/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150828.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, August 28, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 172
Headlines
809 LEX GROCERY: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ABENGOA SA: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
ABENGOA SA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Sues Insurer for Breach of Contract
AGROPUR COOPERATIVE: Recalls Skim Milk Products Due to Spoilage
AIRMEDIA GROUP: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Recalls REFRESH(R) Ophthalmic Ointment Products
ALLIANCE SECURITY: "Tarizzo" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Accused of Race Discrimination in New York
ALLSTATE CORP: Court Denies Turnover Motion in "Rizvi"
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Rolland" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
AMGEN: Journalist Refuses Involvement in Aranesp Class Suit
ANGIE'S LIST: E.D. Pa. Judge Trims Claims in "Moore" Suit
ASIRIA CORPORATION: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AT&T INC: "Ureta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
AVID LIFE: Faces "John Doe" 2nd Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
BACKYARD LAWN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Credit Inquiry
BARTON STAFFING: "Nava" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BERNARD MADOFF: Fairfield Investors, Citgo Reach $125MM Deal
BHH LLC: Accused of Selling Ineffective and Worthless Repellers
BMW: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Crash Hazard
BNP PARIBAS: Pays $115-Mil. to Settle Forex Manipulation Suit
BRASKEM SA: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
BROADCOM CORP: WeissLaw Files Securities Class Suit
C.A.M.P. USA: Recalls Automatic and Semi-Automatic Crampons
C.A.M.P. USA: Recalls Blade Runners Crampons Due to Fall Hazard
CALIFORNIA: Faces "Whittier Conservancy" Class Action in Cal.
CALIF. STATE UNIVERSITY: Sued for Refusing to Admit Disabled Woman
CAMDEN CTY, NJ: Faces Suit Alleging Religious Discrimination
CAREFIRST INC: Faces Data Breach Class Suit
CEVA LOGISTICS: Court Grants Final Approval of $2.6MM Settlement
CHETAK NEW: Recalls Coriander Powder Due to Salmonella
CHICAGO, IL: Teachers' Discrimination Suit Certified
CILANTRO TACO: Faces "Gonzales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CONAIR CORP: Court Rejects Discovery Bid in Styling Iron Suit
CONSTANT CONTACT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
COOPER VISION: Four Suits Included in Disposable Contact Lens MDL
CORMEDIX INC: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Class Suit
CORRECTIONS CORP: "Faircloth" Proceedings Stayed Thru Aug. 30
COSTAL WIRELESS: "Jordan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
COUCHE-TARD: Recalls Choco, Cinnamon Baked Products Due to Milk
D & M SMOKED: "Dillarza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
DELICIOUS MARKET: "Bravo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
DELILAH'S DEN: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Costello" Suit Says
DESCHUTES COUNTY, OR: Freedom Foundation Files Class Acion
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Appeals Court Sends Case Back to District
ELECTCHESTER MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ESTEE LAUDER: Breach of Contract Claim Tossed in "Tomasino"
FEDERAL RESERVE: No Jury Trial in "Artis" Gender Bias Suit
FIA CARD SERVICES: 5th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Claunch"
FIA CARD SERVICES: "Jenkins" Discovery Bid Granted in Part
FORMOSA PLASTICS: Yunlin County Residents File Class Action
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Eagle" Suit Says
GATEWAY FOUNDATION: Court Tosses Claim by Atheist Inmate
GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Frozen Green Beans Due to Listeria
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Mayes" Injury Suit Over Defective Air Bags
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Johnson & Weaver Files Securitites Class Suit
GLOBAL PARKING: Ill. Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss OT Suit
GM ELECTRICAL: "Cisneros" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
GOLDMAN SACHS: Agrees to Settle Mortgage Class Suit for $272MM
GRANDMA JOAN'S: "Benitez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
GREENBERG TRAURIG: Ariz. App. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Claims
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: DC Cir. Reinstates Securities Lawsuit
HCC INSURANCE: Faces "Wietschner" Suit Over Proposed Tokio Merger
HSBC HOLDINGS: Investors Recover More than $2BB Over Price-Rigging
ICONIX BRAND: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
IDI INC.: September 21, 2015 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
INDIANAPOLIS MARRIOTT: Ind. Court Reverses Class Cert. Ruling
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit
ISLAND GAS: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JAMES MELKA: Faces "Roman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JAY-JAY CABARET: "Arana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
JC USA: Sued for Discriminating Against Program Consultant
JO'S CANDIES: Recalls Honey Grahams with Sea Salt Due to Milk
KEURIG GREEN: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
KHIM'S MILLENIUM: "Heredia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
KIEWIT: Faces Breach of Privacy Class Suit
KIM DAVIS: Still Refuses to Issue Marriage Licenses
KNV FOOD: Recalls Mint Biscuit Products Due to Egg
KOHL'S: Faces Class Suit Over False Advertising of Sale Prices
LEARN IT: Faces "Burrell" Suit Over Alleged Employee Harassment
LIBERTY BROADBAND: Faces Suit in Del. Over Charter's Merger Plans
LIBERTY BROADBAND: Sued Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
LOS ANGELES, CA: Raises More Allegations Against Teacher
LOS ANGELES, CA: Could Pay as Much as $92.5M in Tel. Tax Suit Deal
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Balero" Suit Added to Chinese Flooring MDL
M-I LLC: "Dewan" Class Suit Transferred From California to Texas
MADEWELL INC: Recalls Women's Sandals Due to Trip & Fall Hazard
MANPOWER INC: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MDC PARTNERS: September 29, 2015 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces Third Data Breach Class Suit
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces Second Data Breach Class Suit
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "McGaha" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Norder" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
MENZIES AVIATION: No Arbitration in "Jimenez" Case, Court Says
MERCK & CO: Summary Judgment Granted in Part in Securities Case
MERCY HEALTH: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Petri" Suit Claims
MERSCORP INC: Montgomery Suit Can't Proceed as Class, 3d Cir Says
METRO GENERAL: Employees Owed Unpaid Wages, Says Jury
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ: Restaurant Faces Labor Class Suit
MOBILEIRON INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims
MOTORMAX FINANCIAL: Can't Force Arbitration, Mo. Court Says
NATURE'S VARIETY: Recalls Raw Chicken Formula Due to Salmonella
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Controls Trade of Sunday Games, Suit Claims
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Robins Kaplan Files Antitirust Class Action
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Dismissed "Ballard" & "Smith" Cases
NATIONAL GRID: Electricity Theft Outside Scope of FDCPA
NCO PORTFOLIO: 7th Cir. Revives Suit Over ICAA Exempt Status
NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Court Trims "Tejwant" Class Suit
NORTH AMERICAN PALLADIUM: Faces Securities Class Suit
NOVACARE LLC: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Salicylic Acid
NVIDIA CORP: Calif. Man Sues Over Misleading Product Information
O'CHARLEY INC: "Young" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
OCEAN DRIVE: Sued Over Alleged Gender & Racial Discrimination
ONTARIO, CA: Former Residents' Claims Downgraded Without Notice
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss SEPTA Suit
PELICAN HILL: Accused of Discrimination and Wrongful Termination
PETERSEN HEALTH: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Belt" Suit Says
PETROCHINA CO: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
PLASMANET INC: Agreement to Dismiss Appraisal Proceeding Granted
PNC MORTGAGE: Md. App. Court Reverses Judgement in Lending Case
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sued in Cal. Over False Personal Declarations
PRESTONE PRODUCTS: Recalls Ice and Frost Shield Products
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Suit Over Tide Pods
PROVIA DOOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Siding
RESCUE MISSION: Court Tosses "Real" Suit Over Prayer Policy
RESOURCE ENERGY: Faces "Moresi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RIGHT PATH: Faces "Evans" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ROCKWELL INT'L: 10th Cir. Revived Nuisance Claims in "Cook"
S & L BIRCHWOOD: Faces "Dike" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Suit Over Galaxy SIII Goes to Arbitration
SANTA BARBARA, CA: Dipsute Over City Surcharges Pending in S.C.
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SCHRATTER FOODS: Faces "Aviles" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Court Allows Filing of 3rd Amended Suit
SPARTON MEDICAL: "Sims" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SUDS PIZZA: "Cunningham" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
TAO LICENSING: Faces "Ashraf" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wage
TEREX CORPORATION: Faces "Stern" Suit Over Konecranes Merger
TEMPLETON RYE: Nov. 18 Class Settlement Claims Filing Deadline
TEXAS A&M: Law Graduates File Demand for Recognition
TN 888: Faces "Cheliotis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TOBY KEITH'S: Employees File Class Suit Over Back Wages
TOP SURGEONS: No Funds to Pay Class Suit Settlement
TORNADO PRODUCTION: Faces "Dale" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TRI-VALLEY CORPORATION: Court Permits Investors to Amend Suit
TRUECAR: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Information
UBER: Wins Connecticut Class Suit Filed by Taxi Companies
UNDER ARMOUR: Delays Stock Split Until Suit Gets Resolved
UNITED STATES: OPM, KeyPoint Sued Over Cyber Breaches
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Suit by Colorado Inmate
UNITED STATES: Suit Over Right to Purchase Firearms Goes to Trial
UNITED STATES: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Suit v. US Army
UNITED STATES: Judge Allows Substitution in "Daniel"
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Arbitrator Can Decide on Talks, CA Says
VELLEND TECH: Recalls Breezer Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA: Sued Over Franchise Fee Miscalculation
VIRGINIA FARM: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Jan. 2016 Fairness Hearing on Brockton Deal
WISCONSIN: Judge Denies Class Certification of Prison Guard Suit
ZIPCAR INC: Must Defend Against "Bayol" Action, Court Says
ZIRTUAL: Faces Class Suit Over Mismanangement
* Consumers File 75 Antitrust Class Suits v. Major U.S. Carriers
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Vuskovich Testimony Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Protective Order in "Frank" Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Modifies Aug. 11 Ruling in "Murat"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Groupon's Bid Dismiss "Mosley"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dec. 14 Energy Future Fibro Claims Bar Date
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oakfabco in Ch. 11 to Resolve Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Spent $400K for Fibro Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had 5,200 Fibro Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Units Had 3,600 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Had $243.6-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.73-Bil. Fibro Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had 22,003 Unresolved Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has $52.26-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 PI Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Accrues $80MM for Fibro Defense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DCLLC Records $52-Mil. Insurance Recovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $123-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CB&I Has 5,800 Fibro Plaintiffs at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Testimony Partially OK'd
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $32MM Punitive Damages Award in PI Suit Reversed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Treadwell's Bid to Dismiss "Koulermos" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Deaths Above Average in Maine
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exec Sentenced for Exposing Children in Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Atty Raises Concerns About NJ Locomotive
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Factors in Former Miner's Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Reaches Defense Verdict for Lockheed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gran Exposed to Fibro by Washing Overalls
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,300+ Claims Filed in Akron Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Spent GBP50,000 for Fibro Defense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man's Death Caused by Exposure to RAF Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.Va. High Ct. Reaffirms Diagnoses Requirements
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Suit Targets Dozens of Companies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns Keep Tulsa Airport Tower Closed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Court Commanded to Nix $2.6MM Verdict
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Parish Accused of Covering Up Fibro Danger
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $5MM Verdict Hangs on Ga. High Court Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auckland Director Fined $25K for Fibro Site Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim Launches Suit vs. Wunderlich Factory
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Jurors Award $11.5MM at End of Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victim Seeks Support from Co-Workers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Worker Sues Fibro Firm for Cancer Pain
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victorian Wildlife at Risk Due to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Nurse Diagnosed with Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Sufferer Seeks Help from Colleagues
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Workers' Overalls Causes Death
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Homebuilder Awarded $6-Mil. in Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potential Fibro Suit Filed for "Beau" Hicks
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Golden Wonder Factory Builders Warned of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Outdated EPA Rules May Increase Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dads Fears for Family's Health Over Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moorhead Man Develops Disease from Fibro Work
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Accused Firm of Gaming Fibro Recovery
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCAW Applauds Changes on Position in Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US EPA to Update Fibro Standard
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coventry Hospital Handyman Wins GBP150,000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Cedar Rapids School
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Timaru Hospital Basement
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Kills Allestree Builder
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joiner Dies of Lung Cancer Due to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Ct. Flips Dismissal of Broker from Suit
*********
809 LEX GROCERY: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Noriega Gonzalez, and all others similarly-situated v. 809
Lex Grocery, Inc., Chin Suk Yim, and John Does #1-10, Case No.
1:15-cv-06328 (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2015), seeks to recover
compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum
wage, unpaid wages for overtime work, and liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The Defendants own and operate a grocery store in New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Stein, Esq.
SAMUEL & STEIN
38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
New York, NY 10001
Tel: (212) 563-9884
ABENGOA SA: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
those who purchased American Depositary shares of Abengoa SA.
("Abengoa" or the "Company") (NasdaqGS: ABGB), during the period
between November 12, 2015 and August 2, 2015 inclusive. (the
"Class Period").
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. On July 31, 2015, Abengoa revealed that
it would decrease its free cash flow guidance, and prepare to
divest itself of 400 million euros in assets. However, Defendant
Santiago Seage maintained that "the company has no plan to . . .
tap the capital markets in any manner." Then on August 3, 2015,
contrary to this statement, Abengoa announced a share issuance
plan to raise 650 million euros, along with an asset divestiture
totaling 500 million euros.
Following this news, shares of Abengoa plunged over $5 per share,
or 46% to close at $6.00 on August 4, 2015.
No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number. If you
suffered a loss in Abengoa you have until October 9, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.
Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
60 East 42nd Street Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Fax: (212) 697-7296
info@bgandg.com
ABENGOA SA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers
of Abengoa, S.A. American Depository Shares from November 12, 2014
through August 2, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover investors' losses under the federal
securities laws.
To join the Abengoa class action, visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-697.html,or contact Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.
According to the lawsuit, Abengoa and certain of its past and
present executive officers and directors have misrepresented the
liquidity of Abengoa's balance sheet in corporate reports filed
with the SEC and during conference calls with financial analysts.
These misrepresentations artificially elevated the trading price
of Abengoa's ADS.
On July 31, 2015, Abengoa revealed that it would decrease its free
cash flow guidance, and prepare to divest itself of 400 million
euros in assets. However, Defendant Santiago Seage maintained that
"the company has no plan to . . . tap the capital markets in any
manner." Then on August 3, 2015, contrary to this statement,
Abengoa announced a share issuance plan to raise 650 million
euros, along with an asset divestiture totaling 500 million euros.
Consequently, Abengoa's ADS fell more than $5 per share or 46% to
close at $6 on August 4, 2015.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 9, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-697.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-686-1060
Toll Free: 866-767-3653
Fax: 212-202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Sues Insurer for Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reported that an
Ace Ltd. unit is obligated to defend retailer Abercrombie & Fitch
Co. in connection with three pending class action lawsuits
stemming from a promotion, an appeals court ruled.
New Albany, Ohio-based Abercrombie gave a $25 gift card to
customers who had purchased either $75 or $100 worth of goods
during the 2009 holiday season, according to ruling by the 6th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in Ace European Group
Ltd. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
Although Abercrombie refused to honor the cards after Jan. 30,
2010, some of the gift card had the phrase "no expiration date"
printed on the surface, and others had no expiration date.
Abercrombie customers filed three class action lawsuits still
pending in Illinois, California and Ohio claiming customer fraud
stemming from the retailer's refusal to honor the cards and breach
of contract.
Abercrombie, which had purchased an "advertisers and Internet
liability" policy from Ace unit Ace European Group Ltd. in
September 2009, requested that the insurer defend it in the
litigation, but the insurer refused, stating the subject matter
fell outside its policy's coverage.
Abercrombie sued Ace for breach of contract and related claims,
while Ace sought a declaratory judgment stating it was not
obligated to provide coverage.
The U.S. District Court in Columbus, Ohio, ruled the insurer was
obligated for defense costs, and the 6th Circuit's three-judge
appellate panel agreed in a unanimous ruling.
According to the appellate ruling, Ace argued it has no duty to
defend Abercrombie under two exclusions in its policy.
The first exclusion said the insurer has no liability assumed
under any contract or agreement, including any breach or express
warranty or guarantee. That exclusion is not applicable, said the
panel. "Under Ohio law, contracts are legally enforceable
agreements consisting of -- among other things -- offer,
acceptance and consideration . . . Under this definition, we do
not understand the promotional gift cards to be 'contracts' within
the meaning" of the exclusion.
The second policy exclusion, for "coupons, prize discounts,
prizes, awards or any other valuable considerations" also does not
apply, said the panel. "Ace neither shows that the plain and
ordinary meaning of 'coupon' embraces the promotional gift cards
nor justifies looking beyond the policy's plain language," said
the ruling.
As a result, the exclusion "does not relieve Ace of its duty to
defend," said the panel, in affirming the lower court's ruling.
AGROPUR COOPERATIVE: Recalls Skim Milk Products Due to Spoilage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Agropur Cooperative Island Farms
Distribution: British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10005
Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC
name ----------- ---- product ---
----- ----------
Island Skim Milk 1 L SE 06 4415 0 57726 00124 8
Farms
AIRMEDIA GROUP: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against AirMedia Group, Inc. ("AirMedia" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:AMCN) and certain of its officers. The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased AirMedia securities between April 15, 2015
and June 15, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period").
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
If you are a shareholder who purchased AirMedia securities during
the Class Period, you have until August 24, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlawfirm.com. To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.
AirMedia operates out-of-home advertising platforms primarily in
the People's Republic of China. The company operates a network of
digital TV screens on planes operated by seven airlines;
traditional media in airports, such as light boxes, billboards,
and painted advertisements; and gas station media displays, as
well as other outdoor media displays out of the air travel
advertising sector.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the purported sale
of a 5% interest in AirMedia's advertising subsidiary, AirMedia
Group Co., Ltd. ("AM Advertising"), to Shenzhen Liantronics Co.
Ltd., and the valuation of the subsidiary negotiated in the deal.
AirMedia's press release announcing the sale stated that the deal
"reflected the total valuation of AM Advertising of RMB3 billion,"
or $500 million. The complaint further alleges that defendants
made additional statements during the Class Period claiming that
RMB3 billion/$500 million was a solid valuation of the AM
Advertising subsidiary. As a result of defendants' false and
misleading statements during the Class Period, AirMedia ADRs
traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high price of
$7.70 per ADR in intraday trading on June 15, 2015.
On June 15, 2015, the Company issued a press release announcing
that it had entered into a definitive agreement to sell a 75%
equity interest in AM Advertising to Beijing Longde Wenchuang Fund
Management Co., Ltd. for RMB2.1 billion/$344.4 million,
significantly less than the purported value the Company had
claimed the subsidiary was worth during the Class Period.
On this news, the price of AirMedia ADRs fell more than 50% over
the next two days.
Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
Pomerantz LLP
600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212.661.1100 or 1.888.4.POMLAW
Fax: 212.661.8665
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
http://pomerantzlawfirm.com/
ALLERGAN PLC: Recalls REFRESH(R) Ophthalmic Ointment Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc, announced that it is conducting a voluntary recall
down to consumer level of specific lots of its REFRESH(R) Lacri-
Lube(R) 3.5g and 7g for dry eye, REFRESH P.M.(R) 3.5g for dry eye,
FML(R) (fluorometholone ophthalmic ointment) 0.1% (sterile
ophthalmic ointment topical anti-inflammatory agent for ophthalmic
use, 3.5g), and Blephamide(R) (sulfacetamide sodium and
prednisolone acetate ophthalmic ointment, USP) 10%/0.2% sterile
topical ophthalmic ointment combining an antibacterial and a
corticosteroid, 3.5g.
Allergan chose to initiate this recall based on a small number of
customer complaints which reported a small black particle at the
time of use. This black particle, which is part of the cap, can be
created by the action of unscrewing the cap from the aluminum
tube, and potentially introduced into the product. Reported
adverse events include Foreign Body in Eye (12), Eye Irritation
(2), Ocular Discomfort (2), Product Contamination (2), Superficial
Injury of Eye (2), Eye Pain (1), Eye Swelling (1) and Vision
Blurred (1).
Specific lots are being voluntarily recalled in the interest of
patient safety. If the particle gets into the eye, potential
adverse events may include eye pain, eye swelling, ocular
discomfort or eye irritation. Please contact your physician or
healthcare provider if you have any of these symptoms when using
these products. The lot number and expiration date may be found on
the bottom flap of the carton with the safety seal and on the
crimp seal of the product tube.
Specific information on product and lots that are being
voluntarily recalled are below:
NDC Description Lot Number Expiration
--- ----------- ---------- Date
----------
0023-0312-04 REFRESH(R) 84746 Apr-17
Lacri-Lube(R) 3.5 g
0023-0312-04 REFRESH(R) 84987 May-17
Lacri-Lube(R) 3.5 g
0023-0312-04 REFRESH(R) 85087 May-17
Lacri-Lube(R) 3.5 g
0023-0312-04 REFRESH(R) 85359 Jun-17
Lacri-Lube(R) 3.5 g
0023-0312-04 REFRESH(R) 85721 Jul-17
Lacri-Lube(R) 3.5 g
0023-0312-04 REFRESH(R) 86045 Aug-17
Lacri-Lube(R) 3.5 g
0023-0312-04 REFRESH(R) 86406 Sep-17
Lacri-Lube(R) 3.5 g
0023-0312-04 REFRESH(R) 86594 Oct-17
Lacri-Lube(R) 3.5 g
0023-0312-04 REFRESH(R) 87021 Nov-17
Lacri-Lube(R) 3.5 g
0023-0312-07 REFRESH(R) 86470 Sep-17
Lacri-Lube(R) 7g
0023-0312-07 REFRESH(R) 86829 Oct-17
Lacri-Lube(R) 7g
0023-0312-07 REFRESH(R) 87105 Nov-17
Lacri-Lube(R) 7g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 85165 May-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 85228 May-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 85244 Jun-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 85351 Jun-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 85374 Jun-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 85397 Jun-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 85561 Jul-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 85676 Jul-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 85694 Jul-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 85834 Aug-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 85977 Aug-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 85985 Aug-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86073 Aug-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 85599 Sep-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86290 Sep-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86325 Sep-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86411 Sep-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86427 Sep-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86506 Sep-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86515 Sep-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86517 Sep-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86746 Oct-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86792 Oct-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86789 Oct-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86809 Oct-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86822 Oct-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86822A Oct-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86932 Nov-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 87100 Nov-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 87068 Nov-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 87156 Dec-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 87261 Dec-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 87493 Dec-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 87494 Feb-17
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 87494 Feb-18
3.5 g
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 85165 May-17
3.5 g (Professional
Sample Pack)
0023-0240-04 REFRESH P.M.(R) 86789 Oct-17
3.5 g (Professional
Sample Pack)
0023-0316-04 FML(R) 86258 Sep-17
(fluorometholone
ophthalmic ointment)
0.1%, 3.5 g
0023-0316-04 FML(R) 87189 Dec-17
(fluorometholone
ophthalmic ointment)
0.1%, 3.5 g
0023-0316-04 FML(R) 87514 Feb-18
(fluorometholone
ophthalmic ointment)
0.1%, 3.5 g
0023-0313-04 Blephamide(R) 86430 Sep-17
(sulfacetamide sodium
and prednisolone
acetate ophthalmic
ointment, USP)
10%/0.2%, 3.5 g
0023-0313-04 Blephamide(R) 87806 Feb-18
(sulfacetamide sodium
and prednisolone
acetate ophthalmic
ointment, USP)
10%/0.2%,3.5 g
0023-0313-04 Blephamide(R) 88147 Mar-18
(sulfacetamide sodium
and prednisolone
acetate ophthalmic
ointment, USP) 10%/0.2%,
3.5 g
Allergan has informed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration of
this voluntary recall. The recall only applies to specific lots of
the REFRESH(R) Lacri-Lube(R), REFRESH P.M. (R), FML(R)
(fluorometholone ophthalmic ointment) 0.1%, Blephamide(R)
(sulfacetamide sodium and prednisolone acetate ophthalmic
ointment, USP) 10%/0.2%. This recall does not affect any other
REFRESH or Allergan product.
Allergan is contacting retailers and wholesalers who have been
shipped affected product lots to initiate the recall and is
informing them of the steps needed to return affected product.
The company is asking consumers who currently have product from
any of the affected lots of REFRESH(R) Lacri-Lube(R), REFRESH P.M.
(R), FML(R) (fluorometholone ophthalmic ointment) 0.1% ,
Blephamide(R) (sulfacetamide sodium or prednisolone acetate
ophthalmic ointment, USP) 10%/0.2%, to stop using the product and
return it to Allergan.
If there are questions or if assistance is required in response to
this recall, please use the contact information below.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Product Returns
Contact GENCO at:
877-674-2087
7 am to 5 pm CST Credit/Reimbursements
Contact Allergan at:
1-800-811-4148
7am to 5pm PST Allergan
Medical Inquiries:
1-800-433-8871 option 2 8am - 5pm PST
Adverse Events/Products Complaints:
1-800-624-4261 Option 3 (8am - 5pm CST)
FDA contact information for reporting adverse events/quality
complaints:
Online at www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm or call FDA at 1-800-
FDA-1088
Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if
they have experienced any problems that may be related to the use
of this product.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm459499.htm
ALLIANCE SECURITY: "Tarizzo" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Tarizzo, and all others similarly-situated v. Alliance
Security Inc. Will Do Business In California as AH Security Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00137 (C.D. Calif., April 9, 2015), seeks damages
and any other available legal or equitable remedies pursuant to
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Defendant is in the business of providing consumers home
security services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel: (877) 206-4741
Fax: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Accused of Race Discrimination in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Devon H. Brown v. Alliedbarton Security Services LLC, Martin
Feeney, Kevin McNamara and Michael Schoen, Case No. 706070/2015
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 10, 2015) seeks damages to redress the
alleged injuries the Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being
harassed, discriminated against, and retaliated against on the
basis of his race (African-American), national origin, and
perceived religion.
Alliedbarton Security Services LLC is a foreign limited liability
company duly organized and existing under the laws of the state of
New York. The Individual Defendants are employees of Allied
Barton.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Garima Vir, Esq.
AKIN LAW GROUP PLLC
45 Broadway, Suite 1420
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 825-1400
E-mail: garima@akinlaws.com
ALLSTATE CORP: Court Denies Turnover Motion in "Rizvi"
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs moved for a turnover order against The Allstate
Corporation pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1402(c) in the case
captioned, SYED RIZVI, Individually, and PRIME BUILDERS &
DEVELOPMENT, INC., an Illinois Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. MIRZA
ALIKHAN, Defendant, THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION aka, ALLSTATE
INDEMNITY COMPANY, Third Party Respondent, Case No. 13 C 6924
(N.D. Ill.).
After Plaintiffs completed the repairs to Alikhan's house, Alikhan
made a partial payment to the Plaintiffs, using funds he received
from Allstate pursuant to an insurance policy. He then made two
additional payments, totaling $85,679.64, leaving $89,637.64
unpaid. The United States District Court the Northern District of
Illinois entered a default judgement against Alikhan based on a
complaint filed by Syed Rizvi and Prime Builders & Development,
Inc. alleging that Alikhan failed to fully pay for repairs
Plaintiffs made to Alikhan's house after it was damaged in a fire.
In the motion, Plaintiffs contended that because Allstate made a
partial payment to Plaintiffs on behalf of Alikhan pursuant to an
insurance policy, the Court should order Allstate to "turnover"
the full amount of the default judgment against Alikhan.
District Judge Thomas M. Durkin, in the Memorandum Opinion and
Order dated June 24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/1obAeBfrom
Leagle.com, denied Plaintiffs' motion for a turnover order and
dismissed Plaintiffs' independent action against Allstate based on
Alihan's insurance policy, for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs are represented by M. James Salem, Esq.
Defendant is represented by Matthew Anthony Cook, Esq. --
mcook@condoncook.com -- CONDON & COOK, L.L.C.
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Rolland" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Rolland, Timothy St. Cyr, and all others similarly-situated
v. American Airlines Group Inc., Americal Airlines, Inc., Delata
Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental
Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-03256
(D. Minn., Aug. 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
alleged conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price
of domestic air travel services, including but not limited to
prices for airline tickets.
American Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in Forth
Worth, Texas that conducts air passenger transportation services
throughout the U.S. including flights to and from this district.
The Defendant is a subsidiary of American Airlines Group, Inc.
Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta conducts air
passenger transportation services throughout the U.S., including
flights to and from this district.
Southwest Airlines Co. is a Delaware corporation domiciled in
Dallas, Texas. Southwest conducts air passenger transportation
services throughout the United States, including flights to and
from this district.
United Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located Chicago, Illinois. United conducts air
passenger transportation services throughout the U.S., including
flights to and from this district.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard M. Hagstrom, Esq.
HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
8050 West 78th Street
Edina, MN 55439
Tel: (952) 746-2169
Fax: (952) 941-2337
E-mail: rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com
AMGEN: Journalist Refuses Involvement in Aranesp Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Wasserman, writing for Fierce Pharma, reported that it isn't
too often that drugmakers and journalists go head to head in
court. But as part of Amgen's ($AMGN) latest legal battle, it's
asking a federal judge to force a reporter to testify about an
article he wrote that prompted a shareholder suit against the
company and to spell out how he got information about an abandoned
clinical trial.
Amgen called on Paul Goldberg, editor-in-chief and publisher of
cancer research newsletter The Cancer Letter, after Goldberg wrote
a story about Amgen pulling the plug on a trial of its
chemotherapy and kidney disease drug, Aranesp. The article spurred
a class action lawsuit in the federal district court in Los
Angeles, with shareholders claiming the company failed to disclose
information about the study.
But Goldberg refused, saying he had reporter's privilege to keep
the information to himself under the First Amendment. In June,
Goldberg filed papers challenging the company's subpoena. U.S.
District Judge Amit Mehta is now hearing arguments from both Amgen
and Goldberg, the Legal Times reports.
Goldberg's attorney Steven Lieberman told Mehta that Amgen failed
to take additional steps before subpoenaing Goldberg, including
interviewing more Wall Street analysts and speaking with doctors
mentioned in his article. Journalists should be a last, not first,
resort for information in legal proceedings, Lieberman pointed
out, and a company as large as Amgen should be able to get its
ammo elsewhere.
As part of its class action suit, Amgen wants to show that
information about the clinical study was already known before
Goldberg published his article. John Hueston, the company's
attorney, said Amgen would not ask Goldberg to name confidential
sources and just wants him to share how he learned about the
study, the Legal Times reports.
But Mehta was not convinced, asking Hueston whether Amgen had
exhausted all of its other options for getting the information
before turning to Goldberg, according to the Legal Times story.
The company has already talked to three securities analysts
familiar with the matter, Hueston told Mehta, and knows about 25
other analysts who follow the drugmaker's activities. Still, this
isn't sufficient information to build Amgen's defense case, he
added. "We are not using Mr. Goldberg as any kind of shortcut," he
said, as quoted by the Legal Times.
ANGIE'S LIST: E.D. Pa. Judge Trims Claims in "Moore" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Jannell Moore is a Pennsylvania citizen and Angie's List is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
Indianapolis, Indiana. Moore sued the popular consumer-review site
in the United States District Court for Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, alleging its practices deceive consumers and seeking
class action status for her four claims for relief. Moore alleges
that Angie's List manipulates its results in several ways. She
alleges that the company does not count negative reviews when
compiling a rating and fails to make a negative review readable.
In part, she alleges, it does so by "extracting 'advertising fees'
from service providers to ensure that positive reviews are highly
visible and factored into a service provider's rating and search
result ranking.
Angie's List contends that Moore lacks standing because (1) she
cannot establish injury traceable to the provider advertising at
the heart of her complaint because at the time Moore contracted
with the service provider she was ineligible to pay Angie's List
advertising revenue, (2) in her own review of the service she
received she admits to having seen negative reviews and does not
claim to have experienced any provider's unwarranted elevated
placement (the other conduct she challenges), and (3) she failed
to allege that she experienced suppression of reviews that altered
the rankings on the site.
Angie's List seeks dismissal of Moore's claim because Plaintiff
failed to identify a false or misleading statement or omission, or
to allege detrimental reliance. The company also argues that Moore
has not alleged any breach of contractual duty and that the unjust
enrichment claim must be dismissed because an enforceable contract
governs the relationship between the parties rendering her quasi-
contract equitable claim unavailable and duplicative of her common
law claims.
In his Memorandum dated August 7, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/wuTWkifrom Leagle.com, District Judge Stewart
Dalzell concluded that Moore has standing to pursue her claims.
Moore's claim for unjust enrichment cannot survive the defendant's
motion to dismiss because neither party questions the validity of
the Membership Agreement as a contract. The breach of contract
claim survives as to the three provisions of the Membership
Agreement but is denied as to any representations on the website.
The Court denied Angie's List's motion to dismiss Moore's fraud
and unfair trade practices claims because the documentation
attached by the Defendant to the motion were not undisputedly
authentic.
The case captioned is JANELL MOORE, on Behalf of Herself and All
Others Similarly Situated, v. ANGIE'S LIST, INC, Case No. 15-1243
(E.D. Pa.).
Janell Moore is represented by Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. --
kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com & Richard M. Golomb, Esq. --
rgolomb@golombhonik.com -- GOLOMB & HONIK & RUBEN HONIK, GOLOMB &
HONIK, PC
Angie's List is represented by Franco A. Corrado, Esq. --
fcorrado@morganlewis.com & J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq. --
jgcooney@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS,& BOCKIUS LLP
ASIRIA CORPORATION: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Hernandez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Asiria Corporation d/b/a Los Arcos Mexican Restaurant
& Sports Bar and Onesimo Nevarez, Case No. 4:15-cv-00567 (E.D.
Te., August 21, 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 Los Arcos Mexican Restaurant &
Sports Bar in Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J.H. Zidell, Esq.
Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
Dallas, TX 75240
Telephone: (972) 233-2264
Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
josh.a.petersen@gmail.com
AT&T INC: "Ureta" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Anthony Ureta, and all others similarly-situated v. AT&T Inc. and
AT&T Services, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03653 (N.D. Calif., August
11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime and unpaid wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard
Act and California Labor Code.
