit card number or debit card number, and a required security code or password that would permit access to the relevant account; -- Any information regarding the individual's mental or physical condition, medical history or medical treatment; or -- A health insurance policy or subscriber identification number and any unique identifier used by a health insurer. Additionally, the FIPA statute requires notification whenever a user name or email address may have been breached in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account. The updated FIPA statute provides that any person conducting business in the State (company) must notify the person whose unencrypted personal information is reasonably believed to have been stolen within 30 days of the determination of the breach. In addition, the Florida Department of Legal Affairs must be notified of any breach affecting more than 500 individuals in Florida within 30 days of a determination of the breach. A 15-day extension to notify the department may be granted, if good cause for delay is provided in writing within 30 days after determination of a breach. A company that discovers a breach affecting more than 1,000 individuals at a single time must also notify all consumer reporting agencies that compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis of the timing, distribution, and content of the notices. Failure to notify individuals affected by the breach is treated as an unfair or deceptive trade practice, and subjects the company to a civil penalty, as follows: -- $1,000 for each day the breach goes undisclosed for 30 days; -- $50,000 for each 30-day period for up to 180 days; -- A maximum of $500,000, if notification is not made within 180 days. These sanctions apply per breach, not per individual affected by the breach. Substitute notice, in the form of a conspicuous announcement on the company's website or in print and/or broadcast media where the affected individuals reside, may be provided in lieu of direct notice if: -- The cost of providing notice would exceed $250,000; -- The affected individuals exceed 500,000 persons; or -- The company does not have email addresses or mailing addresses for the affected individuals. There are certain limited exceptions to the notification requirements under the FIPA statute. Required notification may be delayed upon a request by a law enforcement agency if it is determined that the notification will impede a criminal investigation. It should be noted that the FIPA Statute expressly does not provide for a private right of action to recover damages. Additionally, notification is not required if, after an appropriate investigation and consultation with relevant law enforcement agencies, the company responsible for storing the information reasonably determines that the breach has not and is not likely to result in harm to the individuals whose data was unlawfully accessed. The person at the company responsible for data storage must make this determination in writing, and the documentation must be maintained for five years. Failure to make the written determination or to preserve it for five years subjects the responsible persons to a $50,000 administrative fine. A copy of the written determination must be provided to the Florida Department Legal Affairs within 30 days of the determination. The statute does not set specific guidelines to follow in making a reasonable determination of no harm. As seen by recent occurrences at Sony, Target, and VeriSign, among others, sophisticated hackers can breach even the strongest defense systems. Companies should develop a broad data breach response plan and educate employees on all levels of the organization on the protocol to follow. Preferably through a specific designated representative, companies should work with their legal counsel to act quickly and efficiently in investigating the cause of a breach and the circumstances surrounding its discovery. The IT department, if the company has one, should secure the breached equipment or cloud and safely take it offline, identify the compromised information, and provide it to the legal team to determine whether the occurrence falls under the provision of the statute and requires notification to the affected parties or law enforcement. The company should also have a plan in place to notify the affected parties and deal with any media coverage of the breach. Human resources personnel should be trained to act as a hotline for affected customers and employees. It may also be necessary to hire an expert in electronic data security to advise the company on the source of the breach and the remedy to avoid future occurrences. Additional proactive steps should include: (1) training employees on steps to take to ensure data security as part of their job duties; (2) purchasing data security software; (3) limiting employees' access to data that each specific employee needs to complete their job requirements; (4) having a procedure in place for reporting data breaches or violations of security protocol; (5) frequently re-educating employees on any new developments in data breach security; (6) hiring an expert to periodically review the company's system. By seeking the advice of their attorneys regarding compliance with FIPA guidelines before data breaches occur, companies can alert their clients, customers and employees to potential threats of data theft, thus avoiding liability, as well as preserving the company's public reputation. In this day and age, a computer security breach not only subjects the company to severe fines and penalties, as well as civil liability, but can also damage the reputation of the company. These breaches simply can no longer be ignored. * Plaintiffs' Class Action Attorneys Balk at "Mooting" Strategy --------------------------------------------------------------- Blaine C. Kimrey, Esq. -- bkimrey@vedderprice.co -- and Bryan Clark, Esq. -- bclark@vedderprice.com -- of Vedder Price PC, in an article for Lexology, reports that by now, most attorneys who handle class action litigation are familiar with the defense strategy commonly known as "mooting". The cautious plaintiffs' attorney will file a cursory motion for class certification with the complaint to minimize the likelihood of mooting. The defense attorney will serve an offer of judgment for full relief as soon as possible and immediately move to dismiss. But in light of conflicting circuit court decisions, the legal landscape is unclear on the ultimate effect of these maneuvers. For the uninitiated, "mooting" occurs when a defendant offers the plaintiff all the relief he or she has requested. Courts have long held that an individual plaintiff cannot continue to pursue a claim in court when that individual has been offered full and complete relief. The question the courts have wrestled with, however, is what this means in the class action context, where an individual plaintiff purports to bring an action on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated individuals, but full relief is offered before a class is certified. In many instances, it is more economically rational for the defendant to pay the named plaintiff the maximum recovery than it is to litigate a class action, even if the defendant has strong defenses on the merits. But many plaintiffs' class action attorneys do not see it that way -- they criticize this tactic as a way to "pick off" class representatives to avoid broader liability for alleged corporate malfeasance. To balance these competing interests, federal circuit courts have created various tests: The most extreme position of the circuits is the position adopted by the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, holding that an unaccepted offer of judgment is "a legal nullity with no operative effect."Diaz v. First Am. Home Buyers Prot. Corp., 732 F.3d 948, 954-55; see also Jeffrey M. Stein, D.D.S., M.S.D., P.A. v. Buccaneers L.P., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22603 (11th Cir. Dec. 1, 2014). The Eighth Circuit has not considered a scenario in which the plaintiff made an offer of complete relief before a class certification decision. In Alpern v. UtiliCorp United, Inc., 84 F.3d 1525, 1539 (8th Cir. 1996), the court held that an offer of individual judgment can moot the case "only where class certification has been properly denied." But the district court in that case had ruled on the plaintiff's motion for class certification. 