AT&T Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications
corporation, headquartered at Whitacre Tower in downtown Dallas,
Texas.
AT&T Services, Inc. designs, develops, integrates, tests,
commercializes, and markets Internet services. AT&T Services, Inc.
was formerly known as SBC Services, Inc. The company was
incorporated in 1996 and is based in San Antonio, Texas. AT&T
Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of AT&T, Inc.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 638-8800
Fax: (347) 390-2187
- and -
Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 245-1000
Fax: (646) 509-2060
- and -
Jason C. Marsili, Esq.
POSNER & ROSEN LLP
3600 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1800
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-6050
Fax: (213) 389-0663
AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action has
been filed on behalf of investors of Avalanche Biotechnologies,
Inc. (NASDAQ: AAVL) ("Avalanche" or "the Company") that purchased
shares between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015, inclusive (the,
"Class Period"). The complaint alleges that the Company and its
officers violated securities laws, by misleading investors
regarding the strength of its Phase 2 clinical trials, and hid the
fact that the trial was not designed to show statistically
significant differences between the control and active groups.
On June 15, 2015, Avalanche reported that the company's treatment
for wet age-related macular degeneration met its primary endpoint.
In a conference call, after the close of trading on June 15, 2015,
however, the Company indicated that the study wasn't designed to
show statistically significant differences between active and
control groups. On this news, shares of Avalanche fell $21.88 per
share, or 56%, to close on June 16, 2015 at $17.05 per share. Then
on July 23, 2015, the Company announced that CEO Thomas Chalberg
had resigned his position, causing the Company's shares to decline
over 5% in intraday trading.
If you purchased Avalanche securities during the Class Period,
have information regarding these allegations, and/or would like to
learn more about your legal rights in connection with this notice
please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard
G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania
19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847,
or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our
website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com
AVID LIFE: Faces "John Doe" 2nd Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN DOE (a pseudonym), individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Avid Life Media, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
02750-N (N.D. Tex., August 21, 2015), arises out of the breach of
the security system of the Defendant governing electronic
transactions, resulting in compromised security of the Plaintiff's
and Class Members' personal financial and other information.
Headquartered in Toronto, Canada, Avid Life Media, Inc., owns,
operates, and controls social networking services, including a
site on the Internet branded as AshleyMadison.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W. Lewis Garrison Jr., Esq.
Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
2224 First Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 326-3336
Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
- and -
James F. McDonough III, Esq.
HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 996-0869
Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com
- and -
John T. Kirtley III, Esq.
FERRER, POIROT & WANSBROUGH
2603 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 300
P. O. Box 199109
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-4412
Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
E-mail: jkirtley@lawyerworks.com
BACKYARD LAWN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meliton Bolanos-Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated employees v. Backyard Lawn LLC d/b/a U.S. Lawns
of Northwest Mississippi and Bryant Jernigan, Case No. 2:15-cv-
02523-SHM-dkv (W.D. Tenn., August 6, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.
The Defendants are in the business of providing commercial and
residential landscaping services for customers in northern
Mississippi and west Tennessee.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryce William Ashby, Esq.
DONATI LAW FIRM, LLP
1545 Union Ave.
Memphis, TN 38104
Telephone: (901) 278-1004
Facsimile: (901) 278-3111
E-mail: bryce@donatilaw.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Credit Inquiry
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Pastor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bank of America, Case No. 3:15-cv-03831-MEJ (N.D.
Cal., August 21, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's alleged
unauthorized and unlawful credit inquiry.
Headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina., Bank of America is
one of leading financial institution in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
David J. McGlothlin, Esq.
HYDE & SWIGART
2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108-3551
Telephone: (619) 233-7770
Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
david@westcoastlitigation.com
- and -
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
2700 N. Main Street, Ste. 1000
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
ryan@kazlg.com
BARTON STAFFING: "Nava" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Nava, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees v. Barton Staffing Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
07350 (E.D. Ill., August 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.
Barton Staffing Solutions, Inc. is engaged in the business of
employing day or temporary laborers to provide services, for a
fee, to third party clients companies.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
Chicago, IL 60646
Telephone: (312) 878-1302
E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com
BERNARD MADOFF: Fairfield Investors, Citgo Reach $125MM Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Palank, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported
that a company that was supposed to help keep an eye on major
Bernard Madoff investor Fairfield Greenwich Ltd. agreed to pay
$125 million to settle litigation related to the Ponzi scheme.
The deal, reached in July by Fairfield's investors and Citco Group
Ltd., was outlined in papers filed in federal court in New York,
which must approve the settlement. The settlement funds would go
to investors as well as their attorneys.
Investors in Fairfield Greenwich Ltd.'s funds sued the investment
firm and others shortly after Mr. Madoff's December 2008 arrest
for running what was ultimately shown to be the largest Ponzi
scheme ever.
Citco, which provides financial services to hedge funds, private-
equity firms and others, was included in the litigation because it
had been hired by Fairfield to monitor its assets and Mr. Madoff's
trading activity.
In 2013, the district court approved an $80 million settlement
between the investors and Fairfield and the firm's founders and
affiliates.
The current settlement doesn't resolve the investors' claims
against Fairfield's auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers, which are set
for a January 2016 trial.
Citco doesn't admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement and
says it agreed to the deal to avoid the "uncertainties, burden and
expense of further litigation."
An attorney for Citco couldn't immediately be reached for comment.
Boies, Schiller & Flexner attorney Stuart Singer, who is
representing the investors, said that his clients are pleased with
the deal.
"We believe this to be by far the largest investor class action
settlement with an administrator or custodian involved in the
Madoff fraud," he said in an email. "We look forward to approval
of this settlement and continuing forward against the remaining
defendants, PwC Canada and PwC Netherlands, at the trial scheduled
for January 2016."
An estimated $17.3 billion in principal was lost in the Ponzi
scheme, which was exposed in 2008. In 2009, Mr. Madoff pleaded
guilty to orchestrating the fraud and is now serving a 150-year
prison sentence.
BHH LLC: Accused of Selling Ineffective and Worthless Repellers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Hart and Amanda Parke, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. BHH, LLC d/b/a Bell + Howell and Van
Hauser LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04804 (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2015) is
brought on behalf of purchasers of Bell + Howell Ultrasonic Pest
Repellers and Bell + Howell Solar Animal Repellers.
According to the complaint, the Defendants represent that their
Ultrasonic Pest Repellers use "ultrasonic sound waves" to repel
"mice, rats, roaches, spiders, and ants" and are effective to
"Drive Pests Out!" but that is false and misleading. The
Plaintiffs contend that scientific evidence shows these devices do
not repel pests and that the Ultrasonic Pest Repellers are
ineffective and worthless.
BHH, LLC is a New York corporation with a principal place of
business in New York City. Van Hauser LLC is a New York
corporation with a principal place of business in New York City.
The Defendants manufacture and distribute the Repellers in the
United States.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
888 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 989-9113
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: scott@bursor.com
jmarchese@bursor.com
ndeckant@bursor.com
ykopel@bursor.com
BMW: Recalls Multiple Motorcycle Models Due to Crash Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Engine
Units affected: 92
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015378TC
ID number: 2015378
On certain motorcycles, the engine control unit software which
regulates the idle speed may have been incorrectly programmed. As
a result, if the clutch lever is engaged, the throttle is closed
and the engine is operating at idle, the engine may stall. An
engine stall could lead to a loss of stability of the motorcycle,
which could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
property damage. Correction: Dealers will update the engine
control unit software.
Make Model Model year(s) affected
--- ----- ----------------------
BMW 2013, 2013
BNP PARIBAS: Pays $115-Mil. to Settle Forex Manipulation Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reported that BNP Paribas SA
has agreed to pay $115 million to settle U.S. investor lawsuits
accusing 16 major banks of rigging prices in the $5.3 trillion-a-
day foreign exchange market, a person familiar with the matter
said on.
The Paris-based bank is among nine that lawyers for the plaintiffs
disclosed on had reached agreements totaling more than $2 billion
in class action litigation pending in New York.
Of those banks, the plaintiffs have announced the terms for only
four of their settlements, leaving unconfirmed how much BNP
Paribas, HSBC Holdings Plc, Barclays Plc, Goldman Sachs Group Inc
and Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc will pay.
The Wall Street Journal in June reported that HSBC would pay $285
million, while Barclays would pay $375 million. Those numbers
remain unconfirmed and representatives for the banks declined to
comment.
Goldman Sachs will pay $129.5 million, a person familiar with the
matter said on. An RBS spokesman on declined to say how much it
will pay, but said it was covered by existing provisions.
In the litigation, investors including hedge funds and pension
funds, accused the banks of impeding competition by conspiring to
manipulate the WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates in chat rooms,
instant messages and emails.
According to the plaintiffs, traders at the banks used chat rooms
with names such as "The Cartel," "The Bandits' Club," and "The
Mafia" to communicate with each other.
They said traders manipulated prices through tactics such as
"front running," "banging the close" and "painting the screen,"
using disguised names to swap confidential orders.
The settlements announced came after four banks -- Citigroup Inc,
JPMorgan Chase & Co, Barclays and RBS -- pleaded guilty in May in
related criminal cases.
In total, U.S. and European regulators have extracted more than
$10 billion in settlements with seven banks over the alleged
manipulation schemes.
In the class action, previously announced settlements include
$99.5 million from JPMorgan, $394 million from Citigroup, $180
million from Bank of America Corp and $135 million from UBS AG..
Claims remain pending against Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche
Bank AG, Morgan Stanley, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd, Royal
Bank of Canada, Societe Generale, and Standard Chartered plc.
The case is In re: Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
No. 13-07789.
BRASKEM SA: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until August 31, 2015 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Braskem S.A. if they purchased the Company's American
Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between June 1, 2010 and March 11,
2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
If you purchased ADRs of Braskem and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF
Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com). If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by August 31, 2015.
About the Lawsuit
Braskem and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.
On March 11, 2015, a report from a Sao Paulo newspaper, Folha de
S. Paolo, implicated Braskem in the corruption scandal surrounding
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras ("Petrobras"). The article
states that Braskem paid at least $5 million annually to Petrobras
between 2006 and 2012 to acquire crude derivative contracts like
propylene and naphtha at cheaper prices, according to a testimony
made by former Petrobras executive Paulo Roberto Costa and self-
confessed money launderer Alberto Youssef.
On this news, the price of Braskem's ADRs plummeted by over 20%.
Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
206 Covington St. Madisonville, LA 70447
1-877-515-1850
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
BROADCOM CORP: WeissLaw Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
WeissLaw LLP announces that it filed a class action lawsuit on
August 14, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (the "Court"), on behalf of the
shareholders of Broadcom Corp. ("Broadcom") against Broadcom, and
its Board of Directors for, among other things, violations of
section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").
The complaint arises out of a May 28, 2015, press release
announcing that Broadcom had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Avago Technologies Limited ("Avago"), pursuant to
which Broadcom shareholders will receive $54.50 in cash and 0.4378
of an Avago share (the "Proposed Transaction"). The complaint
seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiffs and all
other similarly situated shareholders of Broadcom as of May 28,
2015 (the "Class"). The named plaintiffs are represented by
WeissLaw LLP.
The named plaintiffs allege that certain of the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care owed to
Broadcom shareholders; and in an attempt to secure shareholder
approval of the Proposed Transaction, filed a materially false and
misleading registration statement on Form S-4 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of the Exchange
Act and their fiduciary duties of candor and full disclosure. The
omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be
material to Broadcom shareholders' ability to make an informed
decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty days from August 14, 2015. If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact Joshua Rubin or Kelly
Keenan of WeissLaw LLP at 888.593.4771, or by e-mail at
stockinfo@weisslawllp.com. Any member of the Class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent Class member.
WeissLaw LLP has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and
derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary
duties. We have recovered over a billion dollars for defrauded
clients. For more information about the firm, please go to:
http://www.weisslawllp.com
Joshua Rubin, Esq.
Kelly Keenan, Esq.
WeissLaw LLP
1500 Broadway, 16th Floor New York, NY 10036
212.682.3025
www.weisslawllp.com
stockinfo@weisslawllp.com
C.A.M.P. USA: Recalls Automatic and Semi-Automatic Crampons
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 26, 2015
Posting date: August 26, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54800
This recall involves all C.A.M.P. Tour Nanotech Automatic and
Semi-Automatic Crampons. Both crampons are made of steel plates
that attach to boots for ice climbing.
The Tour Nanotech Automatic has a red heel bail with a grey strap
that fastens around the ankle. The Tour Nanotech Semi-Automatic
has a red toe strap at the front of the crampon and a red heel
bail at the back. A grey strap is connected to both heel bails and
fastens around the boot.
The heel bail which connects the ankle strap to the crampon can
detach from the crampon, posing a fall hazard.
Neither Health Canada nor C.A.M.P. USA Inc. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada.
In the United States, C.A.M.P. USA Inc. has received one report of
the heel bail detaching during use. No injuries were reported.
Approximately 19 units were sold in Canada, and approximately 500
units were sold in the United States at specialty outdoor
retailers and online.
The recalled products were sold in Canada from February 2012 to
May 2015.
Manufactured in Italy.
Manufacturer: C.A.M.P. S.p.A.
Premana (Lecco)
ITALY
Distributor: C.A.M.P. USA Inc.
Broomfield
Colorado
UNITED STATES
For more information, consumers may contact C.A.M.P. USA Inc. by
telephone toll-free at 1-877-421-2267, Monday to Friday, from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. MST. Consumers may also visit C.A.M.P. USA
Inc.'s website and click on the "Safety Notices" link at the
bottom of the page.
Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.
Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.
Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.
This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/q86vjrs
C.A.M.P. USA: Recalls Blade Runners Crampons Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 26, 2015
Posting date: August 26, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54802
This recall involves all Cassin Blade Runner and Blade Runner
Alpine crampons. Crampons are used for ice climbing and attach to
footwear allowing the front points of the crampon to cut into the
snow or ice.
The Blade Runner crampons have two ice front points, and the Blade
Runner Alpine crampons have two snow front points. "Sandvik
Nanoflex" is printed on a rubber label attached to the grey nylon
ankle strap. "Cassin" and "Blade Runner" are stamped on the orange
traction plate on the foot of the crampon. The crampon frames are
made of Chromoly and Nanoflex(R) steel.
A breakage can occur where the front points connect to the
crampons, posing a fall hazard.
C.A.M.P. USA Inc. received one report of the crampon breaking in
Canada. No injuries were reported. Health Canada has not received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada.
In the United States, C.A.M.P. USA Inc. received three reports of
these crampons breaking during use. No injuries were reported.
Approximately 20 units were sold in Canada, and approximately 900
units were sold in the United States at specialty outdoor
retailers and online.
The recalled products were sold from October 2013 to May 2015.
Manufactured in Italy.
Manufacturer: C.A.M.P. S.p.A.
Premana (Lecco)
ITALY
Distributor: C.A.M.P. USA Inc.
Broomfield
Colorado
UNITED STATES
Consumers should immediately stop using the crampons and contact
C.A.M.P. USA Inc. for instructions on receiving free replacement
parts.
For more information, consumers may contact C.A.M.P. USA Inc. by
telephone toll-free at 1-877-421-2267, Monday to Friday, from 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. MST. Consumers may also visit C.A.M.P. USA
Inc.'s website and click on the "Safety Notices" link at the
bottom of the page.
Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.
Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.
Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.
This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/q82w9t7
CALIFORNIA: Faces "Whittier Conservancy" Class Action in Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Whittier Conservancy, a non-profit California corporation,
Petitioner v. California Public Works Board; California Department
of General Services, Esteban Almanza in his capacity as Acting
Director of the Department of General Services; California
Department of Finance, Michael Cohen in his capacity as Finance
Director; and Does 1 to 5; Respondents, BHCSP LLC aka Brookfield
Residential; California Department 2 5 of Corrections and
Rehabilitation; and Does 6 to 10; Real Parties in Interest, Case
No. RG15773639 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 10, 2015) is brought in the
public interest to allegedly enforce mandatory state laws that
protect the former Fred C. Nelles Youth Correctional Facility,
California Historic Landmark No. 947.
Nelles is the oldest juvenile facility in the state and houses
numerous historically-significant resources on a 74-acre site in
Whittier.
The Whittier Conservancy is a California nonprofit organization
formed in 1988 after the Whittier Narrows earthquake damaged local
historic buildings. The Conservancy works for the preservation
and sensitive adaptive reuse of Whittier's significant structures,
landmark buildings, and notable landscapes. The Conservancy
brings this petition on behalf of all others similarly situated
that are too numerous to be named and brought before the Court as
petitioners.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Susan Brandt-Hawley, Esq.
Skyla V. Olds, Esq.
BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP
P.O. Box 1659
Glen Ellen, CA 95442
Telephone: (707) 938-3900
Facsimile: (707) 938-3200
E-mail: susanbh@preservationlawvers.com
CALIF. STATE UNIVERSITY: Sued for Refusing to Admit Disabled Woman
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Smith v. California State University at Fullerton, Board of
Trustees of the California State University and Does 1 to 10,
Inclusive, Case No. 30-2015-00793089 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 12,
2015) arises from CSUF's refusal to admit the Plaintiff.
Ms. Smith is a resident of Irvine, County of Orange, California.
She is a disabled 21-year-old female diagnosed with Attention
Deficit Disorder. She applied for admission to California State
University at Fullerton. She alleges that although she met the
requirements of admission for persons similarly situated as her,
she was denied admission.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey A. Smith, Esq.
DECLUES BURKETT & THOMPSON LLP
17011 Beach Blvd., Suite 400
Huntington Beach, CA 92647-7455
Telephone: (714) 843-9444
Facsimile: (714) 843-9452
CAMDEN CTY, NJ: Faces Suit Alleging Religious Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Tisby v. Camden County; Camden County Department Of
Corrections; Camden County Correctional Facility and John Does 1-5
and 6-10, Case No. L-002233-15 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div.,
June 12, 2015) arises under the New Jersey Law against religious
discrimination and a failure to accommodate sincere religious
beliefs.
Ms. Tisby is, at all relevant times, a resident of the state of
New Jersey and an employee of the Defendants. She is a devout
Muslim and, therefore, a person of faith. She has been employed
by the Defendants as a Corrections Officer from 2002 through
May 11, 2015.
Camden County is a public entity. Camden County Department of
Corrections is a public entity. Camden County Corrections
facility is a public entity. The Doe Defendants are currently
unidentified. The Defendants are the Plaintiff's employer.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
COSTELLO & MAINS, P.C.
18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
Telephone: (856) 727-9700
CAREFIRST INC: Faces Data Breach Class Suit
-------------------------------------------
Lauren Kirkwood, writing for The Daily Record, reported that
following a May data hack that may have compromised the personal
information of as many as 1.1 million people, CareFirst Inc. and
CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield have now been hit with a proposed
class-action lawsuit over the data breach. The lawsuit, filed in
U.S. District Court in Baltimore, alleges the health insurance
company was negligent.
CEVA LOGISTICS: Court Grants Final Approval of $2.6MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court
for Eastern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion for
final approval of settlement in the case captioned, MILLER et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CEVA LOGISTICS USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:13-CV-01321-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs brought a class action on behalf of a class of drivers
who were or are employed by Defendants Adecco USA, Inc. ("Adecco")
and CEVA Logistics U.S., INC. (CEVA). CEVA provides transportation
services and employs truck drivers to transport materials for its
customers to and from certain destinations. Adecco is an
employment agency company. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants: (1)
failed to pay wages in violation of Labor Code Sections510,
1194(a), 1174 and 1197; (2) failed to provide meal and rest
periods in violation of Labor Code Sections226.7 and 512; (3)
failed to timely pay wages in violation of Labor Code Sections201-
204; (4) failed to provide accurate itemized statements in
violation of Labor Code Sec. 226; (5) violated Business and
Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. with unlawful, unfair, and
fraudulent business practices; and (6) violated Labor Code Sec.
2698.
The parties reached a settlement on September 26, 2014. The
parties have agreed to a Maximum Settlement Amount of $2,600,000.
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Class Counsel fees amount
to $865,000, with costs of $15,500 to be paid from the Maximum
Settlement Amount. The Maximum Settlement Amount also includes
payment to each Named Plaintiff as Class Representatives in the
amount of $15,000 (for a total of $45,000). Finally, this Maximum
Settlement Amount also includes $14,500 to be paid to the Claims
Administrator, Rust Consulting, Inc.
Plaintiffs then filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement on September 26, 2014. By the Court's Order,
dated February 19, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement and provisionally certified the Settlement Class. The
Settlement Class Members includes the following: "All persons (1)
who at any time between May 23, 2009 through August 8, 2014, were
CEVA truck driver employees and/or Agency Truck Drivers for CEVA
in the State of California; or (2) who at any time between May 23,
2009 through August 8, 2014, were employed by Adecco as truck
drivers and assigned to work at CEVA. The "Class" and "Class
Members" includes those who failed to exclude themselves from the
terms of the Settlement. Plaintiffs state in their Motion for
Final Approval that there are 373 Settlement Class Members.
In his Order dated August 7, 2015 available at http://is.gd/CvFEiE
from Leagle.com, Judge Nunley approved the Agreement in its
entirety concluding that the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate and directs the Parties to effectuate the
Settlement according to the terms outlined in the Agreement. The
Court approved the appointment of Ken Miller, Jeremie Todd and
Christopher Franklin as class representatives and awarded each
$15,000, Westrup & Associates as class counsel and awarded
$865,000 as attorneys' fees and costs and $15,500 as out-of-pocket
expenses; and Rust Consulting, as claims administrator and awarded
$14,500 as claims administration payment.
Cory Groshek is represented by:
Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
R. Duane Westrup, ESq.
WESTRUP KLICK LLP
444 W Ocean Blvd # 1614,
Long Beach, CA 90802
Tel: (562)432-2551
Defendants are represented by Heather Allison Elmore, Esq. --
Heather.Elmore@jacksonlewis.com -- Fraser Angus McAlpine, Esq. --
Fraser.McAlpine@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
CHETAK NEW: Recalls Coriander Powder Due to Salmonella
------------------------------------------------------
Chetak New York L.L.C. of Edison, NJ is recalling 300 jars of 14.1
oz "Deep Coriander Powder", Lot# LE15152, because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.
infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.
The recalled "Deep Coriander Powder" jars were distributed
nationwide in retail store from July 30, 2015 to August 13, 2015.
The product comes in a 14.1oz clear plastic jar marked with the
UPC number on the rear of the package. The lot number can be
located on the bottom of the jar.
-- UPC number for 14.1oz. is 011433134347
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.
The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing
conducted by the FDA.
Consumers who have purchased 14.1oz jars of "Deep Coriander
Powder" are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-973-835-1906, Monday through Friday from 9 am - 5 pm EST.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm459333.htm
CHICAGO, IL: Teachers' Discrimination Suit Certified
----------------------------------------------------
Progress Illinois reported that a federal appeals court has
granted class action certification in a case brought by three
Chicago public school educators on behalf of over 200 teachers and
staff who lost their jobs in 2012 because of school turnarounds.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals handed down its decision on
the class action issue, the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) said in a
news release.
The CTU helped file the 2012 lawsuit, which alleges the Chicago
Public Schools (CPS) system's turnaround policy discriminates
against African-American educators and school staff. The suit says
schools with higher percentages of African-American teachers and
staff are disproportionately targeted for turnaround, which
involves firing and replacing staff members at underperforming
schools.
A U.S. District Court judge denied class action certification in
the case.
CTU representatives will appear before that lower court judge to
"request entry of an order certifying the class status" as well as
"seek turnaround data from 2002 through the present."
The suit seeks relief for impacted class members and a moratorium
on CPS turnarounds.
"It is both dramatic and disturbing that highly qualified teachers
and paraprofessionals who are essential lifelines to neighborhood
schools are being displaced, with a disparate impact on African-
American educators," CTU President Karen Lewis said in the
release. "For more than five years we have asked CPS to stop these
discriminatory school actions, and instead, to work with the CTU
and our community and parent allies to create robust and well-
funded neighborhood schools."
CILANTRO TACO: Faces "Gonzales" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly-situated v. Cilantro Taco Grill Corp., Cilantro Taco
Grill Addison, LLC, Cilantro Taco Grill Rosemont, LLC, and
Cilantro Taco Grill Elgin, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-07382 (N.D. Ill.,
August 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants operate multiple Cilantro Taco Grill restaurants
throughout the Chicago metropolitan area.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS, P.C.
77 West Washington, Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
sarendt@flsalaw.com
zflowerree@flsalaw.com
CONAIR CORP: Court Rejects Discovery Bid in Styling Iron Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of California denied in its entirety
Plaintiff's motion seeking to compel the defendant to produce to
the Court its defective products.
DELIA WILSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CONAIR CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:14-CV-
00894-WBS-SAB (E.D. Cal.), raises three causes of action against
Conair:
1) for violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
California Civil Code Sec. 1750, et seq.,
2) for violation of the Unfair Competition Law, California
Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq., and
3) for breach of implied warranty.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant manufactures a variety of curling
irons, straightening irons, and curling brushes. Defendant's
styling irons use a power cord connected to the iron via a "stress
relief." Plaintiff alleges that Defendant expressly and impliedly
represent that their styling irons are well-designed and safe to
use. Plaintiff alleges that she, and others similarly situated,
purchased Defendant's styling irons based upon those
representations regarding their safety and suffered injury from
using the styling irons.
Plaintiff seeks to bring this action on behalf of a class defined
as "All persons who purchased Conair Styling Irons in California."
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the California Consumers
Legal Remedies Act through its misrepresentations regarding the
safety of their styling irons; violated the California Unfair
Competition Law by its misrepresentations and omissions regarding
the safety of their styling irons; and breached the implied
warranty with respect to their styling irons because of the safety
defects inherent in the styling irons.
In the motion, Plaintiff seeks to compel production of products
returned to Defendant for problems related to failure or
malfunction of the cord and to establish a deadline for documents
responsive to the motion to compel granted on April 30, 2015.
Defendant opposes the statement, contending that it is not a joint
statement as Plaintiff added a response to Defendant's portion of
the statement and the second motion to compel after the original
joint statement was presented for consideration by Defendant and
without providing Defendant an opportunity to respond.
In his Order dated August 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/YIfN2dfrom Leagle.com, Judge Boone found that the
parties have shown that meet and confer efforts in this action
have not been successful in resolving these disputes and each
assert it is due to the fault of the other party. Any further
motions to compel will require that the parties personally appear
on the date of the scheduled hearing to engage in extended meet
and confer in an attempt to resolve the outstanding discovery
issues, the judge added.
Due to the parties' inability to meet and confer and resolve these
issues, the Court said the parties are advised that the personal
appearance of all counsel shall be required for any further motion
to compel that is filed with the Court. The parties are encouraged
to work together during meet and confer sessions prior to any
scheduled hearing.
Plaintiff is represented by Leslie Eileen Hurst, Esq. --
lhurst@bholaw.com -- Thomas J. O'Reardon, II, Esq. --
toreardon@bholaw.com -- Timothy G. Blood, Esq. - tblood@bholaw.com
-- BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
Defendant is represented by Ryan Donald Saba, Esq. --
rsaba@rosensaba.com -- ROSEN SABA
CONSTANT CONTACT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of all purchasers of Constant Contact, Inc. (NASDAQ:CTCT)
securities from October 23, 2014 through July 23, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period").
Shareholders of Constant Contact with losses are urged to contact
the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or
(212) 545-4774.
According to the filed complaint, Constant Contact made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Constant Contact's gross customer additions were less than
projected; (2) Constant Contact suffered negative trends in
consumer conversion rates; (3) Constant Contact was directing new
clients towards the cheapest packages; and (4) consequently,
Defendants' statements about Constant Contact's business
operations and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.
On July 23, 2015, Constant Contact announced its earnings results
for the second quarter of 2015 after the market closed with a weak
third quarter outlook. Constant Contact experienced low trial-to-
conversion rates in April and May of 2014 and a substantial swing
in product mix with about 80% of new clients picking the cheapest
Email package instead of more expensive options.
On this news, shares of Constant Contact fell $3.35 per share,
over 11%, to close on July 24, 2015, at $26.18 per share.
If you purchased Constant Contact, Inc. securities during the
period from October 23, 2014 through July 23, 2015, inclusive, you
may, no later than October 6, 2015, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.
Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.
If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800)
575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our
website at www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make
reference to the "Constant Contact Investigation."
Patrick Donovan, Esq.
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016
Phone:+1 212-545-4600
www.whafh.com/
COOPER VISION: Four Suits Included in Disposable Contact Lens MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Four class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville):
-- Machikawa, et al. v. Cooper Vision, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01001. The Florida District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00736-HES-JRK to the proceeding;
-- Stephen Mangum v. Coopervision, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01064. The Florida District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00739-HES-JRK to the proceeding;
-- Fernandes v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01045. The Florida District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00738-HES-JRK to the proceeding;
and
-- Miller, et al. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01028. The Florida District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00737-HES-JRK to the proceeding.
The cases are consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, MDL
No. 3:15-md-2626-J-20JRK.
The cases in the litigation concern the Defendants' alleged
anticompetitive conduct aimed at fixing, raising, maintaining and
stabilizing the prices at which disposable contact lenses are sold
in the United States. At issue in all actions are the Defendants'
pricing policies that allegedly prevented resale of the subject
contact lenses below a minimum price. The Plaintiffs are
purchasers of contact lenses and the retailer Costco, which sells
contact lenses at its warehouses. The purchaser plaintiffs allege
that manufacturers of contact lenses conspired with each other and
with defendant ABB Optical Group, a wholesaler that is purportedly
the largest distributor of contact lenses, as well as with
independent eye care professionals represented by ABB and their
trade association, the American Optometric Association, to impose
minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines.
The Machikawa Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com
bsweeney@hausfeldllp.com
clebsock@hausfeldllp.com
- and -
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
1700 K St. NW, Suite 650
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com
jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com
ngiddings@hausfeldllp.com
- and -
Dennis Stewart, Esq.
HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP
225 Broadway, Suite 1350
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 338-1133
Facsimile: (619) 338-1139
E-mail: dennis@hulettharper.com
- and -
Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
TYCO & ZAVAREEI LLP
200 L St. NW, Suite 808
Washington DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
edelsberg@kolawyers.com
- and -
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Paula M. Roach, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
701 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 338-1100
Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
proach@bholaw.com
Plaintiff Stephen Mangum is represented by:
Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
Jodie M. Williams, Esq.
Sarah B. Abshear, Esq.
THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
707 Broadway, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 687-6611
Facsimile: (619) 687-6610
E-mail: dmogin@moginlaw.com
jwilliams@moginlaw.com
sabshear@moginlaw.com
Plaintiff Suneeta D. Fernandes is represented by:
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
A.J. De Bartolomeo, Esq.
Geoffrey Alan Munroe, Esq.
David Michael Berger, Esq.
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
601 California St., 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: ericgibbs@classlawgroup.com
ajdebartolomeo@classlawgroup.com
geoffreymunroe@classlawgroup.com
davidberger@classlawgroup.com
- and -
George W. Sampson, Esq.
Lucinda M. Dunlap
SAMPSON DUNLAP LLP
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98154
Telephone: (206) 414-8340
Facsimile: (206) 260-1318
E-mail: george@sampsondunlap.com
lucinda@sampsondunlap.com
The Miller Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
Jennifer J. Scott, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
707 Broadway, Suite 1000
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-4565
Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com
jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
jscott@scott-scott.com
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
Thomas K. Boardman, Esq.
SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10174-4099
Telephone: (212) 223-6444
Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
tboardman@scott-scott.com
- and -
Greg L. Davis, Esq.
DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
7031 Halcyon Park Drive
Montgomery, AL 36117
Telephone: (334) 832-9080
Facsimile: (334) 409-7001
E-mail: gldavis@knology.net
- and -
George W. Sampson, Esq.
SAMPSON DUNLAP LLP
1001 4th Ave., Suite 3200
Seattle, WA 98154
Telephone: (206) 414-8340
E-mail: george@sampsondunlap.com
Defendant Cooper Vision, Inc., is represented by:
Christopher S. Yates, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
Telephone: (415) 391-0600
Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com
Defendant Alcon Laboratories, Inc., is represented by:
Thomas B. Mayhew, Esq.
FARELLA BRAUN & MARTEL LLP
235 Montgomery Street, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 954-4400
Facsimile: (415) 954-4480
E-mail: tmayhew@fbm.com
Defendant Bausch + Lomb is represented by:
James Patrick Schaefer, Esq.
SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
525 University Avenue, Suite 1100
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Telephone: (650) 470-4500
Facsimile: (650) 470-4570
E-mail: james.schaefer@skadden.com
- and -
Steven C. Sunshine, Esq.
SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 371-7000
E-mail: steve.sunshine@skadden.com
Defendant Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc. is represented by:
William Francis Cavanaugh, Esq.
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB AND TYLER LLP
1133 Ave of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 336-2000
Facsimile: (212) 336-2394
E-mail: wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com
CORMEDIX INC: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law Offices of Vincent Wong announced that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of investors who purchased CorMedix, Inc. (NYSE
MKT:CRMD) securities between March 12, 2011 and June 29, 2015.
The complaint alleges that, among other allegations, during the
Class Period defendants' overstated the cost effectiveness and
effectiveness of Neutrolin compared to currently established
medical protocol, failed to disclose the use of paid stock
promoters, and that insiders enriched themselves at the expense of
shareholders by selling stock at inflated prices.
On June 29, 2015, an article by The Pump Stopper and featured on
Seeking Alpha alleged that personnel involved in the formation of
CorMedix had faced prior accusations of fraud, that Neutrolin's
performance in clinical trials was vastly overstated, and that the
Company had engaged stock promoters in order to inflate the
Company's share price.
If you suffered a loss in CorMedix you have until September 4,
2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/CRMD-Info-
Request-Form-845.
Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Vincent Wong, Esq.
The law Offices of Vincent Wong
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com
CORRECTIONS CORP: "Faircloth" Proceedings Stayed Thru Aug. 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, JAMES FAIRCLOTH, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS
CORPORATION OF AMERICA, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RICK
RAEMISCH, Executive Direction of CDOC, in his individual and
official capacities, DAVE HENNINGER, CEO of CCA, in his individual
and official capacities, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-00464-REB-KLM
(D. Colo.), the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
granted Plaintiff's Petition for Stay of Proceedings to Consult
With Attorney.
In the Motion, Plaintiff requests that the case be stayed through
August 30, 2015, as he would like time to consult with Elisabeth
Owen, an attorney with the Prisoners' Justice League of Colorado.
Plaintiff notes that he hopes that consulting with Ms. Owen will
lead to either "a possible resolution" of this and his other
pending lawsuits or Ms. Owen's agreement that she will represent
him in this case.
The Motion does not inform the Court of Defendants' position
thregarding the requested relief and conferral was not required
because Plaintiff is an unrepresented prisoner.
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix, in the Order dated June 23, 2015
available at http://is.gd/lxhbPAfrom Leagle.com, granted the
motion and stayed the case through August 30, 2015. The Court
directed Plaintiff to file a Status Report informing the Court:
(1) whether he has obtained representation and (2) whether he
intends to move forward with this lawsuit on or before August 30,
2015.
Defendants are represented by Andrew David Ringel, Esq. --
ringela@hallevans.com -- HALL & EVANS, LLC-DENVER
COSTAL WIRELESS: "Jordan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles A. Jordan, and all others similarly situated v. Costal
Wireless LLC and Emad Aovida, Case No. 0:15-cv-61746-WPD (S.D.
Fla., August 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate a mobile phone shop in Broward
County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin D. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN D. SMITH, P.A.
6099 STIRLING ROAD, SUITE 101
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (954) 797-9626
Facsimile: (954) 239-3956
E-mail: kevin@kdsmithlaw.com
COUCHE-TARD: Recalls Choco, Cinnamon Baked Products Due to Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Couche-Tard Inc.
Distribution: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and
Labrador
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9993
Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC
name ----------- ---- product ---
----- ----------
Circle K Chocolate Slice 1 count All codes 1 22222-
where milk is 22155 8
not declared
on the label.
Circle K Cinnamon Bun 1 count All codes 1 22222-
where sulphites 22097 1
are not declared
on the label.
Circle K Cinnamon Bun 4 Pack All codes 1 22222-
4 count where sulphites 22109 1
are not declared
on the label.
D & M SMOKED: "Dillarza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Dillarza, Marino Aracleo, and all others similarly-situated
v. D & M Smoked Fish, Inc. dba Haifa Smoked Fish, Haifa Smoked
Fish, Inc. dba Haifa Smoked Fish, Dmitris Yakubbayev and Arcadi
Marcovich, Case No. 1:15-cv-04700 (E.D.N.Y., August 11, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Law.
The Defendants are seafood wholesalers located in Jamaica, New
York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (212) 209-3933
Fax: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com
DELICIOUS MARKET: "Bravo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oswaldo Bravo, Valente Cortes, and Oswaldo Bravo, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Delicious Market, Inc., d/b/a
University Market Place, Yong Hee Chung a/k/a Min Ho Song, Ji H.
Song, and John 1-10 Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-06191-JPO (S.D.N.Y.,
August 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a deli-restaurant located at 20
East 16th Street, New York, New York 10003.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas John Lamadrid, Esq.
EISNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
113 University Place
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (929) 274-2069
Facsimile: (212) 473-8705
E-mail: thomas@eisnerassociates.com
DELILAH'S DEN: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Costello" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlee Costello, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Delilah's Den of Philadelphia, Inc. d/b/a Delilah's
Den, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04776-CDJ (E.D. Penn., August 21,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
employees the applicable minimum wage and inappropriately
retaining a portion of their gratuities in violation of Fair Labor
Standard Act.
Delilah's Den of Philadelphia, Inc. owns and operates a
gentleman's club and restaurant located at 100 Spring Garden
Street, Philadelphia, PA.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq.
Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
1051 County Line Road, Suite A
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
Telephone: (215) 364-5030
Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
dbraynin@kalraylaw.com
- and -
Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
Robert J. Gray, Esq.
CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Telephone: (610) 822-3700
Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
E-mail: gwells@cwg-law.com
rgray@cwg-law.com
DESCHUTES COUNTY, OR: Freedom Foundation Files Class Acion
----------------------------------------------------------
Mac McLean, writing for The Bulletin, reported that a Washington-
based think tank hopes to change how Oregon's 20,000 state-funded
home care and personal support workers negotiate their contracts
with state government by taking to court the union that's
represented them for the past 15 years.
The Freedom Foundation filed a federal class action lawsuit
claiming Gov. Kate Brown and other state officials violated the
civil rights of Julian Brown, a home care worker from Deschutes
County, and other nonunion members by forcing them to accept SEIU
Local 503 as their exclusive bargaining representative.
"The state passed a law saying (the union) is the only voice we're
going to listen to," David Dewhirst, the foundation's litigation
counsel, said as he explained the case against the state and Local
503. He said Julian Brown, who hasn't been a member of Local 503
since August 2013 and does not pay its dues, should not be forced
to have the union serve as his only voice in negotiations.
Dewhirst and his organization want a judge to issue an injunction
that would stop negotiations between SEIU Local 503 and the state.
He also wants the union to pay back Brown and anyone else who
joins the class any dues or fees that it's collected from their
paychecks over the past two years.
Local 503 Executive Director Heather Conroy said although she has
not yet had a chance to review the lawsuit it seemed similar to a
series of other anti-union lawsuits filed in other states that
failed to make it out of the lower courts.
She also described the foundation, which opened an office in
downtown Salem one day after its representatives filed the lawsuit
with the U.S. District Court of Oregon, as nothing more than "a
divisive organization that's coming in from out of state to stir
the pot."
Oregon's Medicaid program provides a state-funded home or personal
care worker to 24,000 elderly and disabled residents who want to
live at home yet need help performing certain daily activities
such as managing medication, preparing meals, cleaning house, and
using the restroom.
SEIU Local 503 has represented these workers since 2000, after the
state's voters overwhelmingly approved ballot measure that gave
them the right to organize and collectively bargain their
contracts with the state government.
That ballot measure also created a state agency, the Oregon Home
Care Commission, which represents the state's interests in the
bargaining process and is responsible for vetting workers and
providing them with professional development tools.
"There's just a lot of concrete examples of how this has helped,"
Conroy said, explaining her union and the commission have worked
together to develop a special registry where people can find a
home or personal care worker who lives in their area. The two
groups also set up an extensive training program where workers can
learn basic medical techniques and skills they'd need to perform
their jobs, she said.
Conroy also said state-funded home and personal care workers earn
a base pay rate of $13.75 an hour -- about $3 more than the
country's average home care worker's hourly wage, according to the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics -- because of the union and its
ability to negotiate on their behalf.
Mike Couch, a personal care worker who has six clients with mental
health issues in Prineville and Redmond, said the union also
provides workers with access to a union-paid health insurance
plan. He said this coverage could easily cost $250 to $300 a month
if he had to pay for it himself and considers his monthly union
dues, which come to 1.7 percent of each member's earnings, a
worthy investment because of that savings.
But Dewhirst said there are some disadvantages to this
arrangement.
He said the exclusive relationship between Local 503 and the home
care commission means his client and any other nonunion members
are essentially frozen out of the bargaining process and must
accept certain rules or policies they don't like. The only way
they can get a voice in this process would be to join the union,
he said, which then interferes with their constitutional right to
associate, or more importantly, to not associate with any group
they choose.
"We think that's fundamentally a violation of their First
Amendment rights," Dewhirst said.
Finally, Dewhirst said his organization's lawsuit is only the
first in a series of steps it will take as it tries to restructure
the state's entire public employee union system. He said the
foundation plans to file several other lawsuits and is working on
a comprehensive public education and grass-roots activism campaign
it will use to change the system through legislative action as
well.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Appeals Court Sends Case Back to District
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph of the United States
Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit vacated the
dismissal of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims of unnamed
plaintiffs against the District of Columbia and remanded the
claims to the district court for further proceedings.
The appellate case is captioned, CARLA DOE, ET AL., Appellants, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., Appellees, Case Nos. 13-7140 (D.C.
Cir.).
Robert and Carla Doe are the adoptive parents of Oliver and Ann
and the biological parents of Emma. Oliver (born 1995) and Ann
(born 1997) became part of the family when they were infants. In
2000, twins Wayne and Sara joined the family. At the time, Emma
was 10, the twins were 9, Oliver was 5, Ann 3. When the twins
arrived, the Does began receiving monthly adoption stipends, funds
for therapy from the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund, therapy
services from a court clinic, and funds for a therapeutic summer
camp for Wayne. The Does finalized their adoption of the twins in
2001. The twins began sexually abusing Ann and Oliver shortly
after they moved into the Doe household which prompted Carla and
Robert Doe to notify the Family Services Agency employees that the
twins had been abusing Ann and Oliver "for years". The District of
Columbia's Child and Family Services Agency temporarily removed
two adopted children from their home.
After the government acted, the Does brought a multi-count
complaint seeking damages from the District of Columbia, the
Family Services Agency, and District employees. Carla and Robert
Doe and the children other than the twins filed a twenty-four-
count amended complaint against the District of Columbia, the
mayor and Agency employees Brenda Donald Walker, Sarah Maxwell,
Sandra Jackson, Heather Stowe, Terri Thompson Mallet, Rebekah
Philippart, and Daphne King. The Does alleged violations of
District of Columbia law and the U.S. Constitution. After
proceedings unnecessary to recount, the district court granted the
District's motion for judgment on the pleadings and summary
judgment, denied the Does' motion for summary judgment, and denied
as moot the District's motion to strike portions of the record.
On appeal, the Does claim that the district court erred when it
dismissed their Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and First
Amendment claims, erred when it granted qualified immunity to the
individual defendants, erred when it dismissed the Does' tort
claims, and erred when it dismissed their claims for post-adoption
services.
In the Order dated August 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/9HIACD
from Leagle.com, Judge Randolph held that the district court
should address the question of municipal liability in the first
instance and the question of what relevance, if any, the D. C.
Code has on the District's liability.
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mick G. Harrison, Esq.
The Caldwell Eoo Center
323 S. Walnut Street,
Bloomington, IN 47401
Tel: (812)361-6220
Defendants are represented by Stacy L. Anderson, Esq., Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the
District of Columbia.
ELECTCHESTER MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adriano Turbi-Garcia, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Electchester Management LLC, Third
Housing Company, Inc., and Gerald Finkel, Case No. 1:15-cv-04924
(E.D.N.Y., August 21, 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 residential real estate company
located at 15811 Jewel Avenue, Suite 2, and 6594 162nd Street,
Flushing, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
Telephone: (212) 229-2249
Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
bsherr@zellerlegal.com
jazeller@zellerlegal.com
ESTEE LAUDER: Breach of Contract Claim Tossed in "Tomasino"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Edward R. Korman of the United States
District Court for Eastern District of New York granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss Donna Tomasino's breach of contract
claim in the case captioned, DONNA TOMASINO, Plaintiff, v. THE
ESTEE LAUDER COMPANIES, INC., ESTEE LAUDER, LLC, and ESTEE LAUDER,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-4692(ERK)(RML)(E.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Donna Tomasino, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, brought a suit in diversity alleging that The
Estee Lauder Companies Inc., Estee Laboratories, LLC, and Estee
Lauder Inc. (collectively Estee Lauder) advertise their Advanced
Night Repair (ANR) collection in a false, deceptive, or misleading
way. Specifically, she alleges that the ANR products "do not and
cannot live up to" the advertised promise to "repair past visible
DNA damage" as a means of making skin look younger. The Court
dismissed with prejudice Tomasino's claims for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment and
claims brought under sections 349 and 350 of the New York General
Business Law without prejudice and allowed her the opportunity to
replead because Tomasino had not provided reasonably timely notice
of the breach to the defendants as required by N.Y. U.C.C. Sec. 2-
607(3)(a) specifically provision requires that after tender of
goods has been accepted, the buyer must within a reasonable time
after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the
seller of breach or be barred from any remedy.
Tomasino subsequently filed a Second Amended Complaint, repleading
her General Business Law claims and asserting an additional claim
for breach of contract. Estee Lauder again moved to dismiss the
complaint, this time asserting that the breach of contract claim
was barred by res judicata and law of the case and that Tomasino's
pleadings did not make her General Business Law claims
sufficiently plausible to withstand a motion to dismiss. That
motion was denied on both grounds.Tomasino II, 2015 WL 1470177.
In the motion, Estee Lauder filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 12(c), arguing that the breach of contract cause of
action should be dismissed for failure to provide the defendants
with timely notice as required by N.Y. U.C.C. Sec. 2-607(3)(a).
In his Memorandum and Order dated August 7, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/JdW1EXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Korman held that
Tomasino's breach of contract claim is dismissed for failure to
provide notice of the alleged breach within a reasonable time and
there is no bona fide dispute regarding the existence of a
contract except on whether Tomasino has properly asserted her
legal rights under that contract.
Donna Tomasino is represented by Adam J. Levitt, Esq. --
alevitt@gelaw.com -- Kyle McGee, Esq. -- kmcgee@gelaw.com -- GRANT
& EISENHOFER P.A., Caroline Firth Bartlett, Esq. --
cbartlett@carellabyrne.com -- James E. Cecchi, Esq. --
jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Zachary S. Bower, Esq. --
zbower@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C.
Defendants are represented by Jessica D. Miller, Esq. --
jessica.miller@skadden.com -- Kenneth A. Plevan, Esq. --
kenneth.plevan@skadden.com -- Angela Cecily Colt, Esq. --
angela.colt@skadden.com -- David Lamb, Esq. --
david.lamb@skadden.com -- Geoffrey Wyatt, Esq. --
geoffrey.wyatt@skadden.com -- Jordan Adam Feirman, Esq. --
jordan.feirman@skadden.com -- Stacey Lauren Cohen, Esq. --
stacey.cohen@skadden.com -- Xiyin Tang, Esq. --
jacqueline.tang@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM
LLP
FEDERAL RESERVE: No Jury Trial in "Artis" Gender Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
CYNTHIA ARTIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JANET L. YELLEN, Defendant,
Case No. 01-400 (EGS)(D.C.), was filed in 2001 alleging class-wide
discrimination by the Federal Reserve Board against African-
American secretarial and clerical employees. The Court initially
allowed the plaintiffs to conduct limited discovery regarding
administrative-exhaustion issues. Discovery took a few years, but
on January 31, 2007, the Court granted the defendant's motion to
dismiss the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs had failed to
exhaust their administrative remedies. On December 8, 2014, the
defendant filed the pending motion to strike the class allegations
in plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint and for an order directing
the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to state their individual
claims of discrimination. Soon after that motion became ripe, the
plaintiffs moved for an immediate jury trial on issues involving
the Court's resolution of various class-discovery disputes as well
as the merits of the plaintiffs' classwide pattern-or-practice
claim. Finally, on May 4, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion that
appeared to reiterate their request for a jury trial, requested a
status hearing to discuss the scope of merits discovery, and
indicated that if the Court grants the defendant's motion to
strike, the plaintiffs would refuse to amend their Complaint.
District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia in the Memorandum Opinion dated
June 22, 2015 available at http://is.gd/RrHkLrfrom Leagle.com,
granted Defendant's motion to strike the class allegations from
plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Complaint and to require plaintiffs to
file a Fifth Amended Complaint setting forth with sufficient
particularity their individual claims of discrimination. The Court
also denied plaintiffs' requests for a jury trial and status
hearing.
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Walter T. Charlton, Esq.
WALTER T. CHARLTON & ASSOCIATES
11213 Angus Way
Woodsboro, MD 21798
BEN S. BERNANKE is represented by John L. Kuray, Esq. & Joshua P.
Chadwick, Esq., BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM,
20th Street and Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551;
and Kenneth M. Willner, Esq. -- kenwillner@paulhastings.com --
PAUL HASTINGS, LLP
FIA CARD SERVICES: 5th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Claunch"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit tossed an appeal
taken by pro se plaintiff Robert Claunch from the district court's
grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants FIA Card
Services, N.A. (FIA) and Bank of America Corp.
The appellate case is captioned, ROBERT W. CLAUNCH, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. FIA CARD SERVICES, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-60742 (5th Cir.).
Claunch sued FIA and its parent company, Bank of America Corp., in
relation to credit card accounts that FIA issued to him and his
wife. Claunch alleged that FIA violated, among other things, the
Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1601, et seq., by
fraudulently enrolling the accounts in a debt cancellation product
called Credit Protection Plus (CPP) without his consent. In April
2014, the Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment arguing
that Claunch and his wife were members of the class action and
settlement in the Northern District of California, and that
Claunch's claims were therefore barred by the settlement and
principles of res judicata. The district court granted the
Defendants' motion for judgment on those grounds.
On appeal, Claunch argued that summary judgment should not have
been granted because he did not receive notice of the class action
until April 8, 2014, and at that time, he stated his intent to opt
out of the class action.
Circuit Judges King, Prado and Haynes of the United States Court
of Appeals, Fifth District in the Per Curiam dated June 24, 2015
available at http://is.gd/PLftIqfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the
district court's grant for summary judgment in favor of the
Defendants because the enforcement of the settlement enjoined all
class members including himself from commencing, instituting,
continuing, pursuing, maintaining, prosecuting, or enforcing any
of the released claims.
FIA CARD SERVICES: "Jenkins" Discovery Bid Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, LEE A. JENKINS, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. CHRISTOPHER E. PECH,
PECH, HUGHES, & MCDONALD, P.C., d/b/a Litow & Pech, P.C., A
Fictitious Name; Defendants, Case No. 8:14CV41 (D. Neb.),
Plaintiff filed an objection to the magistrate judge's order in
connection with the plaintiff's motions to compel subpoenas on FIA
Card Servs., Inc., N.A. and Trak America BOA FIA NE and awarding
payment of expenses to defendants as sanction in connection with
the plaintiff's motions to compel.
Plaintiff Lee A. Jenkins filed a class action for violations of
the Fair Daebt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)and the Nebraska
Consumer Protection Act (NCPA). The plaintiff challenged a form
debt collection letter sent by defendants (an attorney and law
firm) to approximately 560 Nebraskans. The defendants contested
liability on the ground, inter alia, that the debts at issue were
not consumer debts.
Senior District Judge Joseph F. Batallion of the United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska in the Memorandum and
Order dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/bWAR6qfrom
Leagle.com, sustained Plaintiff's objection to the magistrate
judge's order; affirmed in part and reversed in part the
magistrate judge's order; granted named plaintiff's motion to
compel the subpoena of records in the possession of FIA Card
Services; denied without prejudice the named plaintiff's motion to
compel the subpoena of records in the possession of Trak America;
and vacated magistrate judge's award of expenses as a sanction and
order approving the parties' stipulation.
Plaintiff is represented by O. Randolph Bragg, Esq. -
Rand@horwitzlaw.com -- HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM, Pamela A. Car,
Esq. & William L. Reinbrecht, Esq. -- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM,
8720 Frederick St # 105, Omaha, NE 68124, Tel (402)391-8484
Defendants are represented by Jeffrey A. Topor, Esq. & Tomio B.
Narita, Esq. -- SIMMONDS, NARITA LAW FIRM, 44 Montgomery St #
3010, San Francisco, CA 94104, Tel: (415)283-1000
FORMOSA PLASTICS: Yunlin County Residents File Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
M. H. Chang and Lillian Lin, writing for Focus Taiwan, reported
that a law firm representing 74 residents in Yunlin County filed a
class action against five companies operating in the Formosa
Plastics Group's (FPG) sixth naphtha cracker complex and demanded
compensation of NT$70.17 million (around US$2.18 million).
At a press conference, representatives of local residents filing
the suit accused the complex, which has an annual output value of
NT$1.66 trillion, of making profits by sacrificing the health of
residents in neighboring areas.
They contended that the facility poses a major health risk, with
families in the area getting cancer at an abnormally high rate
compared with the general population since the complex opened.
The five companies targeted in the complaint have also been
sanctioned repeatedly for environmental pollution violations,
running up fines of NT$300 million in recent years, the
representatives said.
They are demanding that Formosa Plastic Group subsidiaries Formosa
Plastics Corp., Nan Ya Plastics Corp., Formosa Petrochemical
Corp., Formosa Chemicals and Fibre Corp., and Mai-Liao Power Corp.
pay NT$70.17 million in compensation to the 74 plaintiffs for
medical and funeral expenses and the loss of family income.
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Eagle" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Eagle, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. Freeport-McMoran, Inc. f/k/a, Freeport-McMoran
Copper & Gold, Inc., Case No. CV-2015-0738 (N. Mex., August 21,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.
Freeport-McMoran, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates
mines in 20 different countries.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James P. Lyle, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JAMES P. LYLE, P.C.
1116 Second Street
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Telephone: (505) 843-8000
Facsimile: (505) 843-8043
GATEWAY FOUNDATION: Court Tosses Claim by Atheist Inmate
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., granted the motion of
Gateway Foundation, Inc. and Duane Cummins to dismiss claims
asserted under the Religious Land Use Institutionalized Persons
Act (RLUIPA) in the case captioned, RANDALL JACKSON, Plaintiff, v.
LARRY CRAWFORD, et al., Defendants, Case No. 12-4018-CV-C-FJG
(W.D. Mo.).
Plaintiff filed the action on January 6, 2012 alleging that his
and the putative class members' rights were violated by (1) not
being allowed to declare atheism as their religion on their inmate
facesheets; and (2) being forced to participate in substance abuse
treatment programs that are based on a belief in a deity. On April
9, 2012, the Court dismissed plaintiff's pro se complaint. On
appeal, on March 28, 2014, the Eighth Circuit vacated the Court's
order dismissing this case, and remanded for further
consideration. Counsel entered an appearance on behalf of
plaintiff on June 27, 2014. On August 15, 2014, plaintiff filed
his First Amended Class Action Complaint.
Defendants named in the First Amended Complaint are (1) Douglas A.
Worsham, the Supervisor of Religious/Spiritual Programming within
the Division of Human Services for the MDOC; (2) Larry Crawford,
the Director of the MDOC when plaintiff was incarcerated at MDOC's
Western Reception, Diagnostic, and Correctional Center ("WRDCC")
in St. Joseph, Missouri; (3) Martha V. Nolin, the Assistant
Division Director, Substance Abuse Services in the Division of
Offender Rehabilitative Services; (4) Alan Earls, Deputy Director
of the Division of Adult Institutions; (5) Cyndi Prudden, Deputy
Director, Division of Adult Institutions; (6) Vicki Salsbury,
Director of the Drug Rehabilitation Program at MDOC's WRDCC in St.
Joseph, Missouri; (7) Isaac "Sonny" Collins, Warden at Maryville
Treatment Center; (8) Gateway Foundation, Inc., also known as
Gateway Foundations Correction, an Illinois corporation that has
contracted with MDOC to design and operate MDOC's drug and alcohol
rehabilitation programs; and (9) Dwayne Cummins, Gateway
Foundation Corrections' Program Director at MDOC's Ozark
Correctional Center ("OCC"). All except for Vicki Salsbury,
Gateway Foundation, Inc., and Dwayne Cummins (who do not appear to
be state employees or entities) are sued in their individual and
official capacities.
A copy of the District Court's Order dated June 23, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/8Xqxm3from Leagle.com.
Plaintiff is represented by Christopher A. Hoffman, Esq. --
choffman@koreintillery.com -- Steven M. Berezney, Esq. --
sberezney@koreintillery.com -- KOREIN TILLERY LLC
Defendants are represented by Douglas G. Leyshock, Esq., MISSOURI
ATTORNEY GENERAL
GENERAL MILLS: Recalls Frozen Green Beans Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------------
General Mills announced a voluntary Class I recall of a limited
quantity of frozen Cascadian Farm Cut Green Beans produced over
two days in March 2014. The recall is being issued as a precaution
after one package of finished product tested positive for the
presence of Listeria monocytogenes. No related illnesses have been
reported in connection with this product.
This voluntary recall is limited to 10-ounce bags of frozen
Cascadian Farm Cut Green Beans with either of two "Better If Used
By" dates printed on the package:
-- 10APR2016
-- 11APR2016
The recalled product was produced and packaged in 2014. No other
varieties or production dates of Cascadian Farm products are
affected by this recall.
The Cascadian Farm frozen cut green beans were distributed to
retail establishments nationwide.
Consumers are urged to dispose of the products affected by this
recall. Consumers who have products covered by this recall may
contact Cascadian Farm Consumer Relations at 1-800-624-4123 for a
replacement.
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Mayes" Injury Suit Over Defective Air Bags
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linus Mayes v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04797-UA
(S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiff's air bags
failed to deploy causing severe injuries and damages.
The action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
July 11, 2009. The Plaintiff says that the airbags failed to
deploy in the Plaintiff's 2005 Chevrolet Impala due to a design
defect of the vehicle's ignition switch. The Plaintiff asserts
that the case be filed as related to the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation,
MDL No. 14-MD-2543 (JMF).
Detroit, Michigan-based General Motors LLC is a citizen of
Delaware and Michigan, and does business in all 50 states.
General Motors, through its various entities, designed,
manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold Chevrolet, Pontiac,
Saturn, and other brand automobiles in Louisiana, elsewhere in the
United States, and worldwide.
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
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Johnson & Weaver Files Securitites Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights Law Firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP is investigating
whether certain officers or directors of Genworth Financial, Inc.
(NYSE: GNW) violated state or federal laws in connection with
statements regarding Genworth's business, operations and financial
prospects. Genworth is the country's largest seller of long-term
care insurance.
Recently, two separate orders were issued in separate securities
class actions pending against the Company and certain of its
officers and directors in which the Courts denied motions to
dismiss.
Specifically, on May 1, 2015, in a case pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, brought on
behalf of a class of shareholders who purchased the Company's
stock between October 30, 2013 and November 5, 2014, the Court
denied, in part, defendants' motion to dismiss. The Complaint in
that action alleged that throughout the Class Period, Genworth and
its top officers misrepresented the profitability of the Company's
core business and reported false financial results by understating
necessary reserves.
Then, on June 16, 2015, in a separate securities class action
pending against the Company and certain of its officers in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the
Court denied defendants' motion to dismiss in its entirety. The
Complaint filed in that action is brought on behalf of
shareholders that purchased Company stock between November 3, 2011
and April 12, 2012, alleging that the price of the Company's stock
was inflated as a result of false statements concerning Genworth's
income and assets.
If you are a continuous, long-term shareholder of Genworth stock
you may have standing to hold the Company harmless from the damage
the officers and directors caused by making them personally
responsible. You may also be able to assist in reforming the
Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing.
If you are a Genworth shareholder and are interested in learning
more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com)
at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number where
you can be reached.
Jim Baker, Esq.
Johnson & Weaver, LLP
600 W Broadway #1540, San Diego, CA 92101
Phone:+1 619-230-0063
www.johnsonandweaver.com
GLOBAL PARKING: Ill. Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss OT Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Andrea R. Wood of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied Car Parking Solutions LLC's
motion to dismiss in the case ALFREDO SANCHEZ and MIGUEL ARRIAGA,
on behalf of themselves and other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL PARKING MANAGEMENT, INC., CAR PARKING
SOLUTIONS, LLC, MICHAEL S. DENIGRIS, JOSEPH GRILLO, ROSEANNE
PARONE-DENIGRIS, and CASIMIR A. RINCON, individually, Defendants,
NO. 14-CV-04611 (N.D. Ill.)
Alfredo Sanchez and Miguel Arriaga are both former Global Parking
Management, Inc. (Global) employees who were hired by the company
in 2011. They claim that in the past three years they were
regularly and customarily required to work in excess of 40 hours
per week but were not compensated at 1.5 times their regular rate
of pay for their overtime work, instead, they were compensated for
overtime work at their normal rate plus $1. Plaintiffs also allege
that Global made unlawful deductions from their wages.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint naming only Global, Michael S.
DeNigris, Joseph Grillo, Roseanne Parone-DeNigris as defendants.
Plaintiffs filed the case on June 18, 2014 and were terminated
shortly thereafter. They subsequently amended their complaint on
July 25, 2014 to add a claim for retaliation. In December 2014,
Car Parking Solutions, LLC was registered with the Illinois
Secretary of State as a limited liability corporation. Casimir A.
Rincon, who had been an office manager and parking lot attendant
for Global, became the registered agent and managing member of Car
Parking. Car Parking took over Global's business, including using
the same signs, employing the same individuals, and utilizing the
same equipment, labor management, and office staff.
Plaintiffs alleged that Global and Car Parking is a single
employer and/or Car Parking is Global's alter-ego and Car Parking
is Global's successor. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend
their complaint a second time to add Car Parking and Rincon as
defendants. The second amended complaint includes claims for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 et seq., the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), 820
ILCS 105/1 et seq., and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act ("IWPCA"), 820 ILCS 115/1 et seq., as well as retaliation in
violation of all of those statutes.
Global, DeNigris, Grillo, and Parone-DeNigris answered the second
amended complaint. Car Parking, however, moved to dismiss the
claims against it. The motion challenges only whether Car Parking
is properly named as a defendant as a purported alter ego or
successor of Global or because it is a single employer with
Global.
A copy of Judge Wood's memorandum opinion and order dated July 20,
2015, denying Car Parking's motion to dismiss, is available at
http://goo.gl/Z3zkjafrom Leagle.com.
Plaintiffs, represented by:
Alvar Ayala, Esq.
Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 701
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: 312-795-9121
Facsimile: 312-419-1025
- and -
Ryan Matthew Thoma, Esq.
Sara Stewart Schumann, Esq.
Karen I. Engelhard, Esq.
ALLISON, SLUTSKY & KENNEDY, P.C.
230 West Monroe Street, Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: 312-364-9400
Facsimile: 312-364-9410
E-mail: thoma@ask-attorneys.com
schumann@ask-attorneys.com
engelhard@ask-attorneys.com
Defendants, represented by Elizabeth A. Boratto --
elizabeth@themillerlawgroup.org -- Jennifer Ann Kunze --
jennifer@themillerlawgroup.org -- at The Miller Law Group, LLC
GM ELECTRICAL: "Cisneros" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Eduardo Alvarado Cisneros, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. GM Electrical Contracting Inc., Nile
Contracting Inc., Gerry Moylan, John Moylan, and Andrew Dunne,
Case No. 1:15-cv-06640 (S.D.N.Y., August 21, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Taubenfeld Esq.
SERRINS FISHER LLP
233 Broadway, Suite 2340
New York, NY 10279
Telephone: (646) 741-3490
Facsimile: (212) 233-3801
GOLDMAN SACHS: Agrees to Settle Mortgage Class Suit for $272MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antoine Gara, writing for Forbes, reported that Goldman Sachs
Group GS is trying to close the books on its lingering troubles
from the mortgage bubble.
The bank agreed to pay $272 million to a class of over 400 bond
investors led by two electrical union pension funds who sued in
2008, claiming the firm used misleading disclosures to sell
mortgage securities loaded with faulty loans.
The suit, one of the oldest investor class action cases stemming
from the crisis, was led by an Illinois-based electrical workers
pension fund, the NECA-IBEW Health and Welfare Fund. Plaintiffs
alleged over a span of many years Goldman made false and
misleading statements about the quality of mortgage passthrough
certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by various
securitization trusts issued in 2007, and that registration
statements for the trusts violated federal securities laws.
While Goldman pitched the certificates as high-rated fixed income
products, plaintiffs argued they turned out to be extremely risky
investments that should have actually been rated 'junk' or worse.
Initially rated AAA at the time of purchase, most of the
collateral in the certificates -- loans made by firms like
Greenpoint Mortgage Funding and GSAA Home Equity -- was eventually
downgraded deep into junk status as the pool soured.
In sum, the certificates Goldman underwrote contained roughly in
$11 billion principal.
The case's age underscores how hard NECA-IBEW fought for its
settlement. Years ago, many claims were originally dismissed by
courts. However, on appeal with the second circuit, the case was
then dramatically expanded, allowing added plaintiffs to join a
class and roughly a half-dozen other securities litigation cases
stemming from the crisis to gain standing. Those cases include a
large recent settlement between mortgage investors and JPMorgan
Chase JPM -1.49%.
GRANDMA JOAN'S: "Benitez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Benitez, and all others similarly-situated v. Charles
Collin Dunham, William H. Dunham, Jane B. Dunham, Kym Comer, and
Grandma Joan's LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-02632 (N.D. Tex., August 11,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Grandma Joan's LLC provides 24/7 live-in caregivers and
companions. These in-home nursing aides perform non-medical
personal care, safety monitoring and household chores for aging
parents with dementia.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Siegel, Esq.
SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
10440 N. Central Expy, Ste. 1040
Dallas, TX 75231
Tel: (214) 706-0834
Fax: (469) 339-0204
- and -
Susanne K. Sullivan, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SUSANNE K. SULLIVAN
12232 Montego Plaza
Dallas, TX 75230
Tel: (214) 238-2350
Fax: (888) 510-2910
GREENBERG TRAURIG: Ariz. App. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Samuel Thumma of the Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division
One, rejected an appeal filed by investors of Mortgages Ltd. from
a Superior Court judgment that dismissed their lawsuit against
Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
On May 11, 2010, the Mortgages Ltd. investors filed a putative
class action against Greenberg Traurig and others in the United
States District Court for the District of Arizona, captioned
Facciola v. Greenberg Traurig LLP, No. 10-CV-1025 (the Facciola
Action). In March 2012, the putative class in the Facciola Action
was certified and Appellants were class members.
Appellants' complaint in this action asserted five claims against
Greenberg Traurig: (1) primary statutory liability under Arizona
Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 44-2003(A) (2015); (2) aiding
and abetting "common law securities fraud;" (3) aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty; (4) intentional
misrepresentation and (5) negligent misrepresentation and
nondisclosure.
Greenberg Traurig moved to dismiss, arguing Appellants' claims:
(1) generally were subject to a two-year limitations period (with
the intentional misrepresentation claim subject to a three-year
limitations period); (2) accrued on Mortgage Ltd.'s June 20, 2008
bankruptcy; and (3) were time-barred, given this case was not
filed until August 31, 2012.