84 F.3d at 1539. The Third, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits all recognize that an unaccepted offer for full relief can moot a case. See Lucero v. Bureau of Collection Recovery, Inc., 639 F.3d 1239, 1250 (10th Cir. 2011); Sandoz v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 553 F.3d 913, 920-21 (5th Cir. 2008); Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337, 348 (3d Cir. 2004). But these courts limit the applicability of this rule to cases in which the named plaintiff "unduly delays" seeking class certification. The Seventh Circuit also recognizes that "once the defendant offers to satisfy the plaintiff's entire demand, there is no dispute over which to litigate, and a plaintiff who refuses to acknowledge this loses outright . . . because [he] has no remaining stake." Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 895 (7th Cir. 2012).The limitation placed on this general rule by the Seventh Circuit is that a plaintiff may preserve its class claims by filing a motion for class certification. Id. But is any of these the right test? It seems counterintuitive -- and unconstitutional -- that a single plaintiff can obtain standing on behalf a putative class simply by making class allegations in a complaint or filing a cursory motion for class certification. In fact, an Illinois court recently reached that exact conclusion, holding that a skeletal class certification motion was not enough to create class standing in the face of an offer of complete relief. This is consistent with Supreme Court precedent that has, for nearly 40 years, emphasized the actual certification decision (rather than a plaintiff's motion for class certification or any other procedural maneuver) as the threshold for a class to acquire independent legal standing. This approach also is consistent with fundamental constitutional principles of Article III standing and due process. As renowned constitutional scholar Martin Redish has noted: "It is important to keep in mind that a lawsuit does not 'arise' under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs class actions in the federal courts. The legal rights to be adjudicated, rather, are substantively created by some recognized legal authority -- a legislative body, a court, or the Constitution." Martin H. Redish, Wholesale Justice: Democracy and the Problem of the Class Action Lawsuit(Stanford Books 2009), at p. 3. According to Vedder Price PC's Kimrey and Clark, "With these principles in mind, we believe the standard should be this: A class representative's claim can be mooted by an offer of complete relief at any time before a class certification decision. So far no circuit has adopted this approach, but at some point the Supreme Court will need to address the growing divide among the circuits, and it certainly would not be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to side with a minority approach. We will continue to monitor this critical issue for class action litigators, so keep checking back for updates in the future." Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hanover Insurance Had $10.1-Mil. LAE Reserves -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.'s ending loss and loss adjustment expenses reserves for all direct business written by its property and casualty companies related to asbestos and environmental damage liability was $10.1 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: "Although we attempt to limit our exposures to asbestos and environmental damage liability through specific policy exclusions, we have been and may continue to be subject to claims related to these exposures. Ending loss and LAE reserves for all direct business written by our property and casualty companies related to asbestos and environmental damage liability were $10.1 million, $11.5 million and $9.8 million, net of reinsurance of $21.4 million, $20.6 million, and $20.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. "Activity for our asbestos and environmental reserves was not significant to our 2014, 2013 or 2012 financial results. In recent years, average asbestos and environmental payments have declined modestly. As a result of our historical direct underwriting mix of Commercial Lines policies toward smaller and middle market risks, past asbestos and environmental damage liability loss experience has remained minimal in relation to our total loss and LAE incurred experience. "In addition, we have established gross loss and LAE reserves for assumed reinsurance pool business with asbestos and environmental damage liability of $29.1 million, $29.8 million and $30.3 million at December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively. These reserves relate to pools in which we have terminated our participation; however, we continue to be subject to claims related to years in which we were a participant. Results of operations from these pools are included in our Other segment. A significant part of our pool reserves relates to our participation in the Excess and Casualty Reinsurance Association ("ECRA") voluntary pool from 1950 to 1982. In 1982, the pool was dissolved and since that time, the business has been in run-off. Our percentage of the total pool liabilities varied from 1% to 6% during these years. Our participation in this pool has resulted in average paid losses of approximately $2 million annually over the past ten years. "We estimate our ultimate liability for asbestos, environmental and toxic tort liability claims, whether resulting from direct business, assumed reinsurance or pool business, based upon currently known facts, reasonable assumptions where the facts are not known, current law and methodologies currently available. Although these outstanding claims are not significant, their existence gives rise to uncertainty and are discussed because of the possibility that they may become significant. We believe that, notwithstanding the evolution of case law expanding liability in asbestos and environmental claims, recorded reserves related to these claims are adequate. Nevertheless, the asbestos, environmental and toxic tort liability reserves could be revised, and any such revisions could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations for a particular quarterly or annual period or on our financial position." The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. ("THG") is a holding company organized as a Delaware corporation in 1995. Its primary business operations are property and casualty insurance products and services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,700 Claims at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. had 1,700 pending asbestos- related 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. The Company states: "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past several decades and through December 31, 2014, we have been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving approximately 5,700 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately 1,700 claims were pending and 4,000 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and through December 31, 2014, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount of approximately two thousand dollars per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accruals based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of the amount of liability and related expenses, if any. While we have seen an increase in the number of recent filings, especially in one specific venue, we do not believe that the increase or any unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial position or cash flow, and at December 31, 2014, we had approximately $5.0 million accrued for liability and related expenses. With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any. While we continue to pursue recovery for recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through insurance, indemnification arrangements or other sources, we are unable to quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because of the variability in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles, or the viability of carriers, with respect to our insurance policies for the years in question." Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V., a Netherlands company, provides a wide range of services, including conceptual design, technology, engineering, procurement, fabrication, modularization, construction, commissioning, maintenance, program management and environmental services to customers in the energy infrastructure market throughout the world, and is a provider of diversified government services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Appeals vs. EnPro Unit Remain Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Two asbestos-related appeals are pending from adverse decisions in EnPro Industries, Inc.'s Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC's bankruptcy case, according to the Company's GST has collected Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. The Company states: "GST LLC has a record of success in trials of asbestos cases, especially before the bankruptcies of many of the historically significant asbestos defendants that manufactured raw asbestos, asbestos insulation, refractory products or other dangerous friable asbestos products. However, it has on occasion lost jury verdicts at trial. GST has consistently appealed when it has received an adverse verdict and has had success in a majority of those appeals. At December 31, 2014, two GST LLC appeals are pending from adverse decisions totaling $1.5 million. "GST LLC won reversals of adverse verdicts in one of three recent appellate decisions. In September 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned a $500,000 verdict against GST LLC that was handed down in 2009 by a Kentucky federal court jury. The federal appellate court found that GST LLC's motion for judgment as a matter of law should have been granted because the evidence was not sufficient to support a determination of liability. The Sixth Circuit's chief judge wrote that, "On the basis of this record, saying that exposure to Garlock gaskets was a substantial cause of [claimant's] mesothelioma would be akin to saying that one who pours a bucket of water into the ocean has substantially contributed to the ocean's volume." In May 2011, a three-judge panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld GST LLC's $700,000 share of a 2009 jury verdict, which included punitive damages, in a lung cancer case against GST LLC in Kentucky state court. This verdict, which was secured by a bond pending the appeal, was paid in June 2012. In a Kentucky appeal from a 2006 verdict against GST LLC, another Kentucky Court of Appeals panel upheld, in August 2014, GST LLC's share of the verdict and a $600,000 punitive damage award. The verdict against GST LLC totaled $874,000. This verdict and post-judgment interest were secured by a bond in the amount of $1.1 million. The plaintiff in the case agreed to resolve the case, including claims for post-judgment interest, for the amount of the bond and to forgo additional accrued interest on the verdict, and GST LLC agreed to discontinue further appeals. Because we were responsible to the bonding company for the bond amount, our Coltec subsidiary purchased the verdict from the plaintiff in September 2014 for the amount of the $1.1 million bond. As a result, Coltec has a claim against GST LLC for the amount of the judgment, including post- judgment interest." EnPro Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries designs, develops, manufactures, and markets proprietary engineered industrial products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EnPro Industries Had $100.7MM Fibro Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------- EnPro Industries, Inc., had $100.7 million of insurance coverage to cover current and future asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments, 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: "At December 31, 2014, we had $100.7 million of insurance coverage we believe is available to cover current and future asbestos claims payments and certain expense payments. GST has collected insurance payments totaling $95.4 million since the Petition Date. Of the $100.7 million of available insurance coverage remaining, we consider $100 million (99%) to be of high quality because the insurance policies are written or guaranteed by U.S.-based carriers whose credit rating by S&P is investment grade (BBB-) or better, and whose AM Best rating is excellent (A-) or better. Of the $100.7 million, $64.6 million is allocated to claims that were paid by GST LLC prior to the initiation of the Chapter 11 proceedings and submitted to insurance companies for reimbursement, and the remainder is allocated to pending and estimated future claims. The $100.7 million is in addition to the $21.3 million collected in 2014. There are specific agreements in place with carriers covering $66.2 million of the remaining available coverage. Based on those agreements and the terms of the policies in place and prior decisions concerning coverage, we believe that substantially all of the $100.7 million of insurance proceeds will ultimately be collected, although there can be no assurance that the insurance companies will make the payments as and when due. Based on those agreements and policies, some of which define specific annual amounts to be paid and others of which limit the amount that can be recovered in any one year, we anticipate that $38.7 million will become collectible at the conclusion of GST's Chapter 11 proceeding and, assuming the insurers pay according to the agreements and policies, that the following amounts should be collected in the following years regardless of when the case concludes: 2015 -- $20 million 2016 -- $18 million 2017 -- $13 million 2018 -- $11 million "GST LLC has received $8.1 million of insurance recoveries from insolvent carriers since 2007, including a $900,000 payment received in 2014, and may receive additional payments from insolvent carriers in the future. No anticipated insolvent carrier collections are included in the $100.7 million of anticipated collections. The insurance available to cover current and future asbestos claims is from comprehensive general liability policies that cover Coltec and certain of its other subsidiaries in addition to GST LLC for periods prior to 1985 and therefore could be subject to potential competing claims of other covered subsidiaries and their assignees. "Our recorded asbestos liability as of the Petition Date was $472.1 million. We based that recorded liability on an estimate of probable and estimable expenditures to resolve asbestos personal injury claims under generally accepted accounting principles, made with the assistance of Garrison and an estimation expert, Bates White, retained by GST LLC's counsel. The estimate developed was an estimate of the most likely point in a broad range of potential amounts that GST LLC might pay to resolve asbestos claims (by settlement in the majority of the cases except those dismissed or tried) over the ten-year period following the date of the estimate in the state court system, plus accrued but unpaid legal fees. The estimate, which was not discounted to present value, did not reflect GST LLC's views of its actual legal liability. GST LLC has continuously maintained that its products could not have been a substantial contributing cause of any asbestos disease. Instead, the liability estimate reflected GST LLC's recognition that most claims would be resolved more efficiently and at a significantly lower total cost through settlements without any actual liability determination. "From the Petition Date through the first quarter of 2014, neither we nor GST endeavored to update the accrual except as necessary to reflect payments of accrued fees and the disposition of cases on appeal. In each asbestos-driven Chapter 11 case that has been resolved previously, the amount of the debtor's liability has been determined as part of a consensual plan of reorganization agreed to by the debtor, its asbestos claimants and a legal representative for its potential future claimants. GST did not believe that there was a reliable process by which an estimate of such a consensual resolution could be made and therefore believed that there was no basis upon which it could revise the estimate last updated prior to the Petition Date. "Given the Bankruptcy Court's January 2014 decision estimating GST's liability for present and future mesothelioma claims at $125 million and GST's filing in May 2014 of its first amended proposed plan of reorganization setting out its intention to fund a plan with total consideration of $275 million, GST undertook to revise its estimate of its ultimate payment to resolve all present and future asbestos claims against it to be no less than the amounts required under its amended proposed plan. Similarly, while GST believes it to be an unlikely worst case scenario, GST believes its ultimate costs to resolve all asbestos claims against it could be no more than the total value of GST. As a result, GST believed that its ultimate asbestos liability would be somewhere in the range between those two values and therefore revised its estimate to the low end of the range. Accordingly, at June 30, 2014, GST revised its estimate of its ultimate payment to resolve all present and future asbestos claims to $279.6 million, the amount of its ultimate costs to resolve all asbestos claims under that amended plan. "In light of the filing of the second amended proposed plan of reorganization by GST on January 14, 2015, GST undertook to further revise its ultimate costs to resolve all asbestos claims against it. Under this revised plan, not less than $367.5 million will be required to fund the resolution of all GST asbestos claims, $30 million of which will be funded by Coltec. As a result, GST believes the low end of the range of values that will be necessary for it to fund to resolve all present and future claims is now $337.5 million. Accordingly, GST has revised its estimate of its ultimate asbestos liability to $337.5 million and has recorded its liability at December 31, 2014 at that amount. GST's estimate of its ultimate asbestos liability of $337.5 million does not include any amount with respect to the contingent supplementary contributions to the litigation fund contemplated by the revised plan as GST believes that initial contributions to the litigation fund may likely be sufficient to permit the balance of that facility to exceed the specified thresholds over the 40-year period for such contributions and, accordingly, that the low end of a range of reasonably possible loss associated with these contingent supplementary contributions is $0. "On May 29, 2014, GST filed its amended proposed plan of reorganization and a proposed disclosure statement for such amended plan. The plan provided $275 million in total funding for (a) present and future asbestos claims against GST that have not been resolved by settlement or verdict prior to the Petition Date, and (b) administrative and litigation costs. The $275 million was to be funded by GST ($245 million) and the Company's subsidiary, Coltec Industries Inc ($30 million), through two facilities - a settlement facility (which would receive $245 million) and a litigation facility (which would receive $30 million ). Funds contained in the settlement facility and the litigation facility were to provide the exclusive remedies for current and future GST asbestos claimants, other than claimants whose claims had been resolved by settlement or verdict prior to the Petition Date and were not paid prior to the Petition Date. The $275 million amount was more than double the $125 million that the Bankruptcy Court found to be a reasonable and reliable measure of the amount sufficient to satisfy present and future mesothelioma claims against GST, and was determined based on an economic analysis of the feasibility of the proposed plan. This plan was superseded by GST's second amended proposed plan of reorganization. "On January 14, 2015, we announced that GST and we had reached agreement with the Future Claimants' Representative that includes a second amended proposed plan of reorganization. The Future Claimants' Representative agreed to support, vote for and help GST gain confirmation of this revised plan of reorganization in exchange for an increase in the funds available for settlements and a limited funding backstop to the litigation option that the plan offers to claimants who choose not to accept the plan's settlement option. Terms of the second amended proposed plan of reorganization, including that $30 million contribution to be made by Coltec to the settlement facility under the revised plan and our guarantee of GST's obligations to make contributions to the settlement facility and the litigation fund under the plan after the consummation of the plan. "The revised plan would establish two facilities to resolve unliquidated present and future asbestos claims -- a settlement facility and a litigation fund. The settlement facility, administered by an independent trustee, will handle settlement offers under the plan. Claimants will be able to compute their offers from a matrix in the plan that contains objective criteria such as disease, age, whether the injured party left or will leave a spouse, and whether there are dependents. The amounts of the matrix values have been set based on an economic analysis and are designed to ensure that the funding provides future claimants the same recoveries as comparable current claimants. "The settlement facility will provide claimants with both an expedited review option and an individual review option. Under expedited review, a claimant can receive a quick and efficient settlement once he or she provides required evidence of a compensable disease and meaningful exposure to GST asbestos products. Under individual review, a claimant can potentially receive a significantly higher settlement offer if he or she can demonstrate certain additional factors. In order to receive a higher amount than the expedited option offers, claimants or their representatives will have to certify to the claimants' complete exposure histories and authorize Garrison to investigate and monitor both their tort and trust claims. "Garrison, as reorganized under the plan, will receive a $30 million contribution from GST LLC to maintain and administer the litigation fund separate from the settlement facility. Garrison will manage the litigation of claims from claimants who reject settlement offers from the settlement facility and choose instead to pursue a remedy in court. A case management order will govern the way those claims can be pursued. "Claimants who choose to litigate must file their claims in the Bankruptcy Court in North Carolina. The Bankruptcy Court will oversee discovery and other pre-trial matters before referring cases to the federal district court in Charlotte for trial under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Charlotte federal court will have discretion about where to send each case for the actual trial. The case management order will also require that claimants identify and disclose all trust claims and provide authorization for Garrison to retrieve all their trust submissions directly from trusts. "The second amended plan includes provisions referred to as the "Parent Settlement" for the resolution and extinguishment of any and all alleged derivative claims against us based on GST asbestos products and entry of an injunction permanently protecting us from the assertion of such claims. As consideration for the Parent Settlement, (a) Coltec will contribute $30 million of the amount proposed to be paid into the settlement facility to pay future claimants, (b) Coltec will fund Anchor's costs of dissolution (up to $500,000), (c) EnPro will guarantee all contributions to the settlement facility and litigation fund by GST after the effective date of the second amended plan, and (d) Coltec and its affiliates will subordinate their interests in certain insurance coverage to GST's obligations to make payments to the settlement facility and litigation fund after the effective date of the second amended plan. Those provisions are incorporated into the terms of the second amended plan only in the context of the specifics of the plan, which would result in the equity interests of GST LLC being retained by the reconsolidation of GST LLC into the Company with substantial equity above the amount of equity currently included in our consolidated financial statements, and an injunction protecting us from future GST claims. As a result of Coltec's agreement to fund a contribution of $30 million to the settlement facility pursuant to the revised plan of reorganization, we recorded a $30.0 million charge to establish this liability in our 2014 results. "Confirmation and consummation of the second amended plan are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including the actions and decisions of creditors and other third parties that have an interest in the bankruptcy proceedings, delays in the confirmation or effective date of a plan of reorganization due to factors beyond GST's or our control, which would result in greater costs and the impairment of value of GST, challenges to confirmation of the plan, including appeals, and risks and