Appellants argued the limitations period was "tolled during the
entire time that they were members of the Facciola" Action (from
May 11, 2010 until August 31, 2012), making their claims timely.
After briefing and oral argument, the superior court rejected
Appellants' tolling arguments and granted Greenberg Traurig's
motion to dismiss, finding Appellants' claims were time-barred.
On appeal, Appellants challenge the superior court's dismissal of
their claims against Greenberg Traurig, LLP as time-barred, asking
the court to adopt cross-jurisdictional tolling.
Judge Thumma in the Opinion dated June 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/5G4gA3from Leagle.com, affirmed the superior court's
judgment finding that the superior court properly dismissed
Appellants' claims as time-barred and Appellants failed to show
that the superior court erred in granting Appellees' motion to
dismiss.
The appellate case is, ROBERT and KATALIN RADER, as individuals
and as trustees for The Rader Family Trust dated September 6,
2002; DELBERT and HEATHER LEWIS, as individuals and as trustees
for The Delbert R. Lewis Jr. Family Trust U/T/A dated December 31,
1997; JANE BARTELME, as an individual; KAREN E. LAMB, as an
individual and a trustee for The Karen E. Lamb Living Trust dated
February 26,2007; MARK LOBERG, as an individual; DAVID STANTON, as
an individual and a trustee for The David Brian Stanton Revocable
Trust dated August 25, 2004; LOUIS and THELMA VAZQUEZ, as
individuals; WALTER J. CLARKE, as an individual; DONALD FRUCHTMAN,
as an individual; TOM and NANCY LUTZ, as individuals; SUSAN THARP
and MICHAEL NORMAN, as individuals and as trustees for The Norman
Tharp Family Trust #3 dated July 19, 2002; JAN STERLING, as an
individual and a trustee for The Jan M. Sterling Living Trust
dated January 4, 1995; DAVID and HANNA FURST, as individuals and
as trustees for the DHF Corporation Retirement Trust and the Furst
Family Trust, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, a
New York limited liability partnership, Defendant/Appellee, Case
No. 1 CA-CV 14-0299 (Ariz. App. Ct.).
Plaintiff is represented by Brett M. Weaver, Esq. --
brettw@johnsonandweaver.com -- Frank J. Johnson, Esq. --
frankj@johnsonandweaver.com -- JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan A. Dessaules, Esq.
DESSAULES LAW GROUP
5353 N 16th St #110
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Tel:(602)274-5400
- and -
Kevin M. Downey, Esq. -- kdowney@wc.com -- Kenneth C. Smurzynski,
Esq. -- ksmurzynski@wc.com -- Colette T. Connor, Esq. --
cconnor@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: DC Cir. Reinstates Securities Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit -- at the
behest of Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System -- revived
the case captioned, IN RE: HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION.
The appellate case is, ARKANSAS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Appellant, CHEOLAN KIM AND CITY OF BOCA RATON GENERAL
EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN, ON BEHALF OF ITSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED--(CA-07-2175), Appellees, v. HARMAN
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES INC., ET AL., Appellees, Case No. 14-7017
(D.C. Cir.).
Between April 2007 and February 2008, Harman International
Industries, Inc., and three of its officers were alleged to have
knowingly and recklessly propped up the Company's stock price by
making materially false and misleading statements about the
Company's financial condition and by failing to disclose related
material adverse facts, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of; Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5;
and Section 20(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78t(a). This was
alleged to have occurred during a period when the Company was
being considered for acquisition.
The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a
claim.
On appeal, Appellants contended that the complaint stated a
plausible claim of securities fraud with respect to three alleged
statements that focus primarily on the status of the Company's
personal navigational device (PND) products.
A copy of the Court of Appeals' Order dated June 23, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/XSYyOWfrom Leagle.com.
Appellant is represented by Steven J. Toll, Esq. --
stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. --
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN
Appellees are represented by Traci L. Lovitt, Esq. --
tlovitt@jonesday.com -- Thomas F. Cullen Jr., Esq. --
tcullen@jonesday.com -- Robert C. Micheletto, Esq. --
rmicheletto@jonesday.com -- Kelly A. Carrero, Esq. --
kcarrero@jonesday.com -- Ian J. Samuel, Esq. --
isamuel@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY
HCC INSURANCE: Faces "Wietschner" Suit Over Proposed Tokio Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Wietschner & Tova Wietschner TRS for Sam Wietschner Pension
Plan UA APRIL 1, 1990, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:15-cv-02423 (S.D. Tex., August 21, 2015), is brought on
behalf of all the HCC's public shareholders to enjoin the sale of
HCC to Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. for an unfair and inequitable
considerations.
HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. operates an insurance company with
its principle places of business located at 13403 Northwest
Freeway, Houston, Texas, 77404-6094.
Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. was established in 1879 in Japan and
is the insurance holding company for Tokio Marine Group.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 227-7720
- and -
Edward Miller, Esq.
Joshua Lifshitz, Esq.
LIFSHITZ & MILLER
821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 493-9780
Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
E-mail: edmilleresq@aol.com
jml@jlclasslaw.com
HSBC HOLDINGS: Investors Recover More than $2BB Over Price-Rigging
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Business Insider, reported that
investors have recovered more than $2 billion in settlements with
nine banks over claims of price-rigging in the foreign exchange
market, and are continuing to pursue claims against seven other
banks, a lawyer for the plaintiffs said.
HSBC Holdings Plc, Barclays Plc, BNP Paribas SA and Goldman Sachs
Group Inc. are among the latest banks to reach settlement in the
class action litigation, Christopher Burke, the lawyer, said in
federal court in Manhattan.
Those banks and five others have agreed to provide "substantial
cooperation" as the plaintiffs pursue claims against seven other
defendants accused of manipulating prices in the $5.4 trillion-
per-day foreign exchange market, Burke said.
"We look forward if necessary to litigating through trial," Burke
said in an interview after the hearing.
Michael Hausfeld, Burke's co-counsel, called the deals "just the
beginning," saying he is being consulted about bringing cases
overseas regarding conduct in the larger Asian and European
markets.
Both lawyers declined to say how much each bank would pay. Goldman
Sachs will pay $129.5 million, a person familiar with the matter
said.
The Wall Street Journal in June reported that HSBC would pay $285
million while Barclays would pay $375 million. Those numbers
remain unconfirmed, and the banks either declined comment or did
not respond to requests for comment.
The plaintiffs previously announced $808.5 million settlements
with four banks, while Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc in May
disclosed reaching a deal without announcing the terms.
Investors including hedge funds and pension funds accused the
banks of impeding competition by conspiring to manipulate the
WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates in chat rooms, instant messages and
emails.
According to the plaintiffs, traders at the banks used chat rooms
with names such as "The Cartel," "The Bandits' Club," and "The
Mafia" to communicate with each other.
They said traders manipulated prices through tactics such as
"front running," "banging the close" and "painting the screen,"
using disguised names to swap confidential orders.
The settlements came after four of the banks -- Citigroup Inc ,
JPMorgan Chase & Co , Barclays and RBS -- pleaded guilty in May in
related criminal cases.
In total, U.S. and European regulators have extracted more than
$10 billion in settlements with seven banks over the alleged
manipulation schemes.
In the class action, previously announced settlements include
$99.5 million from JPMorgan, $394 million from Citigroup, $180
million from Bank of America Corp and $135 million from UBS AG .
The case is In re: Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York,
No. 13-07789.
ICONIX BRAND: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Haverhill Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc., Neil
Cole, Warren Clamen, Jeff Lupinacci, and David Blumberg, Case No.
1:15-cv-06658 (S.D.N.Y., August 21, 2014), 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.
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. is a brand management company and owner
of a diversified portfolio of global consumer brands across
fashion, sports, entertainment and home segments.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
Francis P. McConville, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 907-0700
Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
mstocker@labaton.com
fmcconville@labaton.com
IDI INC.: September 21, 2015 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP issued the following statement:
To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of IDI, Inc. ("IDI") (NYSE MKT:IDI) between April 30,
2015 through July 21, 2015.
You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of Florida.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired IDI between April 30, 2015
through July 21, 2015, your rights may be affected by this action.
To get more information go to:
http://zlk.9nl.com/idi-idi
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Chairman Michael Brauser was named as a
defendant in multiple civil fraud litigation; (2) Brauser was co-
owner of a company that filed for bankruptcy and was sued as an
adversary in that bankruptcy proceeding; and (3) IDI's Transunion
lawsuit could render its stock worthless.
If you suffered a loss in IDI you have until September 21, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
30 Broad Street - 24th Floor New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com
INDIANAPOLIS MARRIOTT: Ind. Court Reverses Class Cert. Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patricia A. Riley of the Court of Appeals of Indiana
reversed the trial court's certification of a class defined by the
plaintiff in a lawsuit against Indianapolis Marriott Downtown and
remanded the cause for further proceedings.
The appellate case is captioned, LHO Indianapolis One Lessee, LLC,
Appellant-Defendant, v. Esther Bowman, Individually and on Behalf
of Other Similarly Situated Individuals, Appellee-Plaintiff, Case
No. 49A02-1411-CT-811 (Ind. App. Ct.).
On April 7, 2013, the Marriott catered a Luncheon which was
attended by approximately 800 sorority members of the Alpha Kappa
Alpha Sorority, Inc. The Luncheon included a choice of breaded,
pan-seared chicken served with angel hair pasta and a mandarin
orange cream sauce or a vegetarian option. During the meal, about
12 chicken dishes were returned to the kitchen after guests
complained that the chicken appeared to be "pink." Bowman, an
attendee at the conference, opted for and consumed the chicken
meal at the Luncheon. She attended the Gala later that evening.
During the early morning hours of Sunday, April 8, 2013, Bowman
became violently ill, experiencing bouts of severe diarrhea and
vomiting for which she was ultimately hospitalized. Sorority
Liaison, Gisele Casanova, compiled a list of 59 attendees who
became sick that weekend and their corresponding symptoms.
On October 31, 2013, Bowman filed a Class Action Complaint
alleging that she and "61 others suffered personal injury and
sustained economic loss as a result of consuming tainted food at
the Downtown Marriott. On January 9, 2014, she filed her motion to
certify the class. On January 27, 2014, Marriott filed its
objection to class certification. Bowman subsequently amended her
motion. Following the necessary discovery, the trial court
conducted an evidentiary class certification hearing on October 7,
2014. Thereafter, on October 28, 2014, the trial court concluded
that Bowman satisfied the requirements of Indiana Trial Rule 23(A)
and 23(B)(3) and entered its findings of fact and conclusions of
law and judgment, granting Bowman class certification.
On appeal, Marriott contends that the trial court erroneously
rendered a final adjudication on the merits in favor of Bowman.
In the Order dated August 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Xwzi3Xfrom Leagle.com, Judge Riley concluded that
the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Bowman solely with
respect to her class certification request and did not enter a
judgment on the merits and that Bowman did not satisfy the
predominance requirement of T.R. 23(B)(3).
Indianapolis Marriott Downtown is represented by Jill M. Felkins,
Esq. -- jfelkins@smsm.com -- SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY
Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert A. Garelick, Esq.
Steven M. Crell, Esq.
John B. Bishop, Esq.
COHEN GARELICK & GLAZIER
8888 Keystone Crossing # 800,
Indianapolis, IN 46240
Tel:(317)-573-8888
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been brought on behalf of
investors who purchased the securities of Investment Technology
Group, Inc. ("ITG" or the "Company") (NYSE:ITG) between February
28, 2011 through August 3, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").
If you purchased ITG securities during the Class Period, you may
move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than
October 5, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Your share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by
your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.
You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel
in the actions.
ITG investors who wish to learn more about the actions and how to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff should or contact Sharon M. Lee
of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.
Background on the ITG Securities Class Litigation
The actions charge ITG and certain of its senior executives with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. ITG, headquartered in New York, New York, describes
itself as "an independent execution and research broker that
partners with global portfolio managers and traders to provide
unique data-driven insights throughout the investment process."
The actions allege that throughout the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts concerning ITG's POSIT network, an
Alternative Trading System or "dark pool." Specifically,
defendants allegedly misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that
between April 2010 through July 2011, ITG operated a proprietary
trading pilot called "Project Omega" in concert with its dark
pools, which allow anonymous trades between buyers and sellers,
and used confidential customer data on those orders to make its
own trades, including trades against subscribers in its POSIT dark
pool.
On July 29, 2015, ITG announced that it was in settlement
discussions with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
"SEC") relating to the SEC's investigation of Project Omega and
that ITG may pay $20.3 million to settle the probe. Following this
news, the price of ITG common stock fell $5.64 per share, or
23.5%, to close at $18.36 per share on July 30, 2015.
On August 3, 205, ITG announced that it was replacing its Chief
Executive Officer ("CEO") and its General Counsel. The Wall Street
Journal reported that the CEO's departure was related to his
failure to disclose to ITG's Board certain details of alleged
improprieties relating to the firm's dark pool. On August 3, 2015,
ITG's share price declined $0.84 per share, or approximately 4.1%,
to close at $19.51 per share.
On August 12, 2015, the SEC announced its settlement with ITG and
its affiliate and released an Order that included detailed
admissions of wrongdoing by ITG, and imposed a civil penalty in
the amount of $18,000,000 -- the largest civil penalty to date
assessed by the SEC against an Alternative Trading System -- in
addition to over $2 million in disgorgement of total proprietary
revenues generated by Project Omega and pre-judgment interest of
over $250,000.
Sharon M. Lee, Esq.
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA
94111-3339
Phone: 415.956.1000
Fax: 415.956.1008
http://www.lieffcabraser.com
ISLAND GAS: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Joanci Omar Camacho Rivera, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Island Gas Plus Inc. d/b/a Grab N Go Mini
Mart, Ismet Hamzacebi, and Yildiray Hamzacebi, Case No. 1:15-cv-
04611 (E.D.N.Y., August 6, 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 gas station and mini market
located at 535 Vanderbilt Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10304.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2540
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com
JAMES MELKA: Faces "Roman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Roman, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. James Melka Landscaping
and Maintenance, Inc. and James Melka, Case No. 1:15-cv-07366
(N.D. Ill., August 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.
James Melka Landscaping and Maintenance, Inc. is engaged in the
business of providing landscaping construction, and maintenance,
in addition to snowplowing services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
53 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 853-1450
- and -
Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
FARMWORKER & LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 784-3541
E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org
JAY-JAY CABARET: "Arana" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Arana, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Jay-Jay Cabaret, Inc. d/b/a Flashdancers Gentlemen's Club, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06185-JGK (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.
Jay-Jay Cabaret, Inc. owns and operates a gentlemen' club located
at 1674 Broadway, New York, New York 10019.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
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: cklee@leelitigation.com
JC USA: Sued for Discriminating Against Program Consultant
----------------------------------------------------------
Cecelia Taylor v. JC USA, Inc., and Jennifer Grimm, Case No. CV-
15-846829 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, June 11, 2015) alleges that during
the Plaintiff's employment at Jenny Craig, she was frequently
subjected to racist remarks.
Ms. Taylor was hired by the Defendants as a Program Consultant at
the Company's Solon, Ohio weight loss center. She is African
American.
JC USA, Inc. ("Jenny Craig") is a foreign corporation that
operates a weight loss center in Solon, Ohio. Jennifer Grimm is a
resident of Ohio and was employed in a supervisory position over
the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter C. Mapley, Esq.
Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
Telephone: (216) 291-4744
Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
E-mail: peter.mapley@spitzlawfirm.com
brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com
JO'S CANDIES: Recalls Honey Grahams with Sea Salt Due to Milk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jo's Candies of Torrance, California is voluntarily recalling
Trader Joe's Dark Chocolate covered Honey Grahams with Sea Salt
(SKU 55024), because it may contain milk, which was not declared
on the label. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
milk run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products. Two reactions have been
reported to date.
The Trader Joe's Dark Chocolate covered Honey Grahams with Sea
Salt is packaged in an 8 oz. clear tub. The potentially affected
product was distributed to Trader Joe's stores nationwide. The
voluntary recall was initiated by Jo's Candies after Trader Joe's
was contacted by a customer.
Customers who have purchased the Dark Chocolate covered Honey
Grahams with Sea Salt may return it to Trader Joe's for a full
refund. Customers with questions may contact Jo's Candies at (310)
257-0260 8:00 AM- 5:00PM PST, Monday-Friday.
All lots of Dark Chocolate covered Honey Grahams with Sea Salt are
being recalled, see the lot codes listed below. Refer to the
picture and location of the lot code on the container. The lot
code may be found on the clear side panel to the right or left of
the label containing the product name:
UPC Product Description "BEST BY" Dates
--- ------------------- ---------------
00550246 Trader Joe's Dark Chocolate 16 Mar 2016, 17 Mar
covered Honey Grahams with 2016, 18 Mar 2016, 19
Sea Salt - 8 oz. clear tub Mar 2016, 20 Mar 2016,
21 Mar 2016, 22 Mar
2016, 30 Mar 2016,
03 Apr 2016, 04 Apr
2016, 05 Apr 2016, 08
Apr 2016, 09 Apr 2016,
10 Apr 2016, 11 Apr
2016, 12 Apr 2016, 15
Apr 2016, 16 Apr 2016,
17 Apr 2016, 18 Apr
2016, 19 Apr 2016, 22
Apr 2016, 23 Apr 2016,
26 Apr 2016, 29 Apr
2016, 30 Apr 2016,
01 May 2016, 02 May
2016, 03 May 2016, 09
May 2016, 11 May 2016,
13 May 2016, 14 May
2016
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm459771.htm
KEURIG GREEN: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminded investors of the
August 18, 2015 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action complaint filed on behalf of a class comprising
purchasers of the securities of Keurig Green Mountain, Inc.
("Keurig" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:GMCR) between February 4, 2015
and May 14, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class
action seeks to recover damages against defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws.
Keurig, through its subsidiaries, manufactures and distributes
beverage systems. The Company has recently announced a new system,
the Keurig 2.0, that purportedly allows users to brew cold
beverages, including sodas, at home. The complaint, filed against
the Company and its executives, alleges that defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or allegedly failed to disclose
that: (1) defendants' projections for sales were unrealistic and
unattainable given the continuing consumer confusion over Keurig
Green Mountain's Keurig 2.0 brewing system; (2) the retail
distribution of Keurig Green Mountain's new cold brewing system,
Keurig Kold, would be delayed; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about Keurig Green Mountain's business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. Upon disclosure of the Company's fraudulent behavior,
shares of Keurig declined in value over several trading sessions,
thereby damaging investors.
If you purchased Keurig shares, if you have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement, please contact Casey Sadler of GPM,
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067
at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include
your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.
Lesley Portnoy, Esq
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
1925 Century Park East Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Toll-free: (888) 773-9224
Fax: (310) 432-1495
info@glancylaw.com
KHIM'S MILLENIUM: "Heredia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Santos Efrain Heredia, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Khim's Millenium Market IV, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-04609 (E.D.N.Y., August 6, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and statutory penalties pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Khim's Millenium Market IV, Inc. owns and operates a supermarket
in Brooklyn, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
475 Park Avenue South, 12th Flr.
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 300-0375
Facsimile: (212) 564-5468
E-mail: jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com
KIEWIT: Faces Breach of Privacy Class Suit
------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that a St. John's lawyer has filed a class-
action lawsuit on behalf of employees at construction company
Kiewit, after sensitive information was stolen from a worker's
laptop.
Bob Buckingham, who is seeking the provincial NDP nomination in
Virginia Waters-Pleasantville, filed the suit alleging a breach of
privacy.
In May, Kiewit employee personal information stored on a laptop
being used by someone in the payroll department was stolen from a
rental car parked in Montreal.
The company issued a statement to workers in Bull Arm, Long
Harbour and Cow Head in Marystown after the laptop was stolen.
Information stored on the computer included details that would be
found on a T4 slip.
According to a statement from Buckingham, it is not known exactly
how many employees are affected by the breach.
"The Class Action Statement of Claim alleges Kiewit breached its
trust duties to the employees, was negligent, committed a breach
of confidence in the manner in which it handled the information,
committed a breach of privacy and intrusion upon seclusion and
breached an implied contract with the employees," said Buckingham
in a statement.
He added his firm has received "hundreds" of inquiries from
employees at Kiewit regarding the breach.
"Kiewit has been less than co-operative and helpful in assisting
the class members and we hope the filing of this class action will
bring them to their senses, realize their corporate and employer
responsibilities and work with us to mitigate losses and reduce
damages," said Buckingham.
In April, the company said it had contacted police about the theft
and the current security policies are under review.
Kiewit is a Fortune 500 construction, mining and engineering
company that is doing work at the Bull Arm site for the Hebron
construction project.
KIM DAVIS: Still Refuses to Issue Marriage Licenses
---------------------------------------------------
Shayla Menville, writing for The Morehead News, reported that "It
is ordered that Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction
against Defendant Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan
County Clerk, is hereby granted."
U.S. District Judge David Bunning ruled that Davis must allow
marriage licenses to be issued for all couples. However, none have
been issued in the county since June 29.
The ruling follows a lawsuit that began in July when Davis stopped
issuing all marriage licenses in response to the U.S. Supreme
Court's historic decision recognizing same-sex marriages under the
14th Amendment.
But resolution and marriage licenses are still missing in Rowan
County.
Less than an hour after Bunning's ruling was filed, Davis'
attorneys asked for a stay as an appeal was filed with the 6th
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.
Liberty Counsel's Roger Ganam advised Davis to stand her ground.
She is taking vacation time and advising her office not to issue
any marriage licenses.
Multiple couples, including plaintiffs in the American Civil
Liberties Union of Kentucky class action civil suit, Karen Roberts
and April Miller, were turned away by Davis' employees.
Others denied included David Moore and David Ermold, whose earlier
denial became a viral video and Will Smith Jr. and his partner
James Yates, who've been denied twice. One same-sex couple was
handed Liberty Counsel's phone number and told to contact the
legal team with their concerns.
Four couples had been denied in person and constant phone call
requests had been denied by press time.
Attorneys argue that issuing a marriage license to a same-sex
couple is the same as her approving the marriage, which she said
violates her deeply-held Christian beliefs. Bunning rejected that
argument in the order.
"The State is not asking her to condone same-sex unions on moral
or religious grounds, nor is it restricting her from engaging in a
variety of religious activities. Davis remains free to practice
her Apostolic Christian beliefs. She may continue to attend church
twice a week, participate in Bible Study and minister to female
inmates at the Rowan County Jail," the ruling said. "She is even
free to believe that marriage is a union between one man and one
woman, as many Americans do. However, her religious convictions
cannot excuse her from performing the duties that she took an oath
to perform as Rowan County Clerk."
Barry Spartman, a plaintiff in the suit, said that he came to
support Roberts and Miller.
"We were all excited when the order came through granting the
injunction and now we are all upset again that she is denying it,"
said Spartman. "I did pay my taxes while I was here but I wish it
were for happier reasons."
In his 28-page order Bunning dismissed all of the arguments
presented in Davis' defense for an injunction and in a suit filed
against Gov. Steve Beshear, for allegedly violating her religious
liberties by ordering her to comply with the SCOTUS decision.
"They are long-time residents who live, work, pay taxes, vote, and
conduct other business in Morehead. Under these circumstances, it
is understandable that Plaintiffs would prefer to obtain their
marriage licenses in their home county," said Bunning in the
order. "And for other Rowan County residents, it may be more than
a preference. The surrounding counties are only thirty minutes to
an hour away, but there are individuals in this rural region of
the state who simply do not have the physical, financial, or
practical means to travel."
"Davis has arguably (violated the First Amendment) by openly
adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at
the expense of others," Bunning wrote. "The Beshear directive
certainly serves the State's interest in upholding the rule of law
. . . It also allows same-sex couples to take advantage of the
many societal benefits and fosters stability for their children.
Therefore, the Court concludes that it likely does not infringe
upon Davis' free exercise rights."
Several of the couples sought marriage licenses from County Judge-
Executive Walter Blevins but Bunning ruled that Davis' religious
objection does not justify as absence under the law.
"After all KRS 402.240 only authorizes him to issue marriage
licenses when Davis is unable to do so; it does not permit him to
assume responsibility for duties that Davis does not wish to
perform," said Bunning.
"At its core, this civil action presents a conflict between two
individual liberties . . . one is the fundamental right to marry
implicitly recognized in the due process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. The other is the right to free exercise of religion
explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment," said Bunning. "The
tension between these constitutional concerns can be resolved by
answering one question; does the free exercise clause likely
excuse Kim Davis from issuing marriage licenses because she has a
religious objection to same sex marriage?"
Bunning's answer is no.
If Davis continues to refuse, and the Court of Appeals declines to
issue a stay, the ACLU of Kentucky may seek to have her held in
contempt of court, which can bring fines or an arrest.
KNV FOOD: Recalls Mint Biscuit Products Due to Egg
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: KNV Food Corporation
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia,
Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10003
Brand Common name Size Code(s) on UPC
name ----------- ---- product ---
----- ----------
N/A Mint Biscuits 500 g All codes where 4 823010-
(Cyrillic egg is not 201108
characters declared on the
only) label.
KOHL'S: Faces Class Suit Over False Advertising of Sale Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline.com, reported that a
Los Angeles man is suing Kohl's over claims the department store
corporation falsely advertised, marketed, and labeled sale prices.
Victor Le, individually and for all others similarly situated,
filed a class action complaint July 29 in U.S. District Court
Central District of California Western Division against Kohl's
Corp. and Kohl's Department Stores Inc., alleging unjust
enrichment, consumer fraud, and unfair, unlawful, and deceptive
business practices.
The complaint states Le purchased items from Kohl's at a supposed
discounted price from "original" item prices, but the "original"
prices were found to be fabricated or inflated and do not
represent regular Kohl's merchandise prices.
According to the complaint, Kohl's states its discounting policy
in fine print on its website: "Actual sales may not have been made
at the 'regular' or 'original' prices, and intermediate markdowns
may have been taken. 'Original' prices may not have been in effect
during the past 90 days or in all trade areas."
The claim alleges that as a result of Kohl's false and misleading
advertising, marketing, and labeling of "sale" prices, Le and
other class members have suffered economic damages and financial
loss.
Le seeks an order enjoining the defendants from conducting
business through the above allegations, corrective advertising and
marketing on the defendants' part, restoration of funds acquired
through the alleged means to all affected persons, plus damages
and court costs.
Le is represented by John T. Jasnoch, Joseph P. Guglielmo, and
Erin G. Comite of Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law LLP in Glendale,
Calif., New York City and Cochester, Conn.; and by E. Kirk Wood of
Wood Law Firm LLC in Birmingham, Ala.
LEARN IT: Faces "Burrell" Suit Over Alleged Employee Harassment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenoda Burrell v. Learn IT Systems, Case No. 15 850078 (D. Ohio,
August 21, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's alleged harassment
and abuse at the work facility.
Learn IT Systems owns and operates various charter schools
throughout the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul V. Wolf, Esq.
50 Public Square, Suite 920
Cleveland, OH 44113-2206
Telephone: (216) 241-0300
Facsimile: (216) 241-2731
E-mail: paulvwolf@hotmail.com
LIBERTY BROADBAND: Faces Suit in Del. Over Charter's Merger Plans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Sciabacucchi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Liberty Broadband Corporation, et al., Case
No. 11418 (D. Del., August 21, 2015), arises from two related
transactions between Charter Communications, Inc. and Liberty
Broadband, entered into in connection with Charter's proposed
acquisition of Time Warner Cable, Inc. and Bright House Networks,
LLC through a flawed process and inadequate consideration.
Charter Communications, Inc. owns and operates a cable
telecommunications company headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.
Liberty Broadband Corporation is a Delaware corporation that
maintains its corporate headquarters in Englewood, Colorado.
Liberty Broadband was formerly a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Liberty Media Corporation.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kurt M. Heyman, Esq.
Melissa N. Donimirski, Esq.
PROCTOR HEYMAN ENERIO LLP
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 200
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 472-7300
E-mail: kheyman@proctorheyman.com
mdonimirski@proctorheyman.com
- and -
Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
Steven P. Harte, Esq.
Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
155 Federal Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
steven@blockesq.com
joel@blockesq.com
LIBERTY BROADBAND: Sued Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------
Belle Cohen, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
stockholders of Liberty Broadband Corporation v. Liberty Broadband
Corporation, et al., Case No. 11416 (D. Del., August 21, 2015),
arises from breaches of fiduciary duty by the Defendants in
connection with soliciting stockholder approval of a more than $4
billion issuance of common stock to related party Liberty
Interactive Corporation and certain other investors.
Liberty Broadband Corporation is a publicly-traded Delaware
corporation which was "spun-off" from Liberty Media Corporation in
late 2014 to house, among other things, Liberty Media's former
interest in cable provider Charter Communications, Inc.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
Craig J. Springer, Esq.
ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
3801 Kennett Pike
Building C, Suite 305
Wilmington, DE 19807
Telephone: (302) 504-4967
Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
- and -
Jeremy Friedman, Esq.
Spencer Oster, Esq.
FRIEDMAN OSTER PLLC
240 East 79th Street, Suite A
New York, NY 10075
Telephone: (888) 529-1108
E-mail: soster@friedmanoster.com
- and -
Gustavo Bruckner, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
LOS ANGELES, CA: Raises More Allegations Against Teacher
--------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Guzman-Lopez and Sandra Oshiro, writing for KPCC, reported
that the Los Angeles Unified School District raised additional
allegations against renowned teacher Rafe Esquith, stating it is
investigating whether the educator inappropriately touched
children, among other new issues.
Esquith's attorney said the latest allegations are false.
The district's charges followed Esquith's filing of a lawsuit
against the school district in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
In the lawsuit, he claims his employer mishandled his case which
began with a report that he made a reference to a passage in "The
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" describing a king dancing naked.
Esquith was removed from his Hobart Boulevard Elementary School
classroom in March and assigned to his home with pay. He gave
notice to the district in June that he planned to file the
lawsuit.
Through his attorney, Esquith dismissed the district's actions
against him as illegal and akin to that of a "criminal cartel."
In a letter to Esquith's attorney, the district rejected the
teacher's claim that he suffered damages from the original
charges. The district said while it was investigating the initial
accusations "additional serious allegations of misconduct by Mr.
Esquith came to light."
Specifically, the district said its investigation "revealed
serious allegations of highly inappropriate conduct involving
touching of minors before and during Mr. Esquith's time at the
School District."
The letter went on to say that the district's investigation also
"revealed possible ethical and District policy violations in Mr.
Esquith's relationship with his nonprofit (the Hobart
Shakespeareans)."
Further, the district stated, its investigation "revealed multiple
inappropriate photographs and videos of a sexual nature found on
Mr. Esquith's school computer, plus multiple inappropriate email
correspondence with students and conduct inconsistent with the
Code of Conduct guidelines.
"There have also been allegations of threats to a parent and two
students that were revealed through the investigation," the letter
states, though no details of the threats were provided.
Asked if Los Angeles police have been contacted about allegations
that may rise to a criminal case, district spokeswoman Shannon
Haber said by email: "As mandated reporters, we always report
allegations of suspected child abuse to the appropriate agency."
KPCC asked LAPD for information, but the department provided no
immediate comment.
Mark Geragos, Esquith's attorney, derided the district's actions
in an email to KPCC.
"The LAUSD is being run like a Criminal Cartel," Geragos wrote.
"Rafe has decided that at great personal cost that their illegal
activity needs to be exposed."
Geragos later told KPCC by phone that he will be filing a federal
class-action lawsuit. Among other issues, the attorney contends
LAUSD is raising allegations against his client as part of an
effort to get rid of teachers who are costly to the school
district.
"LAUSD has a pattern and practice of trying to divest teachers of
their pensions as they get older and this is one of the things
they did with Rafe," Geragos said.
LAUSD did not comment on Geragos' remarks. A spokeswoman did say
the school district is obligated to investigate all allegations
against Esquith.
The class-action lawsuit is also expected to challenge so-called
teacher jails in which instructors are assigned to locations such
as education centers or their homes while allegations against them
are resolved. One of Esquith's attorneys has said teachers
describe the assignments as "torture" and deny the instructors
their due process rights.
LOS ANGELES, CA: Could Pay as Much as $92.5M in Tel. Tax Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Alpert Reyes, writing for Los Angeles Times, reported that
Los Angeles could pay as much as $92.5 million to resolve a long-
standing lawsuit over a city telephone tax under a class-action
settlement that was granted preliminary approval by a Superior
Court judge.
The $92.5-million figure is a cap: The final amount that Los
Angeles would pay depends on how many people seek and obtain
refunds for telephone taxes paid during a roughly 21/2-year period
that ended in 2008. Any money not claimed would revert to the
city.
City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana said the settlement
marks an important step toward Los Angeles resolving looming
liabilities that could threaten its financial stability if they
were left unaddressed.
"We'd much rather be in a position of planning for them and
resolving them than allowing a court to make a decision that puts
the city in a tailspin," Santana said.
The legal battle over the phone tax has lasted nearly nine years.
Taxpayer Estuardo Ardon filed a suit against the city, arguing
that its telephone users tax was illegally collected because it
had been levied on services that were not subject to a federal
tax. Ardon demanded a refund for himself and other taxpayers.
City officials have previously estimated that if Ardon prevailed
in court, the possible liability for Los Angeles -- once believed
to be as high as $750 million -- would have been less than $300
million, according to Assistant City Administrative Officer
Benjamin Ceja.
"I'm very pleased we've solved what for nine years had been one of
the city's most significant legal challenges -- in a way that both
limits the potential impact on basic city services and allows for
appropriate refunds to Los Angeles telephone customers," City
Atty. Mike Feuer said in a written statement.
Under the settlement plan, the city will deposit a payment of $50
million into an escrow account -- a sum that Los Angeles officials
had already set aside for the tax case.
If the demand for refunds exceed that amount, however, Los Angeles
must raise more money, possibly through a judgment obligation bond
or by drawing from reserves.
It is unclear exactly how many Angelenos could be eligible: The
order issued says that there were about 1.6 million residents and
roughly 569,000 businesses registered with the city during the
period affected by the case, "most of which are likely members of
the class."
However, the order also states that attorneys representing Ardon
and other taxpayers believe the claims rate will range between 20%
and 30% of those eligible. An outside company will be notifying
Angelenos who might be able to claim refunds.
Taxpayers will have to submit claims to get either a flat rate or
full refund: The flat rate will be $30 for customers with
residential land line service and $50 for either a business land
line or mobile service. To get a full refund, taxpayers will have
to submit copies of their telephone bills. Taxpayers can also
choose to donate money they could have claimed to groups that
support city libraries, parks, the zoo or animal shelters.
Refunds will only be offered to people who paid such taxes between
Oct. 19, 2005, and March 15, 2008. That was before the telephone
users tax was replaced with a new, slightly lower tax approved by
Los Angeles voters seven years ago.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Balero" Suit Added to Chinese Flooring MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Balero, et al. v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01005, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(Alexandria). The Virginia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-02637-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.
The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 1:15-md-02627-AJT-TRJR.
The actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
regarding whether Lumber Liquidators falsely represented that its
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring complied with California
Air Resources Board standards and other legal requirements
governing the emissions of formaldehyde.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Andrew Paul Lee, Esq.
Linda Mary Dardarian, Esq.
William Copley Jhaveri-Weeks, Esq.
GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
300 Lakeside Dr., Suite 1000
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 763-9800
Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
E-mail: alee@gbdhlegal.com
ldar@gbdhlegal.com
wjhaveriweeks@gbdhlegal.com
- and -
Michael Robert Lozeau, Esq.
Richard Toshiyuki Drury, Esq.
LOZEAU DRURY LLP
410 12th Street, Suite 250
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 836-4200
Facsimile: (510) 836-4205
E-mail: michael@lozeaudrury.com
richard@lozeaudrury.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Lauren Lynn Wroblewski, Esq.
Lisa Ann Wongchenko, Esq.
William L. Stern, Esq.
William F. Tarantino, Esq.
MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
E-mail: lwroblewski@mofo.com
LWongchenko@mofo.com
wstern@mofo.com
wtarantino@mofo.com
Interested Parties Russell A. Ezovski, Devonne Bowling and Robert
Smith are represented by:
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
601 California St., 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
Interested Parties Maria Ronquillo, Romualdo Ronquillo, Adriana
Scotti, Mark Scotti and Monty Earl are represented by:
Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com
Interested Party Maria Carmen Smith is represented by:
Kristen Law Sagafi, Esq.
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery, 30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
E-mail: ksagafi@lchb.com
Interested Party Joseph A. Del Braccio is represented by:
Alexander Robert Safyan, Esq.
PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 788-8300
E-mail: asafyan@pswlaw.com
- and -
Bruce Lee Simon, Esq.
PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 433-9000
Facsimile: (415) 433-9008
E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
Interested Party James Silverthorn is represented by:
Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
1016 Palm Avenue
West Hollywood, CA 90069
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
M-I LLC: "Dewan" Class Suit Transferred From California to Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Dewan v. M-I, L.L.C., et al., Case
No. 1:14-cv-01151, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas (Houston). The Texas District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01746 to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Curt Hesse, Esq.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES
Lyric Center
440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 222-6775
Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
- and -
R. Ira Spiro, Esq.
SPIRO LAW CORP
11377 West Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 235-2350
Facsimile: (310) 235-2351
E-mail: ira@spirolawcorp.com
Defendant M-I, L.L.C. is represented by:
Patricia S. Riordan, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 612-7473
Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
E-mail: priordan@morganlewis.com
- and -
Samuel Zurik, III, Esq.
Robert Peter Lombardi, Esq.
KULLMAN FIRM
1100 Poydras St.
1600 Energy Centre
New Orleans, LA 70163
Telephone: (504) 524-4162
Facsimile: (504) 596-4189
E-mail: sz@kullmanlaw.com
rpl@kullmanlaw.com
- and -
Martin J. Regimbal, Esq.
KULLMAN FIRM
200 6th St. North, Suite 704
Columbus, MS 39701
Telephone: (662) 244-8824
Facsimile: (662) 244-8837
E-mail: mjr@kullmanlaw.com
Intervenors Sarmad Syed and Ashley Balfour are represented by:
Jennifer L. Conner, Esq.
SPIRO LAW CORP.
11377 W. Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90064
E-mail: jennifer@spirolawcorp.com
- and -
Ira Spiro, Esq.
SPIRO LAW CORP.
10573 West Pico Blvd., #865
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: (310) 235-2350
E-mail: ira@spirolawcorp.com
- and -
Richard J. Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
MADEWELL INC: Recalls Women's Sandals Due to Trip & Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 20, 2015
Posting date: August 20, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54712
The recall involves various Madewell Women's Sightseer sandals,
sold in various sizes and colours online. The following style
numbers are affected: C0275, C0276, C0277, C0278, C0279, C1105,
C5893, C5895, C5897 and C6090.
An internal component (a metal shank) can protrude through the
bottom of the rubber outsole, potentially leading to a trip and
fall hazard to consumers.
Neither Health Canada nor Madewell has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries in Canada.
Madewell has received 8 reports of a metal shank protruding
through the sandal. No injuries were reported in the United
States.
Approximately 300 pairs were sold online in Canada, and
approximately 50,600 were distributed in the United States.
The recalled products were sold from January 2015 to July 2015.
Manufactured in Brazil.
Manufacturer: ESB CALCADOS LTDA
RUA PADRE VALENTIM WESCHENFELDER,145
PAVILHAO
BRAZIL
Importer: Madewell Inc.
70 Broadway
New York, New York
UNITED STATES
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
contact Madewell for a refund.
For more information, consumers may contact Madewell by e-mail or
by telephone 24 hours a day, seven days a week at 1-866-544-1937.
Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.
Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.
Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.
This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/pscnccy
MANPOWER INC: Court Grants Final Approval of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
VERA WILLNER, Plaintiff, v. MANPOWER INC., Defendant, Case No. 11-
CV-02846-JST (N.D. Cal.), is a putative class action against
Manpower "for California Labor Code violations stemming from
Manpower's failure to furnish accurate wage statements and failure
to timely pay all wages to employees who received their wages by
U.S. mail. Willner asserts the following claims in the operative
complaint: (1) violations of California Labor Code section
201.3(b)(1) for failure to pay timely weekly wages; (2) violations
of California Labor Code section 226 for failure to furnish
accurate wage statements; (3) violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL) for failure to provide accurate wage
statements and to pay timely wages; (4) penalties under the
Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) for failure to provide
accurate wage statements and to pay timely wages; and (5)
violations of California Labor Code sections 201 and 203 for
failure to pay timely wages due at separation.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California previously approved the parties' proposed plan for
providing notice to the class anf found that the parties provided
the best practicable notice to class members.
District Judge Jon S. Tigar, in the Memorandum Opinion dated June
20, 2015 available at http://is.gd/aDtWXifrom Leagle.com, granted
motion for final approval of the settlement with the total
settlement fund of $8,750,000, granted in part the request for an
award of attorney's fees of $2,625,000, granted the request for
costs of $33,300 and approved a modified a service award to
Plaintiff Vera Wilner in the amount of $7,500.
Plaintiffs are represented by James Kan, Esq. --
jkan@gbdhlegal.com -- Laura L. Ho, Esq. -- lho@gbdhlegal.com --
GOLDSTEIN BORGEN DARDARIAN & HO, Lin Yee Chan, Esq. --
lchan@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
- and -
Jeffrey C. Jackson, Esq.
Kirk David Hanson, Esq.
JACKSON HANSON, LLP
1310 Rosecrans St
San Diego, CA 92106
Tel: (619)523-9001
Manpower Inc. is represented by Nancy L. Abell, Esq. --
nancyabell@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP
MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Phillips, Davida Holt, and Wyonn Holt, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly situated individuals v. McDonald's
Corporation and McDonald's Restaurants of Tennessee, Inc., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00922 (M.D. Tenn., August 21, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, damages, equitable and other relief
available under the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate McDonald's restaurant locations in
Nashville, Tennessee.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles P. Yezbak III, Esq.
YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
Nashville, TN 37215
Telephone: (615) 250-2000
E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com
- and -
Gregory K. McGillivary, Esq.
Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 833-8855
E-mail: gkm@wmlaborlaw.com
MDC PARTNERS: September 29, 2015 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC reminds investors in MDC Partners Inc. ("MDC" or
the "Company") (NYSE: MDCA), who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares between September 24, 2013 and April 27, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), of the September 29, 2015 deadline to serve
as lead plaintiff in the class action.
If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall,
of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del
Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without
cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com
The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.
The complaint alleges that MDC had been actively cooperating with
an SEC investigation relating to the reimbursement of expenses
incurred by the Company's CEO, and that the Company incurred $5.8
million in legal fees relating to the inquiry. When the truth was
revealed, shares dropped causing investors harm.
If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this
case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401,
via email at info@goldberglawpc.com, or visit our website at
Goldberglawpc.com.
Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.
Michael Goldberg, Esq.
Brian Schall, Esq.
Goldberg Law PC
13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404,
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
800-977-7401
800-977-7401
info@goldberglawpc.com
www.Goldberglawpc.com
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces Third Data Breach Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
WishTv.com, reported that a third lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed against a Fort Wayne-based medical software
company over a data breach involving patient information.
The (Fort Wayne) Journal Gazette reports the lawsuit from Ryan
Pool against Medical Informatics Engineering was filed in federal
court. Pool alleges that his data was compromised through a
hospital south of Indianapolis.
The company has reported that the hack of its networks earlier has
exposed private information of 3.9 million people nationwide. The
information includes patients' names, birth dates, addresses and
Social Security numbers.
The company notified the FBI about the hack in May, and began
issuing letters to patients in mid-July.
Two other lawsuits against the company were filed in recent weeks.
All three lawsuits accuse the company of negligence.
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces Second Data Breach Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Linn Freedman, Esq. -- lfreedman@rc.com -- at Robinson+Cole, in an
article for JD Supra, wrote that a second proposed class action
suit was filed against Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc., in
California federal court alleging that the proposed class is at
risk of identity theft.
JD Supra previously reported that Medical Informatics was sued
over a data breach that occurred in May and affected over 4
million individuals. Thereafter, Indiana AG Gregory Zoeller
advised all Hoosiers to freeze their credit to protect themselves.
The suit further alleges that the class has suffered actual
injury, including identity theft, invasion of privacy, cost of
monitoring credit accounts and the value of their personal
information. In a different twist, the named plaintiff alleges
that her information has value and can be sold to third parties,
and therefore, it is a form of currency that has been devalued as
a result of the breach.
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "McGaha" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly McGaha, for herself and all others similarly situated v.
Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00229-JTM-
SLC (N.D. Ind., August 21, 2015), arises from the alleged data
breach that exposed the personal financial and protected health
information of numerous individuals whose information was used in
MIE electronic health record.
Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. is a software developer that
provides technical solutions targeted to the healthcare industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Vess A. Miller, Esq.
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
David G. Scott, Esq.
EMERSON SCOTT LLP
1301 Scott Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
Telephone: (501) 907-2555
Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
E-mail: dscott@emersonfirm.com
- and -
John G. Emerson, Esq.
EMERSON SCOTT LLP
830 Apollo Lane
Houston, TX 77058
Telephone: (281) 488-8854
Facsimile: (281) 488-8867
E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com
- and -
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0800
Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
sward@barrack.com
- and -
Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
2001 Market St #3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-0600
E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com
jgolan@barrack.com
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Norder" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Darcy Norder, Patrick Kippert, Nancy Rice, Joe Poirier, Traci
Taylor, Mary Luysterburg, and Sarah Lord, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Medical Informatics
Engineering, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00230-JD-SLC (N.D. Ind.,
August 21, 2015), arises from the alleged data breach that exposed
the personal financial and protected health information of
numerous individuals whose information was used in MIE electronic
health record.
Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. is a software developer that
provides technical solutions targeted to the healthcare industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
Vess A. Miller, Esq.
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19107-3304
Telephone: (215) 238-1700
Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com
- and -
Joshua H. Haffner, Esq.
Jennifer Duffy, Esq.
KABATACK BROWN KELLNER LLP
644 S. Figueroa St.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 217-5000
Facsimile: (213) 217-5010
E-mail: jhh@kbklawyers.com
jld@kbklawyers.com
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-05595 (W.D. Wash., August 21, 2015), arises from the alleged
data breach that exposed the personal financial and protected
health information of numerous individuals whose information was
used in MIE electronic health record.
Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. is a software developer that
provides technical solutions targeted to the healthcare industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
Seattle WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 628-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
dmensher@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
One Haverford Centre
361 Lancaster Avenue
Haverford, PA 19041
Telephone: (610) 642-8500
Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
awf@chimicles.com
jbk@chimicles.com
MENZIES AVIATION: No Arbitration in "Jimenez" Case, Court Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District
Court for Northern District of California denied Menzies Aviation
Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned, JESSICA
JIMENEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MENZIES AVIATION INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-02392-WHO (N.D. Cal.).
Menzies is a British company specializing in global aviation
support, such as ground-handling, cargo handling, aircraft
maintenance, and aviation-related services at airports throughout
the world, including San Francisco International Airport ("SFO").
Jimenez, a Menzies employee, filed this putative class action in
San Francisco Superior Court on June 2, 2010, alleging, among
other things, that Menzies failed to pay its SFO non-exempt
employees minimum wage and overtime. Menzies removed the case to
this District in 2010. The case was remanded to state court in
April 2013. On July 17, 2013, Jimenez filed a first amended
complaint (FAC) following a partial grant of Menzies's demurrer in
state court.
In the motion, Menzies moves to compel arbitration of the claims
for which Mijos is the class representative, contending that those
claims were first alleged in the SAC and are covered by the ADR
Policy executed by Mijos.
In his Order dated August 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/jTHr2ffrom Leagle.com, Judge Orrick denied the
motion for two reasons: the overtime claim has always been in the
case; and, Menzies could not demand that its employees sign the
arbitration agreement without notifying them of the agreement's
impact on their participation in the case as a class member and of
their right to opt out of the agreement.
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Graham Stephen Paul Hollis, Esq.
Vilmarie Cordero, Esq.
GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
3555 5th Ave
San Diego, CA 92103
Tel: (619)692-0800
Defendants are represented by Archana R. Acharya, Esq. --
aacharya@foley.com -- Kristy K. Marino, Esq. -- kmarino@foley.com
-- Christopher Gary Ward, Esq. -- cward@foley.com -- FOLEY &
LARDNER LLP
MERCK & CO: Summary Judgment Granted in Part in Securities Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Merck & Co., Inc. (Merck) and Alise S. Reicin moved for
summary judgment in the case, IN RE MERCK & CO., INC. SECURITIES,
DERIVATIVE & "ERISA" LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: THE:
CONSOLIDATED SECURITIES ACTION, THE DIRECT ACTIONS: Stichting
Pensioenfonds ABP v. Merck & Co., Inc.; Norges Bank v. Merck &
Co., Inc.; Deka Investment GmbH v. Merck & Co., Inc.; Union Asset
Mgmt. Holding, AG v. Merck & Co., Inc.; AFA
Livforsakringsaktiebolag v. Merck & Co., Inc.; DWS Investment GmbH
v. Merck & Co., Inc.; and KBC Asset Mgmt. NV v. Merck & Co., Inc.,
Case Nos. 05-1151 (SRC), 05-2367 (SRC), 05-5060, 07-4021, 07-4022,
07-4023, 07-4024, 07-4546, 11-6259 (D.N.J.).
The Direct Actions involve seven individual lawsuits concerning
the same alleged securities fraud related to Merck drug Vioxx at
issue in the pending Class Action docketed as Civil Action number
05-2367 (the Class Action), with which the Direct Actions were
consolidated.
District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey in the Opinion dated June 22,
2015 available at http://is.gd/FgPKNUfrom Leagle.com, granted in
part the motion insofar as the claims of the 157 funds for which
Plaintiffs lacked evidence of damages and insofar as the Exchange
Act Section 20(a) claims were premised on the Section 10(b)
violations which the identified 157 funds cannot establish for
lack of damages.
Plaintiffs are represented by Alfred C. Decotiis , Esq. --
jdecotiis@decotiislaw.com -- DECOTIIS, FITZPATRICK & COLE, LLP,
Jason Robert D'Agnenica, Esq. -- jasondag@ssbny.com -- SUTLL
STULL & BRODY, Melissa E. Flax, Esq. -- MFlax@carellabyrne.com --
James E. Cecchi, Esq. -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- Lindsey H.
Taylor, Esq. -- LTaylor@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI
Defendant, represented by Charles William Cohen, Esq. --
charles.cohen@hugheshubbard.com -- Wilfred P. Coronato, Esq. --
wilfred.coronato@hugheshubbard.com -- HUGHES, HUBBARD & REED LLP
MERCY HEALTH: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Petri" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Petri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mercy Health d/b/a Mercy Hospital St. Louis, Case No.
4:15-cv-01296-CDP(E.D. Mo., August 21, 2015), seeks to put an end
on the Defendant's practice of placing calls made using automated
telephone dialing system to consumers cellular telephone.
Mercy Health is located in St. Louis, Missouri and provides
distinctive medical and trauma services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tami Hamm #59171MO
The Hamm Law Firm, LLC
8630 Delmar Blvd., Suite 120
St. Louis, MO 63124
Telephone: 314-439-1046
E-mail: tami@stopthedebtharassment.com
- and -
John Yanchunis, Esq
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
- and -
William Peerce Howard, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION GROUP
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
E-mail: WHoward@ForthePeople.com
MERSCORP INC: Montgomery Suit Can't Proceed as Class, 3d Cir Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case captioned, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA,
RECORDER OF DEEDS, By and Through Nancy J. Becker, In Her Official
Capacity as the Recorder of Deeds of Montgomery County,
Pennsylvania, On Its Own Behalf and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. MERSCORP INC; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC, Appellants, Case No. 14-4315, Circuit
Judge Maryanne Trump Barry of the United States Court of Appeals,
Third Cicuit, reversed the July 1, 2014 order of the district
court which granted the Recorder's request for a declaratory
judgment and denied the MERS entities' motion for summary
judgment. The Third Circuit denied the motion for certification.
Records filed a class action complaint against Defendant MERS, a
national electronic loan registry system that permits its members
to freely transfer, among themselves, the promissory notes
associated with mortgages, while MERS remains the mortgagee of
record in public land records as "nominee" for the note holder and
its successors and assigns, seeking declaratory judgment and
permanent injunction establishing that the MERS entities failed to
record mortgage assignments in violation of Pennsylvania state law
and brought claims for violation of 21 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. Sec.
351, civil conspiracy to violate Sec. 351, and unjust enrichment,
based on failure to pay recording fees. The Recorder contends that
MERS creates confusion amongst property owners, damages the
integrity of Pennsylvania's land records, and denies the Recorder
and the Class millions of dollars in uncollected fees.
In its motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, MERS argued
that Sec. 351 does not impose a duty to record all land
conveyances and that, even if Sec. 351 imposed such a duty, the
transfers of promissory notes among MERS members do not constitute
assignments of the mortgage itself and thus are not conveyances of
land. It also argued that the Recorder lacked a right of action,
and that, in any case, MERSCORP, Inc. and Mortgage Electronic
Registration Systems, Inc., were not the correct parties against
which a duty to record could be enforced. In its opinion and order
filed on July 1, 2014, the district court granted the Recorder's
request for a declaratory judgment and denied the MERS entities'
motion for summary judgment.
On appeal, MERS contends that Sec. 351 does not impose a duty to
record all land conveyances, and that the statute's "shall be
recorded" language, when read in context, indicates not that every
conveyance must be recorded, but only that conveyances must be
recorded in the county where the property is situated in order to
preserve the property holder's rights as against a subsequent bona
fide purchaser.
In the Opinion dated August 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Jbb5cjfrom Leagle.com, Judge Barry concluded that
Pennsylvania's Sec. 351 imposes no duty to record all land
conveyances. The district court was not called upon to evaluate
how MERS impacts various constituencies or to adjudicate whether
MERS is good or bad. While the Recorder is critical of MERS in
several respects, the appeal claims only that MERSCORP is
violating state law by failing to record its transfer of mortgage
debts, thus depriving the county governments of recording fees.
That claim, the only one before the court, has no merit.
Appellants are represented by:
Robert M. Brochin, Esq.
Brian M. Ercole, Esq.
Peter Buscemi, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
200 South Biscayne Boulevard
5300 Southeast Financial Center
Miami, FL 33131
Appellees are represented by:
Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
William E. Hoese, Esq.
Robert J. LaRocca, Esq.
KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF
One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
Philadelphia, PA 19107
- and -
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
Jennifer E. Kelly, Esq.
CUNEO, GILBERT & LADUCA
507 C Street, N.E.,
Washington, DC 20002
METRO GENERAL: Employees Owed Unpaid Wages, Says Jury
-----------------------------------------------------
Tracy Kornet, writing for WMCACTIONNEWS5.COM, reported that a
4-year-old class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of hundreds of
Metro employees claimed they weren't paid for all the time they
worked, and a jury said they're right.
More than 850 correctional officers are involved in this lawsuit.
They work in jail, Metro General, and they transport defendants to
court.
The lawsuit, which was filed in 2011, claims officers were
required to stay past their shift without pay until all inmates
housed in the jail were accounted for.
David Garrison, the plaintiff's attorney, said he's pleased with
the jury's verdict.
"It demonstrates they found it's unjust to pay people at lower
rates than you agree to pay them," Garrison said. "It's that
simple."
They also claimed they were not being compensated at the correct
rate of pay under the Metro pay plan.
The jury agreed, saying Metro must pay up. They found that pay
stubs show employees weren't being paid for all hours worked from
2006.
Metro's director of law responded in a written statement:
We are disappointed in the jury's verdict because we believe the
intent of the pay plan is clear. Correctional officers were paid
what they should have been and the bill for anything more than
that would need to be paid by the taxpayers.
The Metropolitan Government contends that it has paid correctional
officers appropriately under the pay plan. It is considering an
appeal if the verdict remains intact. The judge will decide
damages at a later time.
MICHAEL SCHWARTZ: Restaurant Faces Labor Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Laine Doss, writing for Miami News Times, reported that Michael
Schwartz, one of Miami's most revered restaurateurs and James
Beard-winning chef, has been named in a lawsuit by a former
employee who claims their place of employment withheld wages,
practiced illegal tip sharing, and didn't pay overtime.
In a 16-page complaint filed in United States District Court in
October 2014, Former Michael's Genuine Food & Drink server
Andres Duque claims that during his tenure at the Design District
restaurant, he and "those similarly situated were required to
share their tips with non-tipped employees such as kitchen
employees and managers in an illegal tip-sharing scheme."
The complaint also alleges that Duque was "required to pay for
impermissible business expenses such as uniforms and inventory"
and were "paid less than the statutory minimum for tipped
employees."
The complaint names Michael Schwartz, Michael's Genuine Food &
Drink (MGFD) parent company Michaels Genuine Hospitality LLC, and
MGFD general manager Charles Bell as defendants in the initial
filing. 130 NE 40th St. LLC and the Genuine Hospitality Group LLC
were added at later dates.
According to U.S. Code Section 216 under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), restaurateurs must pay their employees at least
Florida's current minimum wage. If the employee works for tips,
the employer may apply a portion of those tips (known as a "tip
credit") up to a maximum of $3.02 per hour towards its obligation
to pay minimum wage. In order to utilize this tip credit, the
employer must allow its tipped employees to retain all the tips
they receive, except when there is a valid arrangement for
"pooling of tips among employees who customarily and regularly
receive tips."
If servers at Michael's Genuine were required to share their tips
with non-tipped employees such as kitchen staff and managers or
they were required to pay for uniforms, the restaurant would be in
violation of the FLSA and must pay the plaintiff, as well as other
servers, the tip credit claimed for each regular and overtime hour
worked as repayment for the tip credit improperly credited to
their wages, as well as repay the employees for all tips taken in
the illegal tip-sharing scheme.
The complaint is also seeking collective action status, which
could potentially see dozens of current and former employees of
the restaurant joining the lawsuit. The plaintiff list is growing,
with Roberto Abrue added on December 23, 2014; Richard J.
Singleton added on December 30, 2014; and Christopher Caballero
added on January 21, 2015.
A District Court decides whether the case can achieve collective
action status, based on whether there is a minimal showing of
servers also employed at Michael's Genuine who performed the same
or similar job as the plaintiffs:
A collective action lawsuit is different than a class action
lawsuit. According to Lawyers.com, in a class action lawsuit,
employees are presumed to be part of the class and any employee
who doesn't want to participate in the lawsuit must opt out. In a
collective action, the opposite is true -- employees must opt in
with a signed document to be part of the lawsuit. Class action
lawsuits cannot be used in wage and hour claims brought under the
FLSA, but employees may bring an "opt-in" or "collective action"
under FLSA Section 216(b).
Duque and the other plaintiffs are seeking payment of all regular
hours worked at the full applicable minimum wage; repayment of the
tips taken and shared in the "illegal tip-sharing scheme",
liquidated damages equal to the payment of all regular hours due
them, and attorneys fees.
Though there is a request for a jury trial, a report of mediation
was filed on August 11, 2015 with the U.S. District Court that
states a mediation conference was held on August 4, 2015, with all
parties in attendance. The matter was adjourned for further
discussions.
Michael Schwartz's attorney, Russell Marc Landy, would not comment
on the case, saying, "It's the restaurant's policy not to comment
on pending litigation." A spokesperson for the Genuine Hospitality
Group issued the same statement.
The plaintiff's attorney, Robert W. Brock, could not be reached
for comment. We will update this story with any further
information.
MOBILEIRON INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announced that a
federal securities fraud class action complaint was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara.
The complaint alleges that officers and directors of MobileIron,
Inc. (nasdaqgs:MOBL) violated the Securities Act of 1933 by making
materially false and misleading statements about MobileIron's
business prospects. The class action is filed on behalf of those
who purchased MobileIron securities pursuant to the company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
its initial public offering ("IPO") on June 12, 2014. MobileIron
provides a purpose-built mobile IT platform that enables
enterprises to secure and manage mobile applications, content, and
devices while providing their employees with device choice,
privacy, and a native user experience.
According to the complaint, MobileIron officials deceived the
investing public and caused the price of its securities to be sold
at artificially inflated prices. Specifically, MobileIron's
Registration Statement omitted material information that was
required to be disclosed -- namely, that the company had recently
been hacked and that its platform was vulnerable to security bugs.
MobileIron went public on June 12, 2014, at $9.00 per share, and
quickly traded up to close its first day of public trading at
$11.02 per share. The following day, online insurance news
journal PostOnline.co.uk published a story detailing that
MobileIron's customer, Aviva plc, had its employees' mobile
devices hacked. MobileIron was quoted as downplaying the event as
an isolated incident.
Then, on June 23, 2014, a news article published by
TheRegister.co.uk stated that on May 20, 2014, a hacker
compromised the MobileIron administrative server and performed a
"full wipe" of many of the mobile devices used by Aviva personnel.
An Aviva employee revealed in the article that the breach caused
the company millions in damages. In the wake of the incident,
Aviva moved its impacted personnel onto a Blackberry service and
entered discussions with MobileIron's reseller Esselar to cancel
their contract. Despite the fact that the breach occurred weeks
before MobileIron's IPO, the Offering Materials failed to disclose
the breach, Aviva moving to Blackberry's services, and the likely
impact that the publication of the breach would have on
MobileIron's ability to secure contracts with large customers and
keep customers on its perpetual licensing revenue model.
On April 22, 2015, MobileIron issued a press release announcing an
inability to close multiple large deals from North American
customers and a large shift by customers to its monthly
subscription model, which resulted in lower billings and revenue.
On the same day, the company issued another press release stating
that its Chief Financial Officer was resigning. On this news,
MobileIron stock fell $2.39 per share, or over 25%.
MobileIron Shareholders Have Legal Options
Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.
Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested.
Darnell R. Donahue, Esq.
Robbins Arroyo LLP
600 B Street, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone(619) 525-3990
Toll Free (800) 350-6003
DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com
www.robbinsarroyo.com
MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric B. Fromer Chiropractric, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Molina Healthcare of California,
Molina Healthcare of California Partner Plan, Inc., Molina
Healthcare, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-06403, (C.D.
Cal., August 21, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
sending unsolicited facsimiles.
The Defendants operate a managed care company headquartered in
Long Beach, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
GERAGOS & GERAGOS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION LAWYERS
644 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
Telephone (213) 625-3900
Facsimile (213) 232-3255
E-mail: mark@geragos.com
meiselas@geragos.com
- and -
Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
ANDERSON + WANCA
3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
Telephone: (847) 368- 1500
Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
MOTORMAX FINANCIAL: Can't Force Arbitration, Mo. Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Philip M. Hess of the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern
District, Division Two, affirmed a trial court's denial of
Motormax Financial Services Corporation's motion to compel
arbitration in the case captioned, MOTORMAX FINANCIAL SERVICES
CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ARNOLD KNIGHT,
Defendant/Respondent, Case No. ED102257 (Mo. App. Ct.).
On June 28, 2012, Arnold Knight entered into a contract with
Motormax to finance a title loan that was secured by his Ford F-
150 truck. The annual percentage rate on the loan was 93.5%.
During the loan closing, which was videotaped and conducted by a
Motormax representative, Mr. Knight was asked to sign an
arbitration agreement, which provided that any claims or disputes
between the parties "shall be settled by binding arbitration." The
Agreement also gave Motormax the right to repossess Mr. Knight's
vehicle if he failed to comply with the provisions of the contract
and pursue its claims in court without waiving arbitration. In
April 2013, Motormax repossessed Mr. Knight's vehicle after he
allegedly defaulted on the contract.
In September 2013, Motormax filed a collection action in the trial
court against Mr. Knight seeking $1,820.85 (the alleged balance
due on the contract), plus interest, costs, and attorney's fees.
In February 2014, Mr. Knight filed an answer and a class action
counterclaim, alleging that Motormax had violated the notice
requirements of Sections 400.9-611 - 400.9-614 RSMo, in connection
with the repossession of his vehicle. The counterclaim also
alleged that Motormax had violated the Merchandising Practices
Act, Sections 407.010 et seq. In April 2014, Motormax filed a
motion to compel arbitration of the counterclaim, which the trial
court denied on October 10, 2014.
On appeal, Motormax claims the trial court erred in denying its
motion based on its finding that the arbitration agreement was
unenforceable and that Motormax waived its right to arbitration.
In the Memorandum and Order dated August 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/zE7s50from Leagle.com, Judge Hess found that
Motormax has failed to sustain its burden to prove the Agreement
was valid and enforceable. The trial court did not err in denying
the motion to compel arbitration.
NATURE'S VARIETY: Recalls Raw Chicken Formula Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 25, 2015
Posting date: August 25, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Microbial Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54710
This recall involves Nature's Variety Instinct(R) Raw Chicken
Formula Frozen Diets in the following packages:
Product information:
UPC Product Best By
--- ------- -------
769949611431 Instinct Raw Chicken Formula 04/27/16
Bites for Dogs 1.8 kg (4 lbs.)
769949611486 Instinct Raw Chicken Formula 04/27/16
Patties for Dogs 2.7 kg (6 lbs.)
The Best By date is located on the back of the package below the
seal.
A manufacturer in the United States, Nature's Variety, has
recalled a batch of its raw chicken formula for dogs due to
possible contamination with Salmonella.
Pets such as dogs and cats, and their food can carry Salmonella
bacteria. People can get infected with the bacteria from handling
pets, pet food or feces. Symptoms of salmonellosis often include:
sudden onset of fever, headache, stomach cramps, diarrhea,
vomiting
For more information on the risks of Salmonella infection, please
see the Public Health Agency of Canada's fact sheet.
Neither Health Canada nor Nature's Variety has received any
consumer reports of illnesses related to the recalled pet food
products.
Approximately 474 bags of recalled chicken formula for dogs were
sold in Canada.
The recalled pet food products were sold from April 28, 2015 to
July 27, 2015.
Manufactured in the United States.
Manufacturer: Nature's Variety
Saint Louis
Missouri
UNITED STATES
Distributor: Freedom Pet Supplies Inc.
Cambridge
Ontario
CANADA
Distributor: Maddies Natural Pet Products
Delta
British Columbia
CANADA
Consumers should immediately stop using the product and return it
to the retailer in its original packaging or with proof of
purchase for a full refund or exchange.
Consumers are advised to always wash hands thoroughly with soap
and water after feeding, handling or cleaning up after pets.
Clean surfaces that come into contact with pet food or ill pets.
For more information, consumers may contact Nature's Variety at 1-
888-519-7387, 8 AM to 7 PM CST 7 days a week, or by email
Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.
Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.
This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/o2ceubk
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Controls Trade of Sunday Games, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Main Street America Ltd. T/A The Great American Pub, for itself
and for all others similarly situated v. National Football League,
Inc., NFL Enterprises, LLC, DirecTV Holdings, LLC, and DirecTV,
LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-06402 (C.D. Cal., August 21, 2015), seeks to
enjoin the ongoing unreasonable restraint of trade that Defendants
have implemented through DirecTV's exclusive arrangement to
broadcast all Sunday afternoon out-of-market games.
National Football League, Inc. an unincorporated association of 32
American professional football teams in the United States.
NFL Enterprises, LLC was organized to hold the broadcast rights of
the 32 NFL teams and license them to providers and other
broadcasters.
DirecTV Holdings, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and
has its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway,
El Segundo, California. DirecTV is a direct broadcast satellite
service provider and broadcaster.
DirecTV, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company that has
its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway, El
Segundo, California. DirecTV, LLC issues bills to its subscribers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
- and -
Lee Albert, Esq.
Brian Murray, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
New York, NY 10168
Telephone: (212) 682-5340
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com
bmurray@glancylaw.com
- and -
Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
William G. Caldes, Esq.
Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-0300
Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
bcaldes@srkw-law.com
jjagher@srkw-law.com
jspector@srkw-law.com
- and -
David P. McLafferty, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. MCLAFFERTY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
923 Fayette Street
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 940-4000
Facsimile: (610) 940-4007
E-mail: dmclafferty@mclaffertylaw.com
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Robins Kaplan Files Antitirust Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
National law firm Robins Kaplan LLP filed an antitrust lawsuit on
behalf of a proposed nationwide class of commercial
establishments, including restaurants and sports bars, against the
National Football League, Inc. (NFL) and DirecTV, alleging that
agreements giving DirecTV the sole right to distribute "out-of-
market" NFL games -- through its popular and expensive "Sunday
Ticket" package -- violate U.S. antitrust law. The lawsuit, filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, seeks monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of
commercial television subscribers of the Sunday Ticket.
"Fans love watching NFL teams compete on the football field," said
Kellie Lerner of Robins Kaplan LLP, the lead attorney for the
case. "Unfortunately, when it comes to the live broadcasts of
these games, the NFL doesn't seem to like competition that
benefits its fans."
The NFL is the only major U.S. sports league that distributes out-
of-market games (those not shown on a local or national broadcast)
exclusively through a single provider. Major League Baseball, the
National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League
all offer out-of-market packages through multiple providers,
including Time Warner, Dish Network, and others. DirecTV charges
commercial subscribers as much as $120,000 per year for access to
the Sunday Ticket. Through its latest agreement with the NFL,
DirecTV paid the league $1.5 billion for exclusive out-of-market
broadcasting rights in 2015 alone.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants violated antitrust law
both through a horizontal conspiracy among all NFL teams (to
bundle their broadcast rights together) and a vertical conspiracy
among the NFL teams, the NFL, and DirecTV (to offer out-of-market
games exclusively through DirecTV).
"The NFL and DirecTV are, according to our lawsuit, charging an
artificially inflated premium to Sunday Ticket subscribers," said
Ms. Lerner. "This lawsuit seeks to level the playing field and
give subscribers access to the games they want under the fair,
competitive conditions that our antitrust laws demand."
Robins Kaplan LLP
800 LaSalle Avenue Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
phone: 612.349.8500
fax: 612.339.4181
Toll Free: 1.800.553.9910
www.robinskaplan.com/
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Dismissed "Ballard" & "Smith" Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Catherine D. Perry of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of Missouri granted motions to dismiss
filed in the case captioned, CHRISTIAN BALLARD, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, et
al., Defendants. NEIL SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL
FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, Case Nos.
4:14CV1267 CDP, 4:14CV1559 CDP (E.D. Mo.).
Plaintiffs are former players for various National Football League
(NFL) teams whose careers ranged from 1975 to 2012. They brought
two separate cases against their union, the National Football
League Players Association (NFLPA), and two of its former
presidents, Kevin Mawae and Raymond Lester Armstrong, III.
In both the Ballard and Smith pleadings, the substantive
allegations are nearly identical. During their respective
careers, Players suffered multiple repetitive traumatic head
impacts and concussions during practices and games. These injuries
were neither acknowledged nor treated while Plaintiffs were
players. Players paid money throughout their careers to the NFLPA
as association dues. The NFLPA assured Players they would protect
them and owed them a fiduciary duty, stating that they would act
in Players' best interests at all times. However, the NFLPA did
not spend significant funds on research into ways to mitigate or
prevent brain trauma, such as developing safer helmets,
competition rules, or football equipment. The NFLPA also failed to
certify medical personnel that treated NFL players, despite having
a duty to do such.
Players in both cases assert nearly identical claims for
fraudulent concealment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
negligence, negligent hiring (against the NFLPA only), negligent
retention (against the NFLPA only), medical monitoring, and civil
conspiracy.
In both cases, the NFLPA has filed nearly identical motions to
dismiss, arguing that all the Players' claims allege that the
NFLPA failed in its duty of fair representation and are thus
preempted by the NLRA; that any duty beyond fair representation
would necessarily emanate from the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining
agreements (CBAs) and, thus, are preempted by section 301 of the
LMRA; and that the Players fail to state a claim. The Individual
Defendants have also filed in both cases nearly identical motions
to dismiss that incorporate the NFLPA's arguments as well as raise
additional arguments, such as the absence of personal
jurisdiction, that are tailored to their status as individuals.
In her Memorandum and Order dated August 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/2l3ycTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Perry found that the
Players' claims are all either preempted or, in the case of their
counts for medical monitoring, derivative of preempted claims.
Plaintiffs are represented by Richard F. Lombardo, Esq. --
Rlombardo@sls-law.com -- SHAFFER AND LOMBARDO
- and -
Brett A. Emison, Esq.
Charles R.C. Regan, Esq.
Michael Thomas Yonke, Esq.
YONKE LAW, LLC
1111 Main St #700,
Kansas City, MO 64105
Tel: (816)221-6400
Defendants are represented by David Louis Greenspan, Esq. --
dgreenspan@winston.com -- Jeffrey L. Kessler, Esq. --
jkessler@winston.com -- WINSTON AND STRAWN LLP
NATIONAL GRID: Electricity Theft Outside Scope of FDCPA
-------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes of the United States Court of
Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the district court's judgment in
the case GARY BEAUVOIR, HUSBENE BEAUVOIR, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated consumers, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. DAVID M. ISRAEL, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 14-3794-CV (2d Cir.)
David M. Israel, an attorney representing National Grid New York,
sent the Beauvoirs a letter on April 23, 2012, which stated that
National Grid had referred the matter to him for purposes of
collection of the debt, based upon the consumption of unmetered
gas at the Beauvoirs' residence. Although the letter advised the
Beauvoirs of their right to dispute National Grid's claim, it did
not advise them that they had 30 days to do so or state the amount
of the debt.
Plaintiffs Gary and Husbene Beauvoir filed a putative class action
complaint alleging that the omissions violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Beauvoirs also allege that
the collection letter violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e(5) and (10)
because it purportedly "engaged in deceptive and falsely
threatening practices.
Separately, in a state-court complaint filed by National Grid
against the Beauvoirs, National Grid alleged that the Beauvoirs
diverted and consumed unmetered natural gas by means of unlawfully
tampering with National Grid's gas meter to impede, impair,
obstruct and prevent the meter from performing its recording
function. In proceedings before the district court, Israel
asserted that the Beauvoirs had failed to state a claim under the
FDCPA, because the collection action he initiated concerned an
alleged theft of natural gas and, thus, did not concern a debt, as
that term is defined in the statute.
The district court granted Israel's motion to dismiss, holding
that obtaining natural gas through meter tampering is theft and,
as such, outside the scope of the FDCPA. Appeal followed.
Judge Cabranes affirmed the district court's judgment.
A copy of Judge Cabranes's opinion dated July 21, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/KcHb4Ifrom Leagle.com.
For Plaintiffs-Appellants:
Levi Huebner, Esq.
Levi Huebner & Associates, PC
478 Malbone St # 100
Brooklyn, NY 11225
Telephone: 212-354-5555
For Defendant-Appellee:
Matthew J. Bizzaro, Esq.
L'Abbate, Balkan, Colavita & Contini, L.L.P.
1001 Franklin Ave # 300
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: 516-294-8844
The Second Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Jose A.
Cabranes, Rosemary S. Pooler and Christopher F. Droney.
NCO PORTFOLIO: 7th Cir. Revives Suit Over ICAA Exempt Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes of the United States Court of
Appeals, Seventh Circuit, reversed the district court's judgment
and remanded the case of ROCIO GALVAN and JOSEPH HAWTHORNE,
individually and on behalf of a class, and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS ex rel. ROCIO GALVAN and JOSEPH HAWTHORNE, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. NCO PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
ROCIO GALVAN and JOSEPH HAWTHORNE, individually and on behalf of a
class, and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. ROCIO GALVAN
and JOSEPH HAWTHORNE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NCO FINANCIAL
SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, NOS. 13-2264, 13-2266 (7th
Cir.)
NCO Portfolio Management, Inc., purchased large quantities of
Illinois consumers' defaulted debt and referred the collection of
the debts to its sister corporation NCO Financial Systems, Inc.,
an Illinois-licensed debt collector, and also to outside
attorneys, who are exempt from the Illinois Collection Agency Act
(ICAA). NCO Portfolio did not consider itself a collection agency
subject to the registration requirement of the ICAA Section 425/4,
and did not in fact register with the licensing authorities.
Plaintiffs are two Illinois consumers whose debts NCO Portfolio
bought and referred to NCO Financial or outside counsel for
collection. They sued in state court alleging that NCO Portfolio
engaged in unlawful unlicensed debt collection in violation of the
ICAA. NCO Portfolio removed the case to federal court under the
Class Action Fairness Act.
In a second case filed in federal court following removal, the
same plaintiffs alleged that NCO Financial violated the ICAA
because it knew or should have known that NCO Portfolio was an
unlicensed debt collector and could not lawfully collect debts in
Illinois. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that
NCO Portfolio was not a collection agency under the ICAA during
the class period and thus was not required to register. The
district judge agreed and the court entered judgment for the
defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.
Judge Sykes reversed the judgment of the district court and
remanded the case for further proceedings.
A copy of Judge Sykes opinion dated July 21, 2015, is available at
http://goo.gl/LL6Fctfrom Leagel.com.
The Seventh Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Frank H.
Easterbrook, Daniel Anthony Manion and Diane S. Sykes
NEW PENN FINANCIAL: Court Trims "Tejwant" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California ruled on Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint and Shellpoint's
Motion to Strike Class Allegations in Plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint in the case, TEJWANT S. BAL, v. NEW PENN FINANCIAL, LLC,
Case No. SACV 14-1558 AG (JCGX) (C.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Tejwant Bal sought to represent a class of plaintiffs
against Defendant New Penn Financial, LLC d/b/a Shellpoint
Mortgage Servicing (Shellpoint) to assert various claims related
to improper mortgage servicing. Plaintiff asserted seven claims:
(1) Fraud (for national class members), (2) Fraud (for California
class members, (3) Wrongful Foreclosure under California Civil
Code Sec. 2923.6(c) and Sec. 2924.10, (4) Breach of Contract and
Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (5) Unjust
Enrichment, (6) Negligence, and (7) Violations of California
Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. (UCL).
District Judge Andrew J. Guilford, in the Civil Minutes dated June
22, 2015 available at http://is.gd/kzTa6Ufrom Leagle.com, granted
in part the motion to dismiss because the Plaintiff repeatedly
failed to state viable claims for fraud, breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, and negligence, and the inherent legal problems
with those claims and to allow leave to amend would be futile. The
Court denied the motion to strike because the Plaintiff have shown
sufficient allegations to survive.
Plaintiffs are represented by:
Francisco J. Aldana, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF FRANCISCO JAVIER ALDANA
- and -
Vincent A. Gorski, Esq.
THE GORSKI FIRM, APC
309 Truxtun Ave
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Tel: (661)952-9740
New Penn Financial LLC is represented by Abraham J. Colman, Esq.
Amir Shlesinger, Esq., and Michael E. Gerst, Esq., at REED SMITH
LLP
NORTH AMERICAN PALLADIUM: Faces Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Morganti Legal announces that a putative class action has been
commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on behalf of
all investors who purchased North American Palladium, Ltd. (TSX:
"PDL" and, formerly AMEX: "PAL") during the period November 5,
2014 to, and including, April 14, 2015 (the "Class Period").
The investor alleges that the Defendants published the
management's discussion and analysis ("MD&A") and audited
financial statement for annual 2014 with misrepresentations by
omitting material facts about the probability of PDL breaching
certain financial covenants, corresponding of a default, and
corresponding collapse of PDL's investment quality and share
value.
The Defendants' failure to disclose the probable breach of the
financial covenants in the MD&A and its audited financial
statement for annual 2014 resulted in the Plaintiff suffering
economic losses for securities purchased after November 5, 2015.
Had the Plaintiff known that PDL's management was concerned about
the adjustment to the financial covenants at the beginning of the
new year, he would not have purchased any PDL securities.
The investor alleges that the Defendants' failure breached: (i)
Item 303 of the SEC Regulation S-K giving rise to liability under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Act of 1934; and (ii) Section 75
of the Ontario Securities Act (OSA) giving rise to liability under
Section 138.3(1) and (4) of the OSA for publishing core documents
with misrepresentations and omissions.
Andrew Morganti, whom represents shareholders in litigation from
Canada, Germany, and United States, has been litigating securities
fraud class actions since 1999. He previously worked with one of
the largest firms in the U.S. in New York, NY, that represents
shareholders and is currently serving as one of the vice chairs of
the American Bar Association's Class Action & Derivative Suit
Section.
If you purchased North American Palladium's securities after
November 5, 2014, and wish to obtain additional information,
please contact Andrew Morganti at (647) 344-1900 or
amorganti@morgantilegal.com
NOVACARE LLC: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Salicylic Acid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Novacare, LLC of Murray, Utah is voluntarily recalling all lots of
the following dietary supplements to the consumer level:
Name* Brand Name Quantity UPC Dates of
----- ---------- -------- --- Manufacture
-----------
Thin & Slim Fataway 120 capsules 853002- 2/21/2011-
Ultimate 003025 3/16/2011
Stack
ThermoFX ThermoFX< 90 capsules 793573- 4/5/2011
902665
Thin and MaxOut Body 60 capsules N/A 10/24/2011-
Slim 2/11/2014
Metabolic Metabolic 120 capsules 637687- 2/23/2011-
Accelerator Accelerator 14593 3/18/2013
Thin and Burn Fat 90 capsules N/A 10/29/2011-
Slim Now> 10/29/2014
Thin and Thermogenic 90 capsules 020025- 10/29/2011-
Slim Fat Burner 500095 10/29/2014
TruTrim Bulk 11/30/2011
Thin and Thin and 90 capsules 637687- 10/29/2011-
Slim Slim 019003 10/29/2014
Naturally Naturally
AM
Thin and Extreme 90 capsules 637687- 1/30/2012,
Slim Stack 019133 3/20/2012
Xcellerator Bulk 10/27/2011-
3/26/2012
Asia Black Asia Black 100 capsules 859613- 5/19/2011-
274229 5/13/2014
Black Widow Black Widow 100 capsules 859613- 1/25/2011-
25 252258 8/10/2014
Methyldrene Methyldrene 100 capsules 859613- 1/19/2011-
Original 25 638496 6/28/2013
* - Pictures of the product labels are included herewith for
easier identification.
Sample analysis by the FDA has revealed that these products
contain the undeclared drug ingredient salicylic acid making these
unapproved new drugs.
Salicylic acid is acutely toxic, not recommended for oral use and
is harmful if swallowed. Nausea, vomiting, gastrointestinal
irritation, loss of hearing, sweating to severe reactions of
blurred vision, mental confusion, cerebral edema and
cardiorespiratory arrest which could be life-threatening may
occur. Since the labeling does not state salicylic acid is
contained it the product, individuals who are allergic, elderly,
have a history of stomach ulcers or bleeding problems, consume
greater than or equal to 3 alcoholic drinks per day, or take
concomitant medications containing salicylates are at higher risk
for toxicity. No illnesses from these products have been reported
to date.
These products are marketed as dietary supplements aiding in
weight loss, produced in capsule form, and were sold in bottles.
These products were distributed nationwide to distributors.
Novacare, LLC is notifying its distributors and customers by
certified mail and is arranging for return of all recalled
product. Consumers/distributors/retailers that have the
aforementioned products that are being recalled should stop using,
distributing, or selling them and return them to:
Novacare, LLC
Returns Dept.: MS# 2000
913 West 2900 South
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact
Novacare, LLC directly at (801) 261-2252, Monday through Friday
from 10:00 am - 4:00 pm MST. Consumers should contact their
physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any
problems that may be related to taking any of the aforementioned
products.
Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.
Complete and submit the report
Online:www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.
NVIDIA CORP: Calif. Man Sues Over Misleading Product Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a
California man is suing technology company Nvidia Corporation over
claims that the capacity of its graphics processing units are
misleading.
Jorell Dye, individually and for all others similarly situated,
filed a class action complaint July 24 in the San Jose Division of
the Northern District of California U.S. District Court against
Nvidia Corporation, alleging false advertising and unfair,
deceptive and unlawful business practices.
Dye purchased an Nvidia product containing a GTX 970 graphics card
because he wanted the high quality that the GTX 970 allegedly
provided.
The complaint alleges that the GTX 970's performance
specifications are lower in several categories than were
represented and advertised.
As a result, Dye and others in the class paid premium prices for a
product that should have been priced lower and have suffered
injury of fact and financial loss, according to the complaint.
Dye and other class members seek restitution and court costs. He
is represented by Robert C. Schubert, Noam M. Schubert and Kathryn
Y. Schubert of Schubert, Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP in San Francisco.
U.S. District Court Northern District of California San Jose
Division case number: 5:15-cv-03428-NC
O'CHARLEY INC: "Young" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
John Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. O'Charley, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00921 (M.D. Tenn.,
August 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
O'Charley, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Tennessee.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Morgan E. Smith, Esq.
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
144 Second Avenue, North Suite 201
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 620-5848
E-mail: morgan.smith@finnegan.com
- and -
Randall W. Burton, Esq.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
144 Second Avenue, North Suite 212
Nashville, TN 372012
Telephone: (615) 620-5838
OCEAN DRIVE: Sued Over Alleged Gender & Racial Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Almodovar, and other similarly situated food runners v. Ocean
Drive Restaurant LB, LLC d/b/a La Baguette Bar & Grill Restaurant
and Manuel Sanchez, Case No. 31179767 (D. Fla., August 21, 2015),
is an action for damages as a result of Defendant's sex and
national origin discrimination.
The Defendants own and operate La Baguette Bar & Grill Restaurant
in Miami Dade County, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Remer, Esq.
Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305)416-5005
E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
ONTARIO, CA: Former Residents' Claims Downgraded Without Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Chown Oved, writing for The Star, reported that almost 400
people with developmental disabilities who were expecting payouts
of tens of thousands of dollars from a legal settlement with the
government will only receive a maximum of $2,000, though they
haven't been informed and don't have any recourse to appeal, the
Star has learned.
After suffering physical and sexual abuse at the Huronia Regional
Centre, former residents settled a class action lawsuit with the
government for $35 million in 2013. More than 1,700 people made
claims for a part of the settlement, divided into the less serious
section A, which have their claims capped at $2,000, and the more
severe section B, which are awarded up to $42,000.
But according to the litigation guardians, appointed to advise the
disabled plaintiffs, 394 (almost ¬ of the 1,705 accepted claims)
have been reclassified from section B to section A, reducing their
potential payout by $40,000. And many of those who were
reclassified are non-verbal and least able to make their case.
"I don't think it's fair that people who cannot speak for
themselves should get only $2,000. I don't think that's right and
I don't think they were fully supported," said Marie Slark, a
former Huronia resident and one of the representative plaintiffs
on the class action case.
According to the terms of the settlement, only those 53 people
whose claims were rejected outright were informed and have the
right to appeal. Anyone whose claim was accepted, even in part,
won't be informed if they were downgraded, nor can they appeal.
"It will be an awful surprise," said Marilyn Dolmage, the
litigation guardian for Slark. "They won't know they've been
downgraded until the cheque comes."
In May, Marilyn and her husband, Jim, say they received numbers
from Crawford Class Action Services, which is administering the
settlement, showing that 404 claims originally categorized as
section B had been reclassified as section A.
They say they wrote to former Supreme Court justice Ian Binnie,
who is overseeing the settlement process, to express their dismay,
and say Binnie and Crawford then reviewed a number of files,
bringing the number of downgrades down to 394.
"We've been lying awake at night, thinking about all of these
people, the amazing survivors and the families who have documented
horrible things to try and bring justice," said Marilyn Dolmage,
who penned a letter to all the claimants to inform them of the
change.
Jody Brown, an associate with the firm Koskie Minsky, which
represents the claimants, disputes that any claims were
"downgraded."
He explained that section A claims simply required the claimant to
check a box, while section B required written statements and extra
documentation. When the claims were received, they were sorted
into two piles and any form with anything written in the area for
section B was put in that pile. Later, when the claims were
assessed, it was discovered that some section B forms didn't
qualify.
"Each claim has been assessed by the administrator (Crawford)
considering the full context of the claim and whether it fits
within the parameters of the settlement," wrote Brown in an email.
The Star subsequently received an email from Brown's firm,
stating, "as you know, the members of this class are a very
vulnerable group. We do not want them to be misinformed by an
article in your paper which makes it appear that the settlement is
not being adhered to in violation of an order of a judge of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice."
The Dolmages say they were notified in April that neglect alone
isn't serious enough to be considered for section B and they
believe that caused the downgrades, leaving only those who claimed
physical or sexual assault to qualify for the bigger payouts.
"Everything about the case was about neglect. The whole case was
certified on the systemic issues: underfunding, understaffing and
overcrowding leading to neglect," said Marilyn Dolmage. "We were
preparing to have a trial that was mostly about neglect but then
we ended up with a settlement that wasn't."
Binnie says each claim was evaluated on its merits and says
there's no blanket interpretation of whether neglect can be
considered for section B.
"'Neglect' has to be assessed in context," Binnie wrote in an
email. "If neglect exposed a patient to harm, for example, and the
harm qualified for a section B payment, the claim received a
section B assessment."
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss SEPTA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvette Kane of the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled on (i) a motion to
dismiss filed on behalf of Defendants Orrstown Financial Services,
Orrstown Bank, Anthony Ceddia, Jeffrey Coy, Mark Keller, Andrea
Pugh, Thomas Quinn, Jr., Gregory Rosenberry, Kenneth Shoemaker,
Glenn Snoke, John Ward, Bradley Every, Joel Zullinger, and Jeffrey
Embly; (ii) a motion to dismiss on behalf of Defendant Smith
Elliott Kearns & Company LLC; and (iii) a motion to dismiss on
behalf of Defendants Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. and Janney
Montgomery Scott, LLC in the case, SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Plaintiffs, v. ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:12-CV-00993 (M.D.
Pa.).
On May 5, 2012, Lead Plaintiff Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority (SEPTA), on behalf of two classes, filed
this class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a) and (b)(3) against Defendants Orrstown, the Bank, certain of
Orrstown's officers and directors, Smith Elliott Kearns & Company,
LLC, Sandler O'Neill & Partners L.P. and Janney Montgomery Scott,
LLC, alleging that Defendants issued materially untrue and/or
misleading statements and omissions in violation of the federal
securities laws. Plaintiff asserted claims on behalf of two
classes: (1) the "Securities Act Class," which consisted of all
persons and/or entities who purchased Orrstown common stock
pursuant to, or traceable to, Orrstown's February 8, 2010
registration statement and March 23, 2010 prospectus supplement
issued in connection with Orrstown's secondary stock offering in
March 2010 and were damaged thereby; and (2) the "Exchange Act
Class," which consisted of all persons or entities who purchased
Orrstown common stock on the open market between March 15, 2010
and April 5, 2012 (the class period) and were damaged thereby.
Plaintiff SEPTA acquired Orrstown stock pursuant to the offering
documents for the March 2010 offering, and also purchased Orrstown
common stock on the open market during the class period.
Judge Kane, in the Memorandum Opinion dated June 22, 2015
available at http://is.gd/rqYWIsfrom Leagle.com, granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss finding that Plaintiff failed to
state a claim under either the Securities Act or the Exchange Act
in its amended complaint. The Court directed the Plaintiff to file
a motion to amend the amended complaint.
Plaintiff is represented by Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. --
BenJohns@chimicles.com, Christina D. Saler, Esq. --
CDS@chimicles.com, Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith, Esq. --
KimDonaldsonSmith@chimicles.com & Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. --
Nick@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
Defendants are represented by David J. Creagan, Esq. --
creagand@whiteandwilliams.com & David E. Edwards, Esq. --
edwardsd@whiteandwilliams.com -- WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
PELICAN HILL: Accused of Discrimination and Wrongful Termination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gamal Ahmed, an individual v. The Resort at Pelican Hill LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; The Irvine Company LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; Khalid Merza, an Individual;
Monir William, an Individual; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 30-2015-00792671 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 10, 2015) alleges
that the Plaintiff was wrongfully discriminated against by the
Defendants and eventually terminated in violation of public
policy.
The Resort at Pelican Hill LLC and The Irvine Company LLC are
Delaware limited liability companies, with their principal place
of business in Orange County, California. Pelican Hill is a 5-
Star resort, golf club and spa espousing amenities of an ultra
luxury hotel in the affluent area of Orange County named Newport
Beach. Pelican Hill boasts several fine dining
locations/restaurants on its premises, including the Coliseum Pool
& Grill. The Individual Defendants are employees of the
Defendants.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ginam Lee, Esq.
Jay Hong, Esq.
LEGACY PRO LAW, P.C.
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2150
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (213) 896-7102
Facsimile: (866) 203-0408
E-mail: ginam.lee@legacyprolaw.com
jay.hong@legacyprolaw.com
PETERSEN HEALTH: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Belt" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harriet Belt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Petersen Health Care and Petersen Health Care - Farmer
City, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-03242-SEM-TSH (M.D. Ill., August 21,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for all hours worked exceeding 40 in a workweek.
The Defendants operate the largest nursing home chain in Illinois.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tracey F. George, Esq.
DAVIS GEORGE MOOK LLC
1600 Genessee, Suite 328
Kansas City, MO 64102
Telephone: (816) 569-2629
Facsimile: (816) 447-3939
E-mail: tracey@dgmlawyers.com
- and -
Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
10601 Mission Rd., Suite 100
Leawood, KS 66206
Telephone: (913) 766-5585
Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
www.rmlegalgroup.com
PETROCHINA CO: Securities Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lexology reported that on August 3, a federal district court in
New York dismissed with prejudice a securities class action suit
filed against Chinese oil and gas company PetroChina Co. Ltd. The
suit alleged that statements in the company's 2011 and 2012
financial statements claiming the company was in compliance with
its internal rules and securities regulations were false or
misleading. The plaintiffs filed the suit after the Chinese
government announced that it was investigating four of the
company's top executives for corruption.
The court dismissed the complaint in its entirety, finding that
the plaintiffs failed to allege any acts of bribery or corruption
that predated the filing of the 2011 and 2012 financial
statements. The court wrote: "[T]his Court is not requiring that
Plaintiffs allege a detailed account of the particular illicit
deals that PetroChina officials were allegedly engaged in.
Plaintiffs are required, nonetheless, to establish -- at a bare
minimum -- that the underlying fraud took place during the time
period covered by the purportedly false public statements and that
someone at PetroChina knew or had reason to know about it."
Similar class action suits against Wal-Mart and Avon have also
been dismissed in the past year.
PLASMANET INC: Agreement to Dismiss Appraisal Proceeding Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Court of Chancery of Delaware
granted respondent's motion to dismiss in the case CHRISTOPHER D.
MANNIX, Petitioner, v. PLASMANET, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Respondent, C.A. NO. 10502-CB (Del. Ch.)
PlasmaNet, Inc., a Delaware corporation, merged with Free Lotto,
Inc., and is the surviving corporation in the merger.
Mannix commenced a proceeding, seeking appraisal of his 1,700
PlasmaNet shares. On February 5, 2015, as required by 8 Del C.
Section 262(f), PlasmaNet, Inc., filed a verified list of former
PlasmaNet stockholders who purported to exercise their appraisal
rights. Included on the list are Robert Altschuler, Lance
Lundberg, Gijs Van Thiel, Hoefslag, LLC, and Southgreen
Acquisition, LLC (the Non-Appearing Dissenters), who collectively
demanded appraisal of 1,788,218 shares of PlasmaNet stock.
None of the non-appearing dissenters has joined the proceeding as
a named party or filed a separate appraisal proceeding.
PlasmaNet, Inc., and the non-appearing dissenters have entered
into a settlement of all debts, liabilities, and obligations
related to the merger, their demands for appraisal, and the
appraisal proceeding. The former stockholders have entered into
agreements to withdraw their appraisal demands, effective upon the
dismissal of the action as to them, in exchange for shares of the
surviving corporation on the condition that they attest to their
status as accredited investors under the federal securities laws.
PlasmaNet, Inc., moved to dismiss the proceeding, with prejudice,
solely as to the non-appearing dissenters.
Chancellor Bouchard granted respondent's motion to dismiss.
A copy of Chancellor Bouchard's memorandum opinion dated July 21,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/SdiOahfrom Leage.com.
Ronald A. Brown, Jr. -- rabrown@prickett.com -- Marcus E. Montejo
-- MEMontejo@Prickett.com -- John G. Day -- jgday@prickett.com --
at PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A., Attorneys for Petitioner
Martin S. Lessner -- mlessner@ycst.com -- Elena C. Norman --
enorman@ycst.com -- Paul J. Loughman -- ploughman@ycst.com -- at
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP; Alan M. Noskow --
anoskow@manatt.com -- at MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP, Attorneys
for Respondent
PNC MORTGAGE: Md. App. Court Reverses Judgement in Lending Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006 and 2007, three married couples obtained home equity lines
of credit (HELOCs) from PNC Mortgage, a division of PNC Bank, N.A.
(PNC), and its loan officer, Suzanne Scales Windesheim. Borrowers
filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court for
Howard County, in Maryland, alleging numerous causes of action
including, but not limited to, fraud, conspiracy, and violations
of Maryland consumer protection statutes. Defendants moved to
dismiss which the Circuit Court granted Defendants' motions which
the Borrowers appealed.
The Court of Special Appeals reversed the Circuit Court's grant of
summary judgment concluding that the Circuit Court erred in
granting summary judgment on the statute of limitations issue
because there was a genuine dispute as to whether Borrowers
reasonably should have discovered the mortgage fraud before
counsel contacted them.
On appeal, Defendants contended that the Court of Special Appeals
erred in reversing the Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment
for Windesheim and her Employer.
Judge Sally D. Adkins of the Court of Appeals of Maryland in the
Opinion dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/XWjpVifrom
Leagle.com, reversed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals,
reversing the Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment for
Windesheim and her Employer on Counts I-XI concluding that PNC et
al. are entitled to judgment as a matter of law that they did not
violate CL Sec. 12-403(a) (Count X).
The case is, Suzanne Scales Windesheim, et al., v. FRANK LAROCCA,
et al, Case No. 71 SEPTEMBER TERM 2014 (Md. App. Ct.).
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Sued in Cal. Over False Personal Declarations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Ciganek, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Hunt &
Henriques, Michael Scott Hunt and Janalie Ann Henriques, Case No.
5:15-cv-03837 (N.D. Cal., August 21, 2015), arises from the
Defendants routine practice of using Declarations in Lieu of
Personal Testimony at Trial, which falsely state or imply that the
declarant for Defendant, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, is
present and personally available for service of process within 150
miles of the courthouse where the collection action is pending.
The Defendants are engaged in the business of collecting defaulted
consumer debts.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
Raeon R. Roulston, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
12 South First Street, Suite 1014
San Jose, CA 95113-2418
Telephone: (408) 294-6100
Facsimile: (408) 294-6190
E-mail: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com
raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com
PRESTONE PRODUCTS: Recalls Ice and Frost Shield Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 24, 2015
Posting date: August 24, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Chemical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54784
Product description: Prestone Ice and Frost Shield, Model 70912
This consumer product does not meet child-resistant packaging
requirements for consumer chemical products under the Consumer
Chemicals and Containers Regulations, 2001 under the Canada
Consumer Product Safety Act.
The consumer product does not have proper child resistant
packaging required by the Consumer Chemicals and Containers
Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.
The improper packaging could result in unintentional exposure to
these products and lead to serious illness, injury & death.
Neither Health Canada nor Prestone has received consumer incident
reports related to the use of this product.
Approximately 21,100 units of the recalled products were sold at
various retail locations in Canada.
The recalled products were sold in Canada between September 2011
and August 2015.
Manufactured in the USA.
Manufacturer: Prestone Products Corporation
Lake Forest
Illinois
UNITED STATES
Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
call 1-800-890-2075, Option 4 for more information about the
recall.
Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.
Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.
This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/q9o69ep
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Suit Over Tide Pods
-------------------------------------------------
Barrett J. Brunsman, writing for Cincinnati Business Courier,
reported that Procter & Gamble Co. is facing a class-action
lawsuit in federal court over allegations that its Tide Pods can
stain light-colored laundry.
"Tide Pods have serious design defects . . . that cause them to
produce permanent blue/purple stains on white and light-colored
laundry, even when used as directed by P&G," claims the suit,
which was filed in U.S. District Court in New York.
The suit claims Cincinnati-based P&G (NYSE: PG) could be liable
for more than $5 million in damages related to Tide Pods, which it
began selling in the United States in 2012. Laundry packets are
used in more than 26 million U.S. homes, and P&G brands account
for 80 percent of sales.
A spokesman for P&G didn't immediately respond to a Business
Courier request for comment.
The suit, which includes claims that P&G engaged in deceptive
trade practices and breached implied warranties, was filed on
behalf of Lisa Guariglia, Micheline Byrne and Michele Emanuele.
However, anyone in the United States who bought Tide Pods and had
laundry damaged should be represented as a class in the case, the
suit stated. A jury trial was requested.
PROVIA DOOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Siding
-----------------------------------------------------
Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline.com, reported that a
Maple Grove, Minn., couple are suing two home exterior companies,
alleging they sold defective siding.
Brian Jacobs and Diane Jacobs, individually and for all others
similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit June 30 in
Hennepin County Fourth Judicial District Court against ProVia Door
Inc. and Minnesota Exteriors Inc., alleging breach of warranty,
negligence, consumer fraud, unlawful and deceptive trade
practices, false advertising and fraudulent concealment.
The defendants recently removed the case to federal court.
According to the complaint, Minnesota Interiors installed
Heartland CedarMAX Siding by ProVia on the plaintiffs' Maple Grove
home. Both defendants' websites say Heartland CedarMAX Siding is
the "No. 1 recommended" siding, but the complaint alleges the
siding is defective and does not perform under foreseeable weather
conditions as warranted and represented.
The lawsuit states the defendants continue to make false
representations and warranties when selling the siding to the
public, despite the product causing consumers property damage and
removal and replacement costs before the end of the siding's
warranted life.
The complaint also alleges the defendants' personnel have known
about Heartland CedarMAX Siding's defects but have concealed the
fact from consumers.