uncertainties affecting GST and Coltec's ability to fund anticipated contributions under the plan as a result of adverse changes in their results of operations, financial condition and capital resources, including as a result of economic factors beyond their control. Accordingly, we cannot assure you that GST will be able to obtain final approval of its second amended plan of reorganization and the settlement and resolution of claims and related releases of liability embodied therein, and the time period for the resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings is not presently determinable." EnPro Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries designs, develops, manufactures, and markets proprietary engineered industrial products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $614MM Fibro Liability at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. had an aggregate asbestos liability of $614 million for pending claims and future 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. The Company states: "As of December 31, 2014, we had an aggregate asbestos liability of $614 million for pending claims and future claims projected to be filed against us through December 31, 2021. Estimation of our exposure for asbestos-related claims is subject to significant uncertainties, as there are multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity and quantity of claims and the manner of their resolution. We have retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the field, to assist management in estimating our asbestos liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by us concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed, amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from filing to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is based largely on our experience during a base reference period of eleven quarterly periods (consisting of the two full preceding calendar years and three additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) for claims filed, settled and dismissed. Our experience is then compared to the results of widely used previously conducted epidemiological studies estimating the number of individuals likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Using that information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would be filed against us through our forecast period and estimates the aggregate settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement costs by disease during the reference period. After discussions with us, HR&A augments our liability estimate for the costs of defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from us which is based upon discussions with our defense counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of our asbestos liability for pending and future claims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period. The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are (1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against us, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims, (3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against us and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by us. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor predominates in determining the liability estimate. Although the methodology used by HR&A can be applied to show claims and costs for periods subsequent to the indicated period (up to and including the endpoint of the epidemiological studies), management believes that the level of uncertainty regarding the various factors used in estimating future asbestos costs is too great to provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims, the nature of such claims or the cost to resolve them for years beyond the indicated estimate. Through December 31, 2014, our actual experience during the updated reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and dismissed generally approximated the assumptions in our liability estimate. In addition to this claims experience, we considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected future settlement values. Based on this evaluation, we determined that no change in the estimate was warranted for the period ended December 31, 2014. Nevertheless, if certain factors show a pattern of sustained increase or decrease, the liability could change materially; however, all the assumptions used in estimating the asbestos liability are interdependent and no single factor predominates in determining the liability estimate. Because of the uncertainty with regard to and the interdependency of such factors used in the calculation of our asbestos liability, and since no one factor predominates, we believe that a range of potential liability estimates beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be reasonably estimated. "In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate, we also developed an estimate of probable insurance recoveries for our asbestos liabilities. As of December 31, 2014, we had an aggregate asbestos receivable of $147 million. In developing this estimate, we considered our coverage-in-place and other settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors. These additional factors include the financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships." Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 47,507 Fibro Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. had 47,507 pending asbestos-related 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. As of December 31, 2014, the Company was a defendant in cases filed in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos. Of the 47,507 pending claims as of December 31, 2014, approximately 18,700 claims were pending in New York, approximately 9,300 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 5,100 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 300 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits. Substantially all of the claims the Company resolves are either dismissed or concluded through settlements. Such judgment amounts are not included in the Company's incurred costs until all available appeals are exhausted and the final payment amount is determined. The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 totaled $81.1 million, $90.8 million and $96.1 million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition of settlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level of activity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally lag the tort system activity by several months or more, and may show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Cash payments of settlement amounts are not made until all releases and other required documentation are received by the Company, and reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense costs by insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices, transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs, net of funds received from insurers, for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012 totaled $61.3 million, $62.8 million and $78.0 million, respectively. Crane Co. (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV), transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical, pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling equipment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: N.C. Court Dismisses PI Claims vs. FMC Trust ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Terrence W. Boyle of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, issued an order dated April 10, 2015, allowing the joint motion to dismiss claims, without prejudice, against defendant Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (sued as successor to Felt-Products Manufacturing Co.) pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The case is JOHN SAM RICKS, JR. and BRENDA RICKS, Plaintiffs, v. ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION CASE NO. 4:14-CV-00037-BO (E.D.N.C.). A full-text copy of Judge Boyle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/wdMfa3from Leagle.com. Brenda Ricks, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black Law. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman, Esq. -- jmtechman@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff. Coen Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr., Pinto, Coates, Kyre & Bowers, PLLC. Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., William David Conner, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.. FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Peter A. Santos, Esq. -- psantos@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Kiger, Esq. -- ckiger@smithlaw.com -- Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, Kirk G. Warner, Esq. -- kwarner@smithlaw.com -- Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan & Addie K.S. Ries, Esq. -- aries@smithlaw.com -- Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff. Goulds Pumps, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., William David Conner, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Keith E. Coltrain, Esq. -- Keith.Coltrain@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A.. Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath Bouch & Seekings. Terex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Esq. -- tim.peck@smithmoorelaw.com -- Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. Trane US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. Wabco Holdings Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. Court Refuses to Remand "Nesser" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, in an order dated April 14, 2015, refused to remand the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled KENNETH NESSER and KAREN NESSER, Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED COMPOSITES GROUP, et al., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-1367-SMY-SCW (S.D. Ill.). A full-text copy of Judge Yandle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/NZgLPmfrom Leagle.com. Kenneth Nesser, Plaintiff, represented by Allyson M. Romani, Shrader & Associates LLP, Andrew J. McEnaney, Shrader & Associates LLP & Matthew B. McLeod, Shrader & Associates LLP. Karen Nesser, Plaintiff, represented by Allyson M. Romani, Shrader & Associates LLP, Andrew J. McEnaney, Shrader & Associates LLP & Matthew B. McLeod, Shrader & Associates LLP. Allied Manfacturing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Marcie J. Vantine, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP. Ameron International, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Arvinmeritor, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Dayna L. Johnson, Greensfelder, Hemker et al.. The Boeing Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Mark Coad Sampson, Segal, McCambridge et al. & Samuel Joseph Cook, Segal, McCambridge et al.. Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Donald W. Ward, Herzog Crebs LLP, Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. CBS Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP & Michael R. Dauphin, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Chicago Bridge & Iron Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. CIBA Giegy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by David F. Fanning, Johnson & Bell LTD & Joseph A Kilpatrick, Husch Blackwell LLP. Crane Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Crown Cork & Seal USA, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Stephen J. Maassen, Hoagland, Fitzgerald & Pranaitis. The Dow Chemical Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew W. Schuh, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Eaton Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Christopher J. Lang, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C., Brian J. Connolly, Pitzer Snodgrass PC & John K Nelson, Shumaker Loop et al. Eaton Aeroquip, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Christopher J. Lang, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C., Brian J. Connolly, Pitzer Snodgrass PC & John K Nelson, Shumaker Loop et al. FMC Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Bradley R. Bultman, Segal, McCambridge et al.. General Cable Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by A. J. Bronsky, Brown & James. General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Raymond R. Fournie, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Anita M. Kidd, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Julie Fix Meyer, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Melanie R. King, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC. Harco Laboratories, Incorporated, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Jerome C. Simon, Pitzer Snodgrass, PC & Derek Ruzicka, Pitzer, Snodgrass, P.C.. Henkel Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew W. Schuh, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Hitco Carbon Composites, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by John H. Bornhofen, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP. Hollingsworth & Vose Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC. Imo Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Industrial Holdings Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. ITT Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Jeffrey E. Rogers, McGuire Woods LLP & Undray Wilks, McGuire Woods LLP. J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC. John Crane, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Sean P. Fergus, O'Connell, Tivin, Miller & Burns L.L.C.. Lennox Industries, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. MW Custom Papers, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Brian J. Huelsmann, Wilson Elser et al.. Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Andrew M. Voss, Greensfelder, Hemker et al.. Pneumo Abex, LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Ross S. Titzer, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC & Thomas L. Orris, Williams Venker & Sanders LLC. Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC. Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Keith B. Hill, Heyl, Royster et al.. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Dennis J. Dobbels, Polsinelli PC, Kathleen Ann Hardee, Polsinelli PC & Kirra N. Jones, Polsinelli PC. Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Kaitlyn N. Chenevert, Swanson, Martin & Bell, LLP. Trane US, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Benjamin J. Wilson, HeplerBroom LLC & Carl J. Geraci, HeplerBroom LLC. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Bash, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Justin S. Zimmerman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Matthew W. Schuh, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. United Technologies Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Kyler H. Stevens, Kurowski Shultz LLC & William D. Shultz, Jr., Kurowski Shultz LLC. Welco Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Gary L. Smith, Herzog Crebs LLP, James D. Maschhoff, Herzog Crebs LLP & Mary Ann Hatch, Herzog, Crebs et al.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Fined $26,000 for Fibro Removal Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, in a decision and judgment dated April 15, 2015, confirmed the determination of the New York State Department of Labor, dated March 9, 2012, which adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law of a hearing officer dated November 7, 2011, which, after a hearing, found that petitioner North Fork Management & Maintenance, LLC, failed to conduct an asbestos survey and failed to undertake asbestos removal by a licensed asbestos contractor, and assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $26,000. The case is IN THE MATTER OF NORTH FORK MANAGEMENT & MAINTENANCE, LLC, Petitioner, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent, 2013-07133, INDEX NO. 19966/1 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/9tHcoL from Leagle.com. Vincent J. Trimarco, Smithtown, N.Y. (Clare B. Connaughton of counsel), for petitioner. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York, N.Y. (Terri Gerstein and Seth Kupferberg of counsel), for respondent. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor Wins Dismissal of "Juni" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Ford Motor Company moves post-trial for orders: (1) striking the causation opinions of asbestos plaintiffs Arthur H. Juni and Mary Juni's expert witnesses, and (2) dismissing the action and entering judgment as a matter of law in favor of it based on the plaintiffs' failure to establish a prima facie case at trial, or, alternatively (3) setting aside the verdict rendered against it at trial and granting a new trial; (4) granting it leave to renew its opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate and upon renewal, denying the motion to consolidate and granting a new trial; (5) setting aside and remitting the verdict as excessive and contrary to the weight of the evidence; and (6) reducing the verdict by offsets from settlements before entering judgment. Judge Barbara Jaffe of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a decision and order dated April 13, 2015, granted Ford's motion to set aside the verdict, holding that absent a sufficient foundation for the admission of the expert evidence, the plaintiffs' evidence was legally insufficient to establish, prima facie, that Arthur Juni's exposure to asbestos from brakes, clutches, or gaskets sold or distributed by defendant constituted a significant contributing factor in causing his mesothelioma. There is thus no valid line of reasoning or permissible inference which could have led the jury to reach its result, Judge Jaffe ruled. The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to ARTHUR H. JUNI and MARY JUNI, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190315/12, MOTION SEQ. NO. 018 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Jaffe's Decision is available at http://is.gd/5DIkEqfrom Leagle.com. Pierre Ratzki, Esq., Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., 700 Broadway, New York, NY 10003, 212-558-5500, for Plaintiffs. Oded Burger, Esq., Aaronson Rappaport et al., 600 Third Ave., New York, NY 10016, 212-593-6700, For Ford Motor Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies AB's Bid to Junk "LeFrak" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Richard Lefrak was diagnosed with mesothelioma and pleural asbestosis in June of 2013. His disease, he claims, is connected to his asbestos exposure from joint compound and floor tiles, as a student and also as a janitor sweeping up dust at Stony Brook University where he went to college from 1965 to 1969. Defendant American Biltrite, Inc., is alleged to have manufactured and sold Amtico asbestos-containing vinyl tiles to Stony Brook that were used during various construction projects during the relevant period of time. It is undisputed that during the relevant period of time, AB sold Amtico asbestos-containing vinyl tiles. AB moves for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiff's complaint and all claims and cross claims against it. In an order dated April 10, 2015, Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied AB's motion finding that AB has failed to establish a prima facie case. The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to RICHARD R. LEFRAK Plaintiff, v. AERCO INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190033/2014 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of Judge Moulton's Decision is available at http://is.gd/YTgF7d from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Huntington Seeks to Dismiss "Malone" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc., one of the defendants in the lawsuit styled CHARLES D. MALONE and ELIZABETH MALONE, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-406-SLR-SRF (D. Del.), filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a report and recommendations dated April 14, 2015, directing the plaintiffs to submit any opposition to Huntington's motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of Magistrate Fallon's Decision is available at http://is.gd/J9GZeBfrom Leagle.com. Charles D. Malone, Plaintiff, represented by Michael L. Sensor, Lundy Law of Delaware, LLC & Charles E. Soechting, Jr.. Elizabeth Malone, Plaintiff, represented by Michael L. Sensor, Lundy Law of Delaware, LLC. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba. Alfa Laval Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jessica L. Reno, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Stephanie Elizabeth Smiertka, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Armstrong International Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Robert Alexander Ranieri, Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Atwood & Morrill Company Inc., Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Eric Scott Thompson, McGivney & Kluger, P.C. Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher C. Popper, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Krista Reale Samis, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. Caterpillar Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Andrew G. Ahern, III, Joseph W. Benson, Esq.. Cummins Inc., Defendant, represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Wilbraham Lawler & Buba. Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Jessica L. Reno, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Nathan David Barillo, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. Hopeman Brothers Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by R. Stokes Nolte, Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC, Stephanie S. Levitsky, Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC & Mary Kathryn Hodges Harmon, Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt PC. Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Sally J. Daugherty, Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP. Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Eric Scott Thompson, McGivney & Kluger, P.C.. Pfizer Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP. Riley Power Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Joel M. Doner, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Donald Robert Kinsley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley, Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC. Viad Corp., Defendant, Cross Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Eileen M. Ford, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C. & Megan Trocki Mantzavinos, Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly, P.C.. William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Anne Kai Seelaus, Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie and Seelaus. York International Corporation, Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Peter S. Murphy, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. Zurn Industries LLC, Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP. Trane US Inc., Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Order on Limine Motions Issued in "Kelly" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Vince Chhabria of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order dated April 13, 2015, regarding motions in limine to assist the parties in an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit in focusing their preparation for a pretrial conference. The case is BARRY KELLY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CBS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 11-CV-03240-VC (N.D. Calif.). A full-text copy of Judge Chhabria's Decision is available at http://is.gd/lEkk6Ifrom Leagle.com. Barry Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP, Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP & Gilbert Lynn Purcell, Brayton Purcell LLP. Molly Kelly, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP, Kimberly Joy Wai Jun Chu, Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP & Gilbert Lynn Purcell, Brayton Purcell LLP. CBS Corporation, formerly known as Viacom Inc. formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin Douglas Jamison, Esq. -- kjamison@pondnorth.com -- Pond North LLP. Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by George D. Yaron, Yaron & Associates. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, K&L Gates LLP, James A Lowery, III, KL Gates LLP, Peter Edward Soskin, K&L Gates LLP & Zachariah David Baker, KL Gates. Cleaver Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Rebecca Bain, Foley and Mansfield PLLP, Gary David Sharp, Foley and Mansfield, Tsun-Chi Eric Sun, Foley and Mansfield PLLP & Andrew Livingston Sharp, Foley and Mansfield. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in NY Suit Enlarged ----------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in a decision dated April 16, 2015, enlarged the time to perfect appeal to the September 2015 Term in the case captioned INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS REMOVAL, INC., v. BEYS SPECIALTY, INC. -- FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, MOTION NO. M-992 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/bVh54v from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. Grants Bid for Reimbursement of Atty Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Danaher Corporation brought a suit in 2010 against, among others, the Travelers Indemnity Company and Travelers Casualty and Surety Company to resolve disputes concerning insurance coverage for underlying silica- and asbestos-related claims against Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company. Travelers later impleaded Atlas Copco North America LLC, seeking a declaratory judgment on insurance coverage. On September 6, 2012, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that Travelers has a duty to defend Danaher and Atlas Copco against those claims "in the past and in the future." In an April 14, 2015, opinion and order report and recommendation, District Judge J. Paul Oetken adopted in full Magistrate Judge Francis's Report and Recommendation regarding two subsequent motions by Danaher and Atlas Copco seeking reimbursement for attorney's fees and costs. The Report recommends granting the motions. The case is DANAHER CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, et: al., Defendants, NO. 10-CV-121 (JPO)(S.D.N.Y.). A full-text copy of Judge Oetken's Decision is available at http://is.gd/DqG31cfrom Leagle.com. Danaher Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Jonathan Osias, Esq. -- bosias@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP & Gita F. Rothschild, Esq. -- grothschild@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP. The Travelers Indemnity Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff, ThirdParty Defendant, Cross Claimant, Counter Claimant, represented by Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff, ThirdParty Defendant, Cross Claimant, Counter Claimant, represented by Robert W. Mauriello, Jr., Graham, Curtin P.A. & Jennifer Leigh Schoenberg, Graham, Curtin P.A.. North River Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP. American Home Assurance Company, Defendant, represented by Ellen Gayle Margolis, Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP. Unigard Mutual Insurance Company Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Dwyer Sullivan, Jr, Wilson Elser,Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Barbara Hopkinson Kelly, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP & Sheilagh Mary Depeter, Wilson Elser,Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Defendant, represented by Claude N. Grammatico, Epstein, Frankini & Grammatico. Continental Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by John Albert Mattoon, Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser LLP & Andrew I Mandelbaum, Ford Marrin Esposito Witmeyer & Gleser, LLP. Employers Commercial Union Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP. International Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Anthony Gambardella, Rivkin, Radler & Kremer & Jay Kenigsberg, Rivkin Radler, L.L.P.. Granite State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Ellen Gayle Margolis, Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP. National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh, PA, Defendant, represented by Ellen Gayle Margolis, Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass, Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP & Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP. Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John T. Wolak, Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione. AIU Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Gerard Craig Morici, Mendes & Mount, LLP. Century Indemnity Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Brian G. Fox, Siegal & Park & James F Martin, Cohn Baughman & Martin. Liberty Mutual Fire Insuance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Eric J. Voigt, Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass. Industria Insurance Company LTD., ThirdParty Defendant, Counter Claimant, represented by Paul E. Breene, Reed Smith LLP. Trygg-Hansa Insurance Company, LTD., ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Karen M. Asner, White & Case LLP. Danaher Corporation, ThirdParty Defendant, Cross Defendant, Counter Defendant, represented by Brian Jonathan Osias, McCarter & English, LLP & Gita F. Rothschild, McCarter & English, LLP. North River Insurance Company, ThirdParty Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Robert Michael Flannery, Mendes & Mount, LLP. Atlas Copco North America, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, Cross Claimant, Counter Claimant, represented by Paul E. Breene, Esq. -- pbreene@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Va. High Court Flips Non-Suit Ruling in PI Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed a circuit court's judgment granting an asbestos-related personal injury plaintiff's motion for nonsuit, after determining that there is reversible error in the judgment of the circuit court. Accordingly, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings. The case is Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., et al., Appellants, v. Garland Cantrell, Appellee. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, n/k/a Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Appellant, v. Garland Cantrell, Appellee, RECORD NOS. 140748, 140749 (Va. Sup.). A full-text copy of the Decision dated April 16, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/dHZQCKfrom Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Super. Affirms $4.8MM Judgment vs. Crane Co. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. appeals from judgments entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in two asbestos-related lawsuits. In the first lawsuit, at trial, the jury found that Thomas Amato's exposure to Cranite was a factual cause of his mesothelioma and awarded him and his wife damages in the amount of $2.5 million. In the second lawsuit, the jury found that Frank Vinciguerra's exposure to Cranite was a factual cause of his mesothelioma and awarded his estate damages in the amount of $2.3 million. After careful review, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed both judgments. The appeals cases are THOMAS AMATO AND JEAN AMATO, HIS WIFE v. BELL & GOSSETT, CLARK-RELIANCE CORP., COPES-VULCAN, INC., CRANE CO., DEZURIK/COPES-VULCAN, ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., GOODYEAR CANADA, INC., GREENE, TWEED & COMPANY, INDUSTRIAL HOLDINGS CORP. F/K/A CARBORUNDUM COMPANY, INC., J.A. SEXAUER, INC., JOHN CRANE, INC., LINCOLN ELECTRIC CO., NIBCO, INC., PARKER- HANNIFIN CORP., SAINT-GOBAIN ABRASIVES, INC., SEPCO CORP., SPX CORP., VELAN VALVE COMPANY, TRANE US, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND F/K/A AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., SUCCESSOR TO THE TRANE CO., AMERICAN RADIATOR & STANDARD SANITARY CORP., KEWANEE BOILER, CO., AND/OR KEWANEE BOILER DIV. OF AMERICAN STANDARD, UNION CARBIDE CORP., AND WARREN PUMPS, LLC. APPEAL OF: CRANE CO. CHARLOTTE VINCIGUERRA, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK VINCIGUERRA, DECEASED, AND CHARLOTTE VINCINGUERRA, WIDOW IN HER OWN RIGHT v. BAYER CROPSCIENCE, INC., AS SUCCESSOR TO AMCHEM PRODUCTS, INC., F/K/A BENJAMIN FOSTER COMPANY, BELL & GOSSETT, BRAND INSULATIONS, INC., CERTAIN-TEED CORP., CLEAVER-BROOKS, A DIVISION OF AQUA-CHEM, INC., CRANE CO., DAVID MOSER, DFT, INC., DURABLA CANADA, LTD., E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, GEORGIA- PACIFIC CORP., GOODYEAR CANADA, INC., THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO., GOULDS PUMPS, INC., GREENE, TWEED & COMPANY, INC., GRINNELL CORPORATION, HAJOCA CORPORATION, HERMAN GOLDNER CO., INC., HONEYWELL, INC., INGERSOLL RAND COMPANY, JOHN CRANE, INC., KEELER/DORR-OLIVER BOILER CO., MARLEY COOLING TOWER, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC., PECORA CORP., RILEY STOKER CORP., SEPCO CORPORATION, INC., SID HARVEY INDUSTRIES, INC., F/K/A SID HARVEY MID ATLANTIC, INC., UNION CARBIDE CORP., WARREN PUMPS, LLC., WEIL MCLAIN, A DIVISION OF THE MARLEY CO., A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF UNITED DOMINION INDUSTRIES, INC., YARWAY CORPORATION, AVOCET ENTERPRISES, INC., F/K/A VENTFABRICS, INC., DAP PRODUCTS, INC., DURO DYNE CORP., AND TREMCO, INC. APPEAL OF: CRANE CO., NOS. 2344 EDA 2013, 2388 EDA 2013 (Pa. Super.). A full-text copy of the Decision dated April 17, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/sEpQGUfrom Leagle.com. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 * * *