Brian and Diane Jacobs seek an order requiring the defendants to
initiate a warning campaign, conduct further testing and refrain
from making unlawful representations about warranty claims. They
also seek compensatory damages, plus court costs.
They are represented by attorneys T. Joesph Snodgrass, Shawn M.
Raiter and Kelly A. Lelo of Larson King in St. Paul, Minn.
RESCUE MISSION: Court Tosses "Real" Suit Over Prayer Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell of the United States
District Court for Middle District of Florida granted the motion
of Rescue Mission, Phil Ledger, David Light, Marjoe Wooten, Wanda
Light, Patricia Wooten, and Jerome McFarland, to dismiss
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Request for Class Consideration,
and Request for Preliminary Injunction.
The case is, MAMBERTO O. REAL, Plaintiff, v. RESCUE MISSION, PHIL
LEDGER, DAVID LIGHT, MARJOE WOOTEN, WANDA LIGHT, PATRICIA WOOTEN
and JEROME MCFARLAND, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-729-FTM-38MRM
(M.D. Fla.).
Rescue Mission is a religious organization that provides shelter
and meals to homeless individuals. Defendants Phil Ledger, David
Light, Marjoe Wooten, Wanda Light, Patricia Wooten, and Jerome
McFarland work or volunteer at Defendant Rescue Mission.
Plaintiff, an impoverished individual, brought this suit under 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983 claiming the Defendants' prayer policy violates
the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court granted Defendants' motion, finding that Plaintiff
neither sufficiently pled that Defendants acted under the color of
state law to maintain an actionable Sec. 1983 claim nor linked the
Individual Defendants to a constitutional violation. Because of
Plaintiff's pro se status, the Court granted him leave to amend
the complaint.
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff continues his quest against
Defendants' mandatory prayer policy as a violation of his right to
religious freedom under the First Amendment. In addition, he now
styles this case as a class action, seeks a preliminary
injunction, and asserts a violation of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Defendants again moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint
under Rule 12(b)(6).
In the Order dated August 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/AOiwWXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chappell found that
Plaintiff's constitutional claims fails because there is no state
action and does not allege sufficient facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.
Defendants are represented by:
Susan L. Ojeda, Esq.
GIBBS & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, LLC
5700 Gateway Blvd #400,
Mason, OH 45040,
Tel:(513)234-5545
RESOURCE ENERGY: Faces "Moresi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan John Moresi, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Resource Energy Ventures and Construction Company LLC,
Case No. 6:15-cv-02224 (W.D. La., August 21, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Resource Energy Ventures and Construction Company LLC owns and
operates a construction company with its principal place of
business in New Iberia, Louisiana.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq.
KENNETH D. ST. PE, LLC
311 West University Avenue, Suite A
Lafayette, LA 70506
Telephone: (337) 534-4043
RIGHT PATH: Faces "Evans" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anquinette Evans for herself and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Right Path Behavioral Health Services, LLC, Case No.
3:15-cv-00970-MMH-JBT (M.D. Fla., August 6, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Right Path Behavioral Health Services, LLC is a Florida
corporation that operates a behavioral health services company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Angeli Murthy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 967-5377
Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com
ROCKWELL INT'L: 10th Cir. Revived Nuisance Claims in "Cook"
-----------------------------------------------------------
During the Cold War, the Rocky Flats plant in Colorado served as
home to a nuclear weapons production facility. Located just 16
miles from downtown Denver, the plant was operated first by Dow,
then by Rockwell, under contracts with the federal government. But
everything ground to a halt in 1989. That's when FBI agents raided
the plant and unearthed evidence of environmental crimes. And
soon enough they followed the government's criminal action with a
civil suit of their own, citing both the federal Price-Anderson
Act and state nuisance law as grounds for relief. It took 15 years
for the case to reach a jury where they found for the plaintiffs
and the district court approved roughly $177 million in
compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages -- as
well as $549 million in prejudgment interest, thanks again to all
the pretrial delay.
Defendants appealed, arguing that the district court had failed to
instruct the jury properly about the terms of the Price-Anderson
Act. Under the Act, any lawsuit asserting liability for a "nuclear
incident" is automatically considered a federal action that can be
brought in (or removed to) federal court.
The district court sided with the defendants' argument that the
case did not involve a nuclear incident sufficient to implicate
the federal statutory regime.
The Plaintiffs appealed. They seek to reverse the district
court's preemption ruling and its holding about the scope of the
court's mandate.
Circuit Judge Gorsuch of the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth
District, in the Order dated June 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/9jAoMXfrom Leagle.com, remanded the case to the
district court for further proceedings where the plaintiffs will
be in the same position mandated by the Cook I panel with the
potential to retry their remaining state law nuisance claim
agreeing with the majority's resolution and hold the plaintiffs
were not precluded from retrying their nuisance claim.
The appellate case is captioned, MERILYN COOK; WILLIAM SCHIERKOLK,
JR.; DELORES SCHIERKOLK; RICHARD BARTLETT; SALLY BARTLETT; LORREN
BABB; GERTRUDE BABB, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and MICHAEL DEAN RICE;
BANK WESTERN; THOMAS L. DEIMER; RHONDA J. DEIMER; STEPHEN
SANDOVAL; PEGGY J. SANDOVAL, Plaintiffs, v. ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION; DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
14-1112 (10th Cir.).
Plaintiffs are represented by Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq. --
mdavidoff@bm.net -- David F. Sorensen, Esq. -- dsorensen@bm.net --
Jennifer MacNaughton, Esq. -- jmacnaughton@bm.net -- Caitlin G.
Coslett Esq. -- ccoslett@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
Defendants are represented by Christopher Landau, Esq. --
christopher.landau@kirkland.com -- Rebecca Taibleson, Esq. --
rebecca.taibleson@kirkland.com -- Kevin T. Van Wart, Esq. --
kevin.vanwart@kirkland.com -- Bradley H. Weidenhammer, Esq. --
bradley.weidenhammer@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
S & L BIRCHWOOD: Faces "Dike" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chinedu Dike, individually on behalf of himself, and all others
similarly-situated v. S & L Birchwood Realty, LLC d/b/a Apex
Rehabilitation Care Center, Exclusive Nursing Staff Inc., and
Atlantic Care Services LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-04623 (E.D.N.Y.,
August 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants operate a residential health care facility that
provides various medical services to its patients, including
nursing, rehabilitation, hospice, and respiratory and memory
support services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Susan J. Deith, Esq.
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
807 Mitchel Field Way
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (917) 363-1466
Facsimile: (516) 519-0027
E-mail: susandeith@aol.com
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Suit Over Galaxy SIII Goes to Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for
Northern District of California granted Defendants' motion to
compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
and denied Defendants' motion to dismiss and Plaintiff's motion to
transfer venue in the case captioned, HOAI DANG, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-00530-
LHK (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff purchased his Galaxy SIII in May 2012 from a Best Buy
store located at 181 Curtner Avenue in San Jose, California. Along
with his Galaxy SIII, Plaintiff received a booklet entitled in
bold font "Important Information which contained an Arbitration
Provision whick states: "ALL DISPUTES WITH SAMSUNG ARISING IN ANY
WAY FROM THIS LIMITED WARRANTY OR THE SALE, CONDITION OR
PERFORMANCE OF THE PRODUCTS SHALL BE RESOLVED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH
FINAL AND BINDING ARBITRATION, AND NOT BY A COURT OR JURY."
Plaintiff does allege that the Best Buy salesperson "did not
mention, draw attention to, or make Plaintiff aware of the
purported arbitration provision in the warranty booklet.
On February 4, 2014, Plaintiff filed this action in federal court.
Plaintiff's individual and putative class claims arise out of the
Apple v. Samsung litigation. According to Plaintiff, Samsung has
been found to have repeatedly infringed the patents of its chief
competitor, Apple." As a result, Plaintiff alleges, many Samsung
devices, including Plaintiff's Samsung Galaxy SIII (the Galaxy
SIII) smartphone, "are worth significantly less than the prices
the consumers paid, resulting in injury and damages to the
consumers." For example, Plaintiff alleges that "the re-sale value
for the Samsung Products has dropped dramatically due to the fact
that the Products infringe patents." Had Plaintiff known the
Galaxy SIII "he purchased infringed on the patents held by
Defendants' competitor, Apple," Plaintiff says "he would not have
purchased the Product.
In the motion, Defendants argue that, through the Arbitration
Provision contained in the Information Booklet Plaintiff received
with his Galaxy SIII, Plaintiff agreed (1) to arbitrate his
individual claims against Defendants; and (2) not to bring such
claims as a class action. Defendants argue further that
Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the Arbitration
Provision and that the provision is neither procedurally nor
substantively unconscionable.
In her Order dated August 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/8hxA0Xfrom Leagle.com, Judge Koh agreed with
Defendants that when Plaintiff purchased his Galaxy SIII and
received the Standard Limited Warranty packaged with it, the terms
of the warranty immediately commenced and Plaintiff therefore
agreed to the Arbitration Provision contained therein.
Accordingly, the Court denies as moot Defendants' motion to
dismiss and Plaintiff's motion to transfer venue.
Hoai Dang is represented by:
Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
875 6th Ave #18
New York, NY 10001
Tel: (212)643-0500
Defendants are represented by Mark C. Dosker, Esq. --
mark.dosker@squirepb.com, Bruce Alan Khula, Esq. --
bruce.khula@squirepb.com & Carrie Elizabeth Jantsch, Esq. --
carrie.jantsch@squirepb.com -- SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP
SANTA BARBARA, CA: Dipsute Over City Surcharges Pending in S.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Lee, writing for The San Diego Union tribune, reported that
defenders of a city surcharges that appear on utility bills told
the California Supreme Court that no public vote is necessary to
approve the collections.
An appellate court ruled such fees in Santa Barbara amount to an
illegal tax that was never approved by voters. Santa Barbara is
appealing that decision to the Supreme Court, where deliberations
could weigh heavily in whether the City of San Diego's can
continue collecting some $50 million from utility customers each
year.
San Diego collects more money through its utility surcharge than
any other city in the state and is fending off a class action suit
that decries an illegal tax.
Challengers of the surcharge fees in Santa Barbara and San Diego
say the collections run afoul of a ballot proposition approved in
1996 -- Proposition 218 -- that required approval of all general
taxes by a majority of voters. The proposition also reiterated
that two-thirds must approve special taxes.
In an opening brief to the Supreme Court filed on Aug. 4,
attorneys for Santa Barbara said fees charged in return for use of
government property have long been understood not to be taxes, and
that Proposition 218 offered no basis for changing that.
"Longstanding law unchanged by Proposition 218 makes clear that
the fact the City and Southern California Edison agreed on the fee
as consideration for the latter's use of city rights of way is
sufficient to make it a fee rather than a tax," the opening brief
states.
Cities and counties routinely charge utilities for their use of
city property and rights-of-way at a statutory rate of about 1
percent of electricity and gas revenues. Some 121 California
"charter cities," including San Diego and Santa Barbara, operate
under a governing document adopted by the local voters that allows
local officials to negotiate higher fees with utilities.
In contention at the Supreme Court is the decision in 1999 by
Santa Barbara to increased its franchise fee on utility bills from
1 percent to 2 percent under an agreement with Edison.
The California Public Utilities Commission eventually gave Edison
permission to pass the additional fee on to customers as a
separate line item on electricity bills within Santa Barbara city
limits.
San Diego Gas & Electric collects about $119 million each year for
the city in surcharges known as franchise fees. Some of those fees
are not in contention because they were approved before
Proposition 218 went into effect, requiring a public vote on new
taxes.
Utility surcharges added by the city in 2002 go almost entirely to
paying for the gradual transition from overhead utility lines to
underground lines. On average, 15 miles of utility lines have been
converted each year. With more than 1,000 miles to go, the city
estimates the project will last through 2067.
The city manages the project, which is mostly carried out by SDG&E
and its subcontractors.
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Belcher, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation, Case No.
4:15-cv-02429 (S.D. Tex., August 21, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's
fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Schlumberger Technology Corporation is a supplier of technology,
integrated project management and information solutions to
customers working in the oil and gas industry worldwide.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
Houston, TX 77018
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
SCHRATTER FOODS: Faces "Aviles" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria L. Aviles on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Schratter Foods Incorporated d/b/a Anco Fine Cheese
and Scott Masapus, Case No. 1:15-cv-23146-CMA (S.D. Fla., August
21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Schratter Foods Incorporated is a specialty cheese importer and
distributor that regularly transacts business within Dade County,
Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J.H. Zidell, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Telephone: (305) 865-6766
Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
SERENITY TRANSPORTATION: Court Allows Filing of 3rd Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States
District Court for Northern District of California granted
Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint in
the case captioned, CURTIS JOHNSON and ANTHON ARANDA, Plaintiffs,
v. SERENITY TRANSPORTATION, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-
CV-02004-JSC (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Johnson initiated this wage-and-hour putative class
action against STI and Friedel in Alameda County Superior Court on
June 12, 2014. Plaintiffs are "mortuary transportation drivers who
carry dead bodies and other human remains from various locations
(including nursing homes, hospitals, and homes) to Defendants'
facilities." Defendant Serenity Transportation, owned by Friedel,
is a mortuary transportation company. Defendants SCI and SCI
California are providers of funeral and end-of-life services, and
Defendants Neptune Society and Lifemark are providers of
cremation, removal, and end-of-life services. Defendant Santa
Clara County provides investigation, removal, and autopsy services
through its Office of the Medical Examiner-Coroner. All
Defendants are alleged to have worked closely together to provide
end-of-life services throughout Northern California, using
Plaintiffs to transport decedents.
The initial complaint alleged that Defendants violated certain
provisions of the California Labor Code including failure to pay
overtime, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to reimburse
Plaintiffs for business expenses, and failure to provide meal
periods by classifying Plaintiffs as independent contractors
instead of employees. The parties engaged in limited discovery in
state court; at least some written discovery was exchanged and at
least one deposition was taken.
On April 9, 2015, while the case was pending in state court,
Plaintiff Johnson amended the complaint to add Defendants SCI and
Neptune Society and to include additional state law claims as well
as a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 20
(FLSA). Defendant SCI then properly and timely removed this case
to federal court on May 4, 2015.
In her Order dated August 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/l4tQTRfrom Leagle.com, Judge Corley found that
although Plaintiffs unduly delayed in adding at least some of the
amendments they now seek to include, there is no evidence of
prejudice, bad faith, or futility. As delay alone does not provide
sufficient grounds for denying leave to amend, Defendants have not
met their burden of demonstrating that leave to amend should not
be granted.
Defendants are given until September 7, 2015 to file response to
the Third Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff is represented by Peter Scott Rukin, Esq. --
prukin@rhdtlaw.com -- Valerie Jean Brender, Esq. --
vbrender@rhdtlaw.com -- RUKIN HYLAND DORIA TINDALL LLP
Defendants are represented by:
Jeffery M. Hubins, Esq.
John A. Mason, Esq.
GURNEE MASON & FORESTIERE LLP
2240 Douglas Blvd #150,
Roseville, CA 95661,
Tel: (916)797-3100
SPARTON MEDICAL: "Sims" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sims v. Sparton Medical Systems Inc., Case No. 15 850109 (D.
Ohio, August 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Sparton Medical Systems Inc. owns and operates complex laboratory
instrumentation and electromechanical point-of-care devices
manufacturing company located at 22740 Lunn Road, Strongsville,
Ohio 44149.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephan I. Voudris, Esq.
Alix Noureddine, Esq.
VOUDRIS LAW LLC
8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8
Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
Telephone: (440) 543-0670
Facsimile: (440) 543-0721
E-mail: svoudris@voudrislaw.com
anoureddine@voudrislaw.com
SUDS PIZZA: "Cunningham" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Cunningham, Alex Chefalo and Remo Paglia, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Suds Pizza,
Inc., Mark's Pizzeria, Inc., and Mark S. Crane, Case No. 6:15-cv-
06462 (W.D.N.Y., August 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
injunctive relief and declaratory relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate pizza restaurants in New York
State.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Mullin, Esq.
FERR & MULLIN, P.C.
7635 Main Street Fishers, P.O. Box 440
Fishers, NY 14453
Telephone: (585) 869-0210
E-mail: rlmullin@ferrmulinlaw.com
TAO LICENSING: Faces "Ashraf" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abu Ashraf, on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated
individuals v. Tao Licensing LLC, Madison Entertainment Associates
LLC, Strategic Hospitality Group, LLC, and Asia Five Eight, LLC,
Case No. 1:15-cv-06177-WHP (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate Tao Asian Bistro - Uptown
restaurant located at 42 East 58th Street in New York City.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tanvir Haque Rahman, Esq.
David Evan Gottlieb, Esq.
WIGDOR LLP
85 Fifth Avenue, 5th Fl.
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
E-mail: trahman@wigdorlaw.com
dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
TEREX CORPORATION: Faces "Stern" Suit Over Konecranes Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Stern, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Terex Corporation, et al., Case No. 11413 (D. Del.,
August 21, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Terex Corporation to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of Terex by Konecranes Plc through a flawed process
and inadequate consideration.
Terex Corporation is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates
a lifting and material handling solutions company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
jjr@rl-legal.com
- and -
Joseph M. Profy, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Ciarlanto, Esq.
David M. Promisloff, Esq.
PROFY PROMISLOFF & CIARLANTO, P.C.
100 N. 22nd Street Unit 105
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 259-5156
E-mail: profy@prolawpa.com
ciarlanto@prolawpa.com
david@prolawpa.com
- and -
Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esq.
Gerald L. Rutledge, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C.
519 Allegheny Building
429 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 391-5164
E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com
TEMPLETON RYE: Nov. 18 Class Settlement Claims Filing Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Leggate, writing for WCPO, reported that anyone who bought
Templeton Rye whiskey thinking it was Iowa whiskey -- when it was
actually distilled in Indiana about a half-hour from Cincinnati --
is entitled to as much as $36 under the terms of a $2.5 million
class action settlement.
A group of plaintiffs brought the suits against the makers of
Templeton after a journalist with The Daily Beast reported that
dozens of "craft" whiskey brands, including Templeton Rye, were
actually distilled by MGP in their Lawrenceburg factory.
Templeton's labels had stated the product was "produced and
bottled by: Templeton Rye Spirits, LLC, Templeton, Iowa" and but
made no mention of the Indiana distillers. The whiskey is actually
distilled and aged for four years in Lawrenceburg before being
shipped to Iowa.
"Though our relationship between Templeton Rye and our Indiana-
based distillery partner is described on our website, we recognize
our marketing efforts should have provided more clarity about our
production process," Templeton Rye Spirits co-founder Keith
Kerkhoff said in a statement on the settlement.
Besides making the payouts, Templeton will remove the phrases
"small batch" and "Prohibition-era recipe" from their labels and
add "based on the Prohibition Era Kerkhoff recipe" and disclose
the state where it's distilled.
The plaintiffs also agreed that Templeton Rye is not a "stock
whiskey" as had been alleged in the lawsuit, according to the
settlement agreement.
So, how do I get my money?
Anyone with proof of purchase is entitled to $6 per bottle of
Templeton Rye, up to a maximum of six bottles purchased between
Jan 1, 2006 and July 21, 2015, under the terms of the settlement.
Without proof, buyers may receive as much as $3 per bottle, up to
a maximum of six bottles.
Anyone who bought drinks containing Templeton Rye at a bar or
restaurant during the time period may receive $1 per drink, up to
five drinks.
A claim form, with the instructions, is available from a website
about the class action settlement. The deadline to submit a claim
is Nov. 18, 2015.
TEXAS A&M: Law Graduates File Demand for Recognition
----------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reported that a
group of graduates of the Texas Wesleyan University School of Law
have filed a class action against Texas A&M University School of
Law, which acquired their alma mater in 2013, claiming it has
disavowed them as alumni.
The proposed class action filed on behalf of an estimated 3,000
Texas Wesleyan law graduates asks the court to compel Texas A&M to
reissue diplomas with the school's new name and provide them with
access to alumni resources.
"Plaintiffs ask the court to declare that [Texas A&M] School of
Law cannot claim the work and accomplishments of plaintiffs and
then deny they are graduates," the complaint reads.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas by 33 named plaintiffs who graduated from Texas
Wesleyan's law school between 1994 and 2013.
The suit names as defendants the Fort Worth law school; dean
Andrew Morriss; Texas Wesleyan University; and Texas Wesleyan's
president, Frederick Slabach.
Texas A&M University provost Karan Watson said in a written
statement that the law school has tried to integrate Texas
Wesleyan graduates.
"We have strived to ensure the continuity of networking,
professional development, mentoring and leadership opportunities
at the law school," Watson said. "We regret that a small group of
alumni have decided to file suit, but we know we have been fair in
our dealings with the Texas Wesleyan law school alumni."
Having a defunct law school on their r‚sum‚s has created a slew of
headaches, the Texas Wesleyan graduates claim.
"This decision has damaged the disavowed graduates, who have lost
the ability to easily show that their juris doctor degrees are
valid to potential employers and clients, and their law school is
no longer easily located on many lists of accredited law schools,"
the complaint reads.
Graduates have run into problems trying to register for LL.M.
courses; refinancing law school loans; accessing the law school
library after hours; and gaining admission by motion in other
states, the suit claims.
While they aren't considered alumni of Texas A&M, the school still
touts employment outcomes and the number of pro bono hours
performed by pre-acquisition graduates in its marketing materials,
according to the complaint.
Separate groups of Texas Wesleyan graduates in 2014 asked Texas
A&M to reconsider its diploma policy and complained to the
American Bar Association about the situation, but those efforts
yielded no changes.
The two universities announced plans for the sale in 2012, with
then-Texas A&M president R. Bowen Loftin saying the university
aimed to raise the stature of Texas Wesleyan's law school, which
landed in the unranked third tier in the U.S. News & World Report
rankings.
Slabach said Texas A&M had more resources to invest than did Texas
Wesleyan. Texas A&M paid more than $73 million, and the
acquisition turned the school from a private institution into a
public one.
The strategy is starting to work -- the rebranded law school broke
out of U.S. News' unranked tier, landing at No. 149.
The plaintiffs asked the court for a declaratory judgment of
noninfringement that would enable them to use Texas A&M's
trademark, and asserted breach of implied contract and negligence,
among other claims. In addition to new diplomas, the plaintiffs
seek damages of more than $5 million.
TN 888: Faces "Cheliotis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ioannis Cheliotis, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. T.N. 888 Eighth Avenue LLC d/b/a Cosmic
Diner, John Dimos, Elias "Louie" Tsinias, and John Tsinias, Case
No. 1:15-cv-06637 (S.D.N.Y., August 21, 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 full-service restaurant located
at 888 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
277 Broadway, Suite 408
New York, NY 10007-2036
Telephone: (212) 229-2249
Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
bsherr@zellerlegal.com
jazeller@zellerlegal.com
TOBY KEITH'S: Employees File Class Suit Over Back Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Vicar, writing for Fox19 Now, reported that the owners of
Toby Keith's I Love This Bar and Grill at the Banks were aware
they would default on their lease but stayed open to benefit from
the All-Star Game, a class action lawsuit alleges.
A former employee claims workers were only notified of the closure
on July 16 -- the day the restaurant closed down. Final checks
were issued but bounced.
"Instead of informing their employees of the impending closure, on
July 16, 2015, after obtaining significant revenues from All-Star
Week, Employer Defendants closed the doors of the Cincinnati Toby
Keith's restaurant and, upon information and belief, retained the
revenues from All-Star Week," the lawsuit reads.
The plaintiff is suing for back wages and undisclosed monetary
wages.
TOP SURGEONS: No Funds to Pay Class Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Stuart Pfeifer, writing for Los Angeles Times, reported that the
owners of a company behind the 1-800-GET-THIN ads for weight loss
surgery cannot afford to pay a $1.3-million settlement of a false-
advertising lawsuit because federal agents seized $109 million
from them as part of an ongoing criminal investigation, their
lawyer said during a court hearing.
The settlement funds were intended to compensate more than 10,000
people who were billed for medical procedures after responding to
1-800-GET-THIN advertisements. The money also would be used to
place billboard ads across Southern California warning the public
about the risks of weight-loss surgery.
In 2013, the company, called Top Surgeons, agreed to pay the
settlement, but it is still awaiting approval from Los Angeles
County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Freeman.
An attorney for Top Surgeons told Freeman that most of the
businesses affiliated with the weight-loss business have closed
and the company no longer has the means to pay the settlement.
In June 2014, federal agents seized about $109 million in cash and
securities from accounts affiliated with Michael and Julian Omidi,
who operated the business, and their mother, Cindy.
"There's no money available to fund the settlement," attorney
Charles Kreindler said. "The government seized $100 million-plus.
We haven't had the ability to go in and get that money."
The Omidis have argued unsuccessfully in federal court to have the
money returned.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs also said they hope the government
will release some of the seized funds to cover the settlement. The
agreement calls for a total of $500,000 to be paid to patients,
$600,000 to the plaintiffs' lawyers and $100,000 to place freeway
billboard ads about the risks of Lap-Band weight-loss surgery. The
remaining funds would be used to administer the settlement.
"We've proposed to them jointly that they release enough funds to
pay the settlement," said plaintiffs' attorney Alexander
Robertson, after hearing. "The class members are the true victims
here. We think it's reasonable that the government would agree to
release those funds."
Federal prosecutors were not in court, but in court papers
defending the seizure they said the money is "traceable to a long-
term fraud scheme." A prosecutor said in court in an unrelated
case involving Cindy Omidi that a criminal investigation of the 1-
800-GET-THIN business is focused on allegations of health
insurance fraud.
Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Los
Angeles, said the funds were seized "pursuant to a lawful court
order." He declined to comment on the proposal to use the seized
money for the settlement.
The Lap-Band is a silicone ring that is surgically implanted
around the stomach to discourage overeating. The surgeries were
promoted for several years on Southern California freeway
billboards, radio and television.
Thousands of people responded to the ads, lining up for surgeries
at clinics affiliated with the ad campaign.
The class-action lawsuit accused Top Surgeons and other companies
of false advertising for failing to adequately disclose risks of
the surgery.
From 2009 to 2011, five patients died after surgery at clinics
affiliated with the ad campaign, according to lawsuits, autopsy
reports and other public records. Those deaths have prompted
separate wrongful death lawsuits, some of which are pending.
Attorneys for the Omidis have said the number of deaths is not out
of line, considering that thousands of surgeries were performed.
Kathryn Trepinski, an attorney who filed a wrongful death lawsuit
on behalf of relatives of a woman who died after one of the
surgeries, said she hopes the government sets aside some of the
seized money to pay other legal settlements.
"I'm pleased the government seized those assets," she said. "That
said, some of these funds need to go to a victims' compensation
fund to compensate class-action members."
Freeman said he would rule on the settlement as early as Aug. 31.
Kreindler said that if the settlement is approved, he would ask
the U.S. attorney's office to release the funds.
TORNADO PRODUCTION: Faces "Dale" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Lamar Dale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tornado Production Services, L.L.C., Case No. 2:15-cv-
00334 (S.D. Tex., August 6, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.
Tornado Production Services, L.L.C. is a Texas Limited Liability
Company that offers services and equipment designed to provide
prepared fluids that oil and gas companies use down well.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
1150 Bissonnet
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone (713) 751-0025
Facsimile (713) 751-0030
E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
adunlap@fibichlaw.com
litkin@fibichlaw.com
jbresler@fibichlaw.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone (713) 877-8788
Facsimile (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
TRI-VALLEY CORPORATION: Court Permits Investors to Amend Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court
for Northern District of California granted a request for leave to
amend Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' four claims in the
case captioned, STEVEN SIEGAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. G. THOMAS
GAMBLE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-03570-RS (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs filed a putative securities fraud class action alleging
(1) violations of California's Corporations Code Sections 25401,
25501, 25501.5, 25504, and 25504.1; (2) breach of fiduciary duty;
(3) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; and (4)
negligent misrepresentation, against former directors and officers
of TVC Opus I Drilling Program, LP's general managing partner, the
Tri-Valley Corporation (TVC), and broker-dealers whom, plaintiffs
aver, are responsible for the sales of substantially all of the
securities at issue. The plaintiffs also charged Opus's law firm,
K&L Gates, LLP, with a separate fifth claim alleging attorney
malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting
breach of fiduciary duty. The complaint broadly asserts that the
purveyors of Opus securities, Behrooz Sarafraz and Alfred Lopez,
each violated Corporations Code sections 25401, 25501, 25501.5,
25504, and 25504.1 when they sold plaintiffs Opus securities on
the basis of misrepresentations and without broker-dealer
licenses.
Sarafraz and Lopez, via separate motions, each request dismissal
of plaintiffs' four claims against them on the grounds that
plaintiffs fail to state a cognizable claim.
In his Order dated August 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/eIzIcsfrom Leagle.com, Judge Seeborg held that
plaintiffs fail to plead with even remotely sufficient specificity
any wrongdoing on either Lopez or Sarafraz's parts which meets all
elements of any of their stated claims. Plaintiffs are permitted
leave to amend complaint within 30 days upon issuance of the
Order.
Plaintiffs are represented by Edward Scott Zusman, Esq. --
ezusman@mzclaw.com & Kevin K. Eng, Esq. -- keng@mzclaw.com --
MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP
Defendants are represented by James Mark Neudecker, Esq. --
jneudecker@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP
TRUECAR: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Information
-----------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that TrueCar misrepresented the automotive-pricing website's
growth outlook in going public, shareholders claim in court,
noting that share prices have fallen 76 percent from a January
high.
Ning Shen and William Fitzpatrick are the lead plaintiffs in the
class action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court against
TrueCar, CEO Scott Painter, 10 of the company's directors, and its
IPO underwriters.
An auto-pricing and information website for new and used cars,
TrueCar lets buyers see what others paid for a certain make and
model of car. It also connects buyers to auto dealers within its
network.
The Santa Monica-based company made its highly anticipated initial
public offering in May 2014, pricing shares at $9 per share, which
was below analysts' expected price. The IPO raised approximately
$70 million.
Though TrueCar shares reached a high of $25 per share in early
2015, they quickly lost value as the company became embroiled in
litigation with auto traders over alleged noncompliance with
California and New York laws.
The company's shares have fallen 76 percent, and 46 percent in the
last four weeks on an abysmal second-quarter earnings report.
It traded at $5.64 per share, and Painter announced that he will
be stepping down as CEO.
The class action filed accuses the defendants of having
"negligently issued false and misleading statements and omitted
material facts from the [IPO] registration statements and
incorporated offering materials that the company filed with the
SEC in support of the offering."
Specifically, TrueCar failed to tell investors that its "business
practices violated unfair competition and deceptive trade practice
laws because TrueCar acts as a dealer and broker in car sales
transactions without proper licensing, in violation of the laws of
a number of states," according to the complaint.
Saying TrueCar knew at the time of its IPO that its outstanding
growth in prior years was based on "unsustainable and, in effect,
unprofitable levels of sales and marketing expenses," the
shareholders claim that the company failed to disclose this fact
in its offering statements.
The shareholders seek damages for violations of the Securities
Act.
They are represented by Lion Glancy with Glancy, Prongay & Murray.
TrueCar spokeswoman Carly Schaffner said the company has no
comment at this time.
UBER: Wins Connecticut Class Suit Filed by Taxi Companies
-----------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for Fortune, reported that car-hire
service Uber, which is embroiled in legal fights across the
country, won a significant victory in court against a gang of taxi
companies that want to drive it out of Connecticut. The ruling
certainly helps Uber legitimize its business model, but doesn't
resolve the biggest legal question hanging over the company.
In the Connecticut ruling, issued on a federal judge threw out the
taxi companies' case, which accused Uber of unlawful tactics
against taxi industry competitors and of deceiving consumers. The
complaint featured a laundry list of legal claims, including
racketeering, fraud, unfair competition and trademark
infringement.
But at the end of the day, U.S. District Judge Alvin Thompson
didn't buy any of it. He disagreed with the theory that Uber
falsely told consumers it was part of the taxi industry, and that
Uber deceived consumers over its insurance and fare policies.
The judge pointed to a 1996 ruling called "Dial-a-Car" in which a
Washington D.C. appeals court found that a luxury car service
could not use its own interpretation of the taxi laws as the basis
for a false advertising claim. He also pointed out that
Connecticut officals have not even decided how state taxi
regulations should apply to Uber.
The judge's findings are not surprising given that the taxi
companies, anxious to protect their industry, appear to be ginning
up whatever legal case they can. And even though much of the case
is supposed to be on behalf of consumers, the reality is that many
of those same customers are happy with the arrival of app-driven
services like Uber and Lyft, which are disrupting the taxis'
dispatch-based business model.
In throwing out the case, the judge did say the cab companies can
tweak their pleadings and try again. But this is likely to still
be an uphill fight, especially as Uber gains more traction in
Connecticut and around the country. In a statement to Reuters,
Uber said the decision will let Connecticut drivers and passengers
keep receiving the "economic and transportation benefits" that the
company provides.
In the bigger picture, though, the skirmish in Connecticut and
similar ones in other states are just a sideshow to Uber's biggest
legal fight: whether its drivers are employees or, as Uber claims,
independent legal contractors.
The driver issue matters most since it does not involve simple
compliance measures, which Uber could probably solve without much
difficulty. Instead, the issue goes to the core of Uber's business
model, which relies on skirting the cost and complications
involved with maintaining employees.
The front line of the fight over drivers is California where a
labor board in June agreed a driver was indeed an employee not a
contractor, and ordered Uber to pay back wages and other forms of
restitution. Uber is appealing. Meanwhile, a federal judge in San
Francisco is deciding whether Uber drivers may bring similar
claims as part of a class action suit.
These are the cases to watch. Uber may won a battle in Connecticut
but it could still lose the war in California.
UNDER ARMOUR: Delays Stock Split Until Suit Gets Resolved
---------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Mirabella, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reported that
Under Armour will delay a planned two-for-one stock split, which
would create a new class of stock without voting rights, until a
shareholder lawsuit objecting to the split is resolved, the
company announced.
The class action lawsuit, filed in Baltimore Circuit Court, seeks
to block the company's plan, which would perpetuate Under Armour
founder and CEO Kevin Plank's personal control of the Baltimore-
based athletic apparel-maker.
The split, announced in mid-June, would give owners of each
existing share of common stock one new share of the new nonvoting
class, effectively diluting the voting power of shareholders.
Critics savaged the split, saying it disempowered shareholders to
Plank's advantage. In announcing the split, the company pointed
out that Under Armour's stock has appreciated significantly under
Plank's leadership and control.
Shareholders still must approve the proposed stock split at a
special meeting Aug. 26.
In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
Under Armour said it reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to
put off the split until 10 business days after a judgment is
entered in the case.
Three lawsuits on behalf of stockholders have been consolidated
into one on behalf of plaintiff Pedro Ramirez Jr. of Riverside,
Conn., who filed the original complaint on June 18. It names the
company, Plank and members of Under Armour's board of directors as
defendants.
The suit alleges that the Under Armour board breached its
fiduciary duty to shareholders by approving the new class of
stock.
The dispute has had little effect on the company's stock, which
closed over $100 a share at $100.23 each, up 83 cents for the day.
UNITED STATES: OPM, KeyPoint Sued Over Cyber Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed a class action against the United
States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and KeyPoint
Government Solutions (collectively, "the defendants"), concerning
multiple cyber breaches which compromised the security of more
than 20 million people. Described by Congressional representatives
as "the most devastating cyber attack in our nation's history,"
the breach resulted in the disclosure of personal information from
current, former, and prospective employees and contractors of the
U.S. government, as well as some family members of federal
applicants.
The OPM, together with KeyPoint, conducts over 90 percent of the
U.S. Federal Government's background investigations--more than two
million investigations every year. Since at least 2007, the OPM,
which according to its website, "work[s] to make the Federal
Government America's model employer for the 21st century," has
been on notice of significant flaws in its cyber security protocol
but failed to take the steps to remedy those deficiencies. Annual
audits by the Office of the Inspector General found glaring and
systemic cyber security deficiencies that the OPM consistently
failed to address, which led directly to the unprecedented theft
of highly sensitive information.
The plaintiffs allege the defendants' actions constituted
negligence and also violated the Privacy Act of 1974 and the
Administrative Procedure Act, leaving millions susceptible to
identity theft.
"The OPM has acknowledged the harm done to these individuals as a
result of their personal information being stolen, but it has
provided only token relief that does not even begin to address the
injury," said Joel H. Bernstein, the Labaton Sucharow partner
leading the case. "We seek fair damages to adequately protect and
compensate class members for the OPM's actions."
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.
Labaton Sucharow
140 Broadway New York, NY 10005
Telephone: 212-907-0700
Toll- Free 888-753-2796
FAx: 212-818-0477
email: info@labaton.com
Settlement Helpline
888-219-6877
settlementquestions@labaton.com
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Suit by Colorado Inmate
----------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith of the United States Court
of Fedral Claims -- at the behest of the Defendant -- dismissed in
its entirety Plaintiff's complaint in the case captioned, JOHN JAY
POWERS, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 14-
760C (Fed. Cl.).
Plaintiff, an inmate at the United States Penitentiary,
Administrative Maximum Facility, in Florence, Colorado (ADX
Florence), filed his amended complaint against the United States,
acting through the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), on February 2, 2015.
Plaintiff alleges that: (1) the BOP wrongfully imposed monetary
sanctions against him as restitution for prison property he
destroyed; (2) the BOP mismanaged his inmate trust fund account;
(3) the BOP coerced him into signing a debt management agreement,
known as a "50/50 Agreement;" (4) the BOP engaged in other abusive
debt collection practices; and (5) the BOP failed to afford him
due process.
Plaintiff contends that the BOP violated his constitutional
rights, in particular: (1) his right to petition the government
under the First Amendment; (2) his right to due process under the
Fifth Amendment; and (3) his right to relief from the imposition
of excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiff complains
that the BOP has acted in "bad faith and with malicious intent" by
fraudulently imposing debt on him. Plaintiff seeks: (1) a
preliminary injunction to "unencumber" the funds in his trust fund
account; (2) a declaratory judgment invalidating his debt; (3)
certification of his claim as a class action; (4) and monetary
damages. As he brings his claim without counsel, plaintiff asks
the court to "allow or appoint" counsel.
In her Opinion and Order dated August 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/7OQuzEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Henderson found that it
lacks jurisdiction over most of plaintiff's claims, specifically:
the constitutional claims, the claims alleging statutory debt
collection violations, the claims sounding in tort, and the
requests for equitable relief. As to plaintiff's remaining claims,
the court finds that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, specifically: plaintiff has not
stated a claim for breach of contract (whether implied or
express), nor has plaintiff stated a claim for a taking or illegal
exaction under the Fifth Amendment. Moreover, the court does not
find that transfer of plaintiff's complaint is in the interest of
justice. Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted, and plaintiff's
complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Plaintiff's application
to proceed in forma pauperisis granted. Plaintiff's request for
the appointment of counsel is denied as moot.
UNITED STATES: Suit Over Right to Purchase Firearms Goes to Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEPHEN DEARTH AND SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC., Appellants,
v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Appellee, Case No. 12-5305 (D.C. Cir.), asks
the D.C. Circuit to determine whether a citizen who permanently
resides outside the United States has a right under the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution to purchase a firearm
for self-defense while he is temporarily visiting this country.
Dearth alleges that 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922(a)(9) and (b)(3) and
implementing regulations, 27 C.F.R. Sections 478.29a, 478.96,
478.99, 478.124, were unconstitutional because the provisions, in
effect, prohibit citizens not residing in any state from
purchasing firearms. In addition to mounting a facial attack on
the provisions, Dearth purported to be bringing an as applied
challenge.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the
Order dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/IV1Qpnfrom
Leagle.com, vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment
in favor of the United States with respect to Dearth and Second
Amendment Foundation, Inc., and remanded the case for trial.
Appellant is represented by Charles J. Cooper, Esq. --
ccooper@cooperkirk.com -- David H. Thompson, Esq.-
dthompson@cooperkirk.com -- Peter Patterson, Esq. --
ppatterson@cooperkrik.com -- Brian W. Barnes, Esq. --
bbarnes@cooperkirk.com -- Brian S. Koukoutchos,Esq. --
bkoukoutchos@copperkirk.com -- COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
Appellee is represented by Daniel Tenny, Attorney, Esq., U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Stuart F. Delery, Esq., ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL
UNITED STATES: Court Grants Summary Judgment in Suit v. US Army
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant John M. McHugh moved for summary judgment in the case
captioned, ALESYA M. PASCHAL, Plaintiff, v. JOHN M. McHUGH,
Secretary of the Army, Defendant, Case No. CV-12-S-2985-NE (N.D.
Ala.).
Paschal was a General Engineer employed by the United States
Army's Space & Missile Defense Center located on Redstone Arsenal
in Huntsville, Alabama. She asserted a claim for sexual
harassment, numerous claims of gender discrimination and
retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and a claim of disability discrimination in violation of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. All claims were asserted against
McHugh, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States
Army.
District Judge C. Lynnwood Smith, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama in the
Memorandum Opinion dated June 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/GnO5XKfrom Leagle.com, granted defendant's motion
for summary judgment and dismissed all plaintiff's claims finding
plaintiff's claims insufficient to severe or pervasive, either
when considered individually or as a whole, to alter the terms and
conditions of her employment.
Plaintiff is represented by:
Howell Roger Riggs, Esq.
GOVERNMENT CONTRACT SOLUTIONS LLC
20135 Rohrersville School Road
P.O. Box 148
Rohrersville, MD 21779
Tel:(301) 432-1112
Defendant is represented by by Erin Massey Everitt, Esq. & James G
Gann, III, Esq., US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
UNITED STATES: Judge Allows Substitution in "Daniel"
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Amit P. Mehta of the District of Columbia granted
plaintiffs' motion to amend in the case Roy A. Daniel, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. Isaac Fulwood, Jr., Chairman of the United States
Parole Commission, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:10-CV-
00862 (APM) (D.C.)
Roy A. Daniel, Alfonso Taylor, Harold Venable, Percy Jeter, Abdus-
Shahid Ali, and William Terry filed a complaint against the
Commissioners of the United States Parole Commission alleging that
the Parole Commission violated the ex post facto clause of the
Constitution by retroactively applying parole eligibility
guidelines that the Parole Commission issued in 2000, rather than
the eligibility guidelines that were in effect at the time of
their offenses. Plaintiffs are prisoners who committed District of
Columbia criminal code offenses before March 3, 1985.
Plaintiffs asserted that the Parole Commission improperly applied
guidelines adopted in 2000 to determine their parole eligibility,
instead of the guidelines issued in 1972, which were in effect at
the time of their offenses. Plaintiffs averred that retroactive
application of the 2000 guidelines subjected them and the class to
more stringent parole criteria and resulted in longer terms of
incarceration than they would have faced under the 1972 guidelines
The court dismissed the compliant for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiffs appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, all of the
named Plaintiffs, except plaintiff Ali, were paroled and released
from prison, thereby mooting their claims insofar as they sought
immediate parole hearings under the 1972 guidelines. The Court of
Appeals reversed, holding that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged
that the application of the 2000 guidelines creates a significant
risk of prolonging their incarceration.
Plaintiff Ali now has an effective parole date of November 13,
2015. Plaintiffs have asked the court to allow them to amend their
complaint to substitute two new named plaintiffs, Stanley Grayson
and Kelvin Smith who, in addition to Ali, would serve as
representatives of the proposed class.
Judge Mehta granted plaintiffs' motion to amend and the first
amended class action complaint shall be the operative complaint.
A copy of Judge Mehta's memorandum opinion and order dated July
20, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/o321nZfrom Leagle.com.
Plaintiffs, represented by Kenneth John Pfaehler --
kenneth.pfaehler@dentons.com -- at DENTONS US LLP
Defendants, represented by Kenneth A. Adebonojo, U.S. ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Arbitrator Can Decide on Talks, CA Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Elena J. Duarte of the Court of Appeals of
California, Third District, vacated the stay previously issued by
the trial court and denied a petition for writ of mandate in the
lawsuit against Universal Protection Service, LP et al.
The mandamus petition seeks to set aside an order compelling UPS
as employer to submit to arbitration -- based on employment
agreements drafted by the employer -- including submitting to the
arbitrator the issue whether class action relief is encompassed by
the agreements.
The Appeals Court ruled that the agreements' incorporation by
reference of the American Arbitration Association's National Rules
for the Resolution of Employment Disputes (AAA Rules) vests the
arbitrator with the power to decide the disputed issue.
The case before the appeals court is, UNIVERSAL PROTECTION
SERVICE, LP et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF YOLO
COUNTY, Respondent; MICHAEL PARNOW et al. Real Parties in
Interest, Case No. C078557 (Cal. App. Ct.).
Michael Parnow, Shawn Lisenby, Bob Andrade, Gabriel Bautista, and
Saiyaz Abdul (plaintiffs) filed a class action against Universal
Protection Service, LP and Universal Services of America, Inc.
(collectively, UPS). Plaintiffs alleged they worked as armed
security guards at the Yolo County Superior Court, under the
employ of UPS. As part of their job, they have to provide
equipment, such as guns, handcuffs, and radios, and have to pay
the costs to maintain their certification to work as armed guards,
but they are not reimbursed for equipment or training costs. When
they filed an administrative complaint as required by the Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) (Lab. Code, Sec.
2698 et seq.), they were all fired except plaintiff Lisenby, and
none were paid their wages.
On April 10, 2014, the trial court granted a stipulated stay,
pending the outcome of a then-pending case in the California
Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court issued its decision
(Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th
348 (Iskanian)), plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as a
"representative action" under PAGA and also petitioned to compel
class-wide arbitration.
UPS answered with a general denial, coupled with various
affirmative defenses, including that the class action claims were
barred by the arbitration agreement. UPS also filed a cross-
complaint seeking a declaration that (1) the trial court, not the
arbitrator, should decide whether class action relief was barred
by the arbitration agreement, and (2) that the arbitration
agreement barred class actions. The trial court denied the motion
to compel individual arbitration, and stayed the suit pending the
arbitration.
A copy of the Appeals Court's Order dated August 18, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/mImT4mfrom Leagle.com.
Petitioners are represented by Richard J. Simmons, Esq. --
rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Jason W. Kearnaghan, Esq. --
jkearnaghan@sheppardmullin.com -- Cassidy M. English, Esq. --
cenglish@sheppardmullin.com -- Michael T. Campbell, Esq. --
mcampbell@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &
HAMPTON
VELLEND TECH: Recalls Breezer Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 20, 2015
Posting date: August 20, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54720
This recall involves Breezer Bicycles models Downtown 3, Downtown
3-ST, Downtown 8, Downtown 8-ST, Downtown EX and Downtown EX-ST.
The main frame is made of steel and has either a single or a dual
water bottle mount, and the wheel sets are aluminum.
The bicycles come in eight different sizes and a variety of gloss
colors, including candy apple, chartreuse, chocolate, dark blue,
dark green, shale and slate. The model is printed on the top tube
of the bicycle.
The affected models have serial numbers that begin with the
following date/manufacturer codes found under the bottom bracket:
WBD0, WBD1, WBD2, and WBD3.
The bicycle pedal can separate from the spindle (axle) during use
and cause the rider to lose control, posing a fall hazard.
Neither Health Canada nor Vellend Tech Inc. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these bicycles.
Approximately 187 bicycles were sold in Canada by independent
bicycle dealers.
The recalled products were sold from February 3, 2015 to June 17,
2015.
Manufactured in China.
Distributor: Vellend Tech Inc.
Etobicoke
Ontario
CANADA
Manufacturer: Ideal (Dongguan) Bike Co., Ltd.
Liao Bu Town, Dong Guan, Guang Dong
CHINA
Consumers should immediately stop using the bicycles and return
them to a Breezer dealer for a free pedal replacement.
For additional information, consumers may contact Vellend Tech Inc
at (416) 251-5006, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST, Monday
through Friday or email the company.
Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.
Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.
This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/ppruogu
VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA: Sued Over Franchise Fee Miscalculation
------------------------------------------------------------
Municipality of Monroeville, Township of East Brandywine, and
Township of West Bradford, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Verizon Pennsylvania LLC and Verizon
Communications Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01100-DSC (W.D. Penn.,
August 21, 2015), alleges that the Defendants systematically
underreport to the franchising authorities the late payment fees
collected from Verizon's subscribers, which resulted in
miscalculation and underpayment of the franchise fees.
The Defendants provide cable services throughout the United
States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., Esq.
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
1133 Penn Ave. 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
glynch@carlsonlynch.com
jetzel@carlsonlynch.com
- and -
Daniel S. Cohen, Esq.
Natausha M. Horton, Esq.
COHEN LAW GROUP
1000 Gamma Drive, Suite 305
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Telephone: (412) 447-0130
Facsimile: (412) 447-0129
VIRGINIA FARM: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Thomas v. Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00499-HEH (E.D. Va., August 21, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Virginia Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company is a Virginia
corporation that writes property, casualty, and farm insurance
products.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tim Schulte, Esq.
Blackwell N. Shelley Jr., Esq.
SHELLEY CUPP SCHULTE, P.C.
2020 Monument Avenue
Richmond, VA 23220
Telephone: (804) 644-9700
Facsimile: (804) 278-9634
E-mail: Tim.schulte@shellevschulte.com
Blackwell.shellev@shellevschulte.com
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Jan. 2016 Fairness Hearing on Brockton Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the
request of Brockton Contributory Retirement System, pursuant to
Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for
preliminary approval of the settlement in the case captioned, IN
RE WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This Document
Relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Case Nos. 2:08-MD-1919 MJP, C08-387-MJP
(W.D. Wash.).
Brockton, on behalf of itself and as a certified class
representative in the Action, and James W. Giddens -- as trustee
for the liquidation of Lehman Brothers Inc. under the Securities
Investor Protection Act of 1970, as amended (SIP) -- entered into
a Stipulation and Order Regarding Proofs of Claim of Brockton
Contributory Retirement System, et al. and Limited Related Stay
Relief dated March 20, 2015.
On April 7, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District
of New York approved the Stipulation, which provides, among other
things, that the Stipulation shall not become effective unless and
until the District Court enters an order approving the settlement
of the Class Claim on the terms and conditions set forth in the
Stipulation and that to permit this Court to entertain the
approval motion, upon Bankruptcy Court Approval, "the automatic
stay pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and the LBI
Liquidation Order shall be modified solely to the extent necessary
to permit Claimant to seek and obtain District Court Approval of
the settlement of the Class Claim.
In her Order dated June 22, 2015 available at http://is.gd/STElXs
from Leagle.com, Judge Pechman directed the Lead Counsel, through
the settlement administrator, to disseminate notices of the
Settlement and Settlement Hearing. The Court scheduled the
Fairness hearing on January 15, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.
The Court approved the continued retention of Garden City Group
LLC (formerly known as The Garden City Group, Inc.) to supervise
and administer the provision of notice of the Settlement and the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement to eligible
Authorized Claimants as ordered by the Court.
Movants are represented by Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. --
nkaboolian@abbeyspanier.com -- ABBEY SPANIER RODD ABRAMS & PARADIS
LLP
Defendants are represented by Barry Robert Ostrager, Esq. --
bostrager@stblaw.com -- Deborah L. Stein, Esq. --
dstein@stblaw.com -- K. Lucy Atwood, Esq. -- katwood@stblaw.com --
Mary Kay Vyskocil, Esq. -- mvyskocil@stblaw.com -- Jacob Daniel
Press, Esq. -- jpress@stblaw.com -- Meghan E. Cannella, Esq. --
mcannella@stblaw.com -- Michael Freedman, Esq. --
mfreedman@stblaw.com -- Sarah E. Luppen, Esq. --
sluppen@stblaw.com -- SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP, BARTLETT,
Stephen M. Rummage, Esq. -- steverummage@dwt.com -- Steven P.
Caplow, Esq. -- stevencaplow@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE
WISCONSIN: Judge Denies Class Certification of Prison Guard Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Treleven, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reported that a
Dane County judge has denied class certification for a lawsuit
brought by a group of current and former prison guards from across
Wisconsin who alleges that a policy change doesn't allow them to
be paid for work before and after the policy considers them to be
"on duty."
In a decision issued, about two years and a week since the lawsuit
against the state Department of Corrections was filed, Circuit
Judge Rhonda Lanford said the suit failed to qualify as a class
action because it didn't meet two of four required criteria, both
of which, she wrote, would have made a 4,000-member class
impractical to manage.
Sally Stix, lead attorney for the 10 plaintiffs, said she had not
yet seen the decision but was "disappointed."
Ten guards, later joined by four more, sued in August 2013 over a
policy issued by Corrections on Jan. 29, 2012, stating that
employees are considered "on duty when they are present at their
assigned post/work location prepared to assume their duties at
their designated start time."
The guards alleged that means that they aren't paid for pre-shift
work that serves DOC's interests, such as passing a security
screening, participating in roll calls and fitness-for-duty
checks, among others, all while being ready to respond to
emergency calls.
They said the class-action suit was filed because Act 10, which
sharply curtailed public employee union activity in Wisconsin,
removed collective bargaining as a means to resolve disputes like
this one.
But Lanford wrote that proceeding with the case as a class action
would be impractical, first because it would require "voluminous"
documentation from each employee about hours that they worked and
were not paid.
"Whether a class member gets relief must be determined by a fact-
intensive inquiry with respect to that specific employee," Lanford
wrote, "the amount of time spent working pre- and post-shift in
relation to that specific employee's job responsibilities.
Individual fact-specific issues do not lend themselves well to
class-action treatment."
She also wrote that such a large class would be unmanageable,
given DOC's right to a jury trial and right to cross-examine
witnesses regarding their pay claims.
"Such a trial would take an inordinately long time, and would
stretch the time and attention of even the most attentive and
available jury," Lanford wrote. "The advantages of disposing of
the entire controversy through a class action are outweighed here
by the practical difficulties of combining divergent issues and
persons."
ZIPCAR INC: Must Defend Against "Bayol" Action, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District
Court for Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend the Complaint and denied Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction in the case captioned, GABRIELA BAYOL, Plaintiff, v.
ZIPCAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-02483-the (N.D. Cal.).
Gabriela Bayol is a resident of Daly City and a member of Zipcar,
a short-term car rental service. In order to use Zipcar, Bayol
entered into a standardized Membership Agreement setting out the
terms of her rentals. Under the Agreement, members must pay a fee
of $50 per hour, up to $150, for returning a car late, in addition
to the normal rental rate. Bayol alleges that she has returned a
Zipcar late, and has accordingly paid the late fees set out in the
Membership Agreement. Between May 30, 2010 and May 29, 2014,
Zipcar collected $2,852,495 in late fees from non-corporate
California Zipcar members.
Bayol sent a letter to Zipcar on May 19, 2014, demanding that it
cease the allegedly illegal collection of late fees from
California Zipcar customers. Ten days later, she filed this
putative class action to challenge Zipcar's late fees under
various California consumer protection statutes, including Civil
Code section 1671(d), the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and
the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). Bayol argues that Zipcar's late
fee provision is presumptively illegal under section 1671(d)
because it sets liquidated damages in a consumer contract. She
alleges that it would not be impracticable to calculate Zipcar's
actual damages when a car is returned late, that Zipcar did not
conduct a reasonable endeavor to estimate its actual damages, and
that the late fees imposed bear no reasonable relation to Zipcar's
actual damages. She also alleges that such fees are unconscionable
and unfair, because they are included in a contract of adhesion
and are unreasonably favorable to Zipcar. Invoking these statutes,
Bayol seeks a permanent injunction against Zipcar's late fee
policy, restitution and damages.
In the motion, Zipcar moves to dismiss the Complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. In partial response, Bayol filed a
motion for leave to amend the Complaint on June 16 of this year.
The only change in the proposed First Amended Complaint is that
Bayol alleges that Zipcar did not comply with her demand letter
within 30 days, and she is therefore seeking compensatory and
punitive damages as allowed by statute.
In the Order dated August 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/H6QuDBfrom Leagle.com, Judge Henderson concluded
that undue delay by itself is not sufficient to deny leave to
amend. Accordingly, Zipcar's motion to dismiss is denied since the
Amended Complaint has apparently alleged a sufficient amount of
controversy.
Gabriela Bayol is represented by Annick Marie Persinger, Esq. --
apersinger@bursor.com -- Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Scott A. Bursor, Esq. -- scott@bursor.com &
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- BURSOR
FISHER, P.A.
Zipcar, Inc. is represented by William P. Donovan, Jr., Esq. --
wdonovan@cooley.com -- Joseph Bernard Woodring, Esq. --
jwoodring@cooley.com, Matthew David Caplan, Esq. -
mcaplan@cooley.com -- Patricia Anne Eberwine, Esq. --
peberwine@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP
ZIRTUAL: Faces Class Suit Over Mismanangement
---------------------------------------------
Michelle Quinn, writing for Silicon Beat, reported that Zirtual,
the on-demand virtual assistant firm that went belly up, then was
bought, is now being sued. And it may signal more trouble for
other on-demand economy firms.
Zirtual's troubles became public when its chief executive, Maren
Kate Donovan, sent an email out to employees announcing she was
shutting the company. Zirtual's employees have been estimated as
high as 400.
In a post on Medium, Donovan blamed the firm's woes on its switch
from using freelancers to real employees, as we wrote. In
interviews, she also blamed bad accounting from "an outsourced
CFO" who miscalculated pay periods. The upshot was that Zirtual
wasn't able to secure its next round of financing.
The company was saved by an acquisition by Startups.co., an Ohio
startup platform. Service is expected to resume. But Startups.co
will use freelancers, reports Business Insider.
The company's acting CFO said that the company's insistence on
hiring college educated "zirtuals," the name of the assistants,
and paying them benefits, led to a lower hourly wage, which then
resulted in extreme employee churn, Fortune reported:
In hindsight it was a much bigger change financially than was
originally anticipated. Maren had all the right intentions, but it
really cut into margins and the benefits meant that we could only
pay the ZAs $11 or $12 per hour. That created a huge amount of
turnover among a U.S.-based, college-educated employee base, with
lots of people dropping out even during the training program. And
what that meant was that Zirtual had to project hiring 20-30% more
people than it actually needed, so that it wouldn't be caught
short-staffed.
* Consumers File 75 Antitrust Class Suits v. Major U.S. Carriers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashlee Kieler, writing for Consumerist, reported that shortly
after the Department of Justice announced in early July that it
had opened an investigation into alleged collusion between major
airlines to keep ticket prices high, two groups of passengers
filed lawsuits against the major U.S. carriers. Since then, the
legal system has been inundated with strikingly similar complaints
from travelers.
According to the Dallas Morning News, 75 different lawsuits have
been filed against Delta, America, United, and Southwest since
July 1, when the DOJ revealed its antitrust probe.
The legal actions, which have been filed across all corners of the
U.S., use the DOJ's investigation as a basis for allegations that
the airlines colluded to keep fares high through a series of mega-
mergers.
The four airlines named in the lawsuits have undergone major
mergers in the last decade and now reportedly account for 80% of
all domestic air travel.
Back in 2008 Delta merged with Northwest Airlines; in 2010
Southwest acquired AirTran; United merged with Continental
Airlines in 2012; and American and U.S. Airways finalized their
merger in 2013 but have not yet combined all operations.
"This action challenges a collusion among major airlines to limit
routes, information and available seats to keep airfares
artificially high," the first lawsuit to be filed in New York
states. "Plaintiffs allege that defendants illegally signaled to
each other how quickly they would add new flights, routes, and
extra seats. To keep prices high on fares, it was undesirable for
the defendants to increase capacity."
While it's possible that the lawsuits could be consolidated into
one mega-class-action suit, for now they move forward
individually.
So which area of the U.S. has seen the most complaints files? That
would be a tie between the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn
and the Northern District of California, San Francisco, which each
have 15 cases pending.
Of course, the home bases for many of the major airlines have seen
several legal actions files. The Northern District of Texas --
home to Southwest and American airlines -- has four lawsuits,
while Chicago -- the home of United Airlines-- counts nine suit on
its docket. Delta's home area of Atlanta has only one lawsuit
filed, the Dallas Morning News reports.
The District of Minnesota has compiled 11 class-action suits,
counting a wide-range of plaintiffs from Minnesota, New Jersey,
Minnesota, Missouri, Michigan and San Diego County.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Vuskovich Testimony Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Staci M. Yandle of the United States District Court for
Northern District of Illinois denied a Motion in Limine to Exclude
the Testimony of Matthew A. Vuskovich, M.D., in the case
captioned, CHARLES NEUREUTHER, Plaintiff, v. ATLAS COPCO
COMPRESSORS, L.L.C., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-1327-SMY-
SCW.
The Plaintiff retained Dr. Vuskovich to establish that the
Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos was the cause of his bilateral
pulmonary asbestosis. Dr. Vuskovich does state that asbestosis is
a cumulative disease, which "means that every exposure to asbestos
contributes to the interstitial scarring in the lungs, which is
asbestosis." He also states, "it is not possible to say, within a
reasonable degree of medical certainty, what the threshold
exposure requirement is for asbestosis." His opinion, however,
takes into account Plaintiff's occupational history and his
ultimate conclusion is that Plaintiff's exposures were not
trivial.
In the motion, the Defendants state that Dr. Vuskovich's testimony
should be excluded under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. 509
U.S. 579 (1993) because (1) Dr. Vuskovich is not qualified to
render an expert opinion, (2) Dr. Vuskovich's opinions are based
on insufficient information and are therefore unreliable, and (3)
Dr. Vuskovich's theories of exposure as they relate to disease are
unreliable.
In the Memorandum and Order dated August 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/TNW0P2from Leagle.com, Judge Yandle held that
nothing scientifically invalid about Dr. Vuskovich's theory
underDaubert, nor any unjustifiable extrapolation as cautioned
against by the Rule 702 advisory committee and that the
information on which his report and opinions are based sufficient.
He also found that Dr. Vuskovich qualified to render an expert
opinion as to Plaintiff's diagnosis and causation.
Charles Neuruether is represented by:
Zane T. Cagle, Esq.
CAGLE LAW FIRM, LLC,
500 N Broadway #1605,
St. Louis, MO 63102
Tel: (314)276-1681
-- and --
John D. Sloan, Jr., Esq.
SLOAN, BAGLEY, HATCHER & PERRY
101 E Whaley St.
Longview, TX 75601
Tel: (903)757-7000
Defendants are represented by Daniel G. Donahue, Esq. -
ddonahue@foleymansfield.com & Michael R. Dauphin, Esq. -
mdauphin@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD, PLLP.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Protective Order in "Frank" Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the United States District Court for
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the motion of non-party
Dr. Arthur L. Frank for Protective Order and/or to Quash the
Subpoena in the case captioned, ARTHUR L. FRANK, M.D., Ph.D.,
Movant, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC. f/k/a ALLIED SIGNAL, INC.,
successor to BENDIX CORP., Respondent, and FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et
al., Interested Parties, Case No. 15-MC-00172.
Honeywell and Ford are currently defendants in an asbestos
litigation case in the Eastern District of North Carolina. On
June 17, 2015, Honeywell served Dr. Frank with a third-party
subpoena, purportedly requiring him to produce documents and
appear for a deposition. Dr. Frank, by his own admission, is a
prolific plaintiffs' expert in asbestos cases. He is a "frequent
lecturer widely recognized and widely published in the fields of
preventative medicine, public health, and occupational and
environmental medicine. His expert consultations on asbestos cases
concern medical issues surrounding asbestos-related diseases,
including mesothelioma. Dr. Frank has not been retained as an
expert in the Yates case. Honeywell wishes to question Dr. Frank
concerning a series of events that transpired in 2009, when Dr.
Frank successfully lobbied the National Cancer Institute ("NCI")
to change language on its website and in its "Fact Sheets"
regarding the cancer risks experienced by automobile mechanics
exposed to asbestos through brake repair.
The 2009 Subpoena contained twenty-four document requests relating
to Dr. Frank's communications with NCI and Hartley, as well as
other plaintiffs' attorneys, regarding the changes. Dr. Frank
objected to the requests in the 2009 Subpoena on the grounds of
attorney-client privilege and responded with a privilege log.
In the motion, Dr. Frank moves to quash the Yates Subpoena on
three grounds, arguing: (1) the Yates Subpoena is overly broad,
unduly burdensome, and seeks to harass Dr. Frank; (2) the Yates
Subpoena seeks communications that are protected by the attorney-
client privilege; and (3) the YatesSubpoena seeks to elicit the
opinion of an "unretained expert" in violation of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(B)(ii).
In his Memorandum dated August 13, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/vIaSJcfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pappert is not
persuaded that Honeywell needs the discovery it seeks. Honeywell
already has ample evidence in its possession -- Dr. Frank's sworn
deposition testimony on no less than two occasions and the letters
between Dr. Frank and NCI -- that clearly demonstrates that Dr.
Frank instigated the changes to the 2009 NCI Fact Sheet and that
he was triggered to do so by Hartley. He held that the Yates
Subpoena should be quashed because Honeywell and Ford have not
shown a need for the documents or deposition testimony they seek
from Dr. Frank. This desired discovery can, should, and likely
will be obtained under more appropriate circumstances and in the
appropriate forum--i.e., the next asbestos case where Dr. Frank is
designated as an expert and the 2009 NCI Fact Sheet is relevant.
Honeywell International is represented by Jason K. Melrath, Esq.
-- jmelrath@rawle.com -- Peter J. Neeson, Esq. --
pneeson@rawle.com -- Scott F. Griffith, Esq. --
sgriffith@rawle.com -- RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP.
Arthur L. Frank, M.D. is represented by:
John F. O'Riordan, Esq.
O'RIORDAN LAW FIRM
1601 Market St #2600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel:(215)568-6864
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Modifies Aug. 11 Ruling in "Murat"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals of California, Second District,
Division Four, in an order dated Aug. 18, 2015, modified its
opinion dated August 11, 2015, case captioned, MARY MURAT et al.,
individually and as successors-in-interest, Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. EXXON MOBIL CORP. et al., Defendants and
Respondents, Case No. B247889 (Cal. App.), to provide that the
appearance of counsel is modified to read: "McKenna Long &
Aldridge, Jayme C. Long, Frederic W. Norris and David K. Schulz;
Horwitz & Levy and David M. Axelrad for Defendants and
Respondents."
Mary Murat and Susan Murat filed suit against defendants Exxon
Mobil Corporation and SeaRiver Maritime, Inc., alleging that their
father, decedent Joseph Murat, owner of a vessel repair company,
had developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos
while working onboard defendants' vessels. The trial court
granted defendants' motions for summary judgment based on the
plaintiffs' inability to establish a violation of a duty of care
owed to Mr. Murat. Finding no triable issues of material fact,
the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, in an opinion dated Aug. 11, 2015, affirmed the trial
court's decision.
A full-text copy of the Aug. 18 Decision, which did not change the
judgment in the Aug. 18 Decision, is available at
http://is.gd/XErtsnfrom Leagle.com.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gregory Stamos, Esq.
Brian J. Ramsey, Esq.
Erin M. Beranek, Esq.
ROSE, KLEIN & MARIAS
801 S. Grand Ave., 11th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (213)784-2801
The Defendant is represented by Jayme C. Long, Esq. --
Jayme.Long@dentons.com, Frederic W. Norris, Esq. --
Frederick.Norris@dentons.com & David K. Schulz, Esq. --
David.Schulz@dentons.com -- MCKENNA, LONG & ALDRIDGE.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Groupon's Bid Dismiss "Mosley"
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for
Northern District of California granted Groupon Inc.'s Motion to
Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) the
case captioned, WILLIAM MOSLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GROUPON,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-01205-BLF (N.D. Calif.).
William and Frances Mosley purchased a $39 Gropoun.com coupon from
Groupon, Inc. for a "licensed, bonded and insured technician" to
perfrom vent cleaning and HVAC inspection services in their home.
The technician sent appeared neither unlicensed nor qualified to
do the job and end up botching the job and contaminating the
Plaintiffs' house, exposing Mr. Mosley and their belongings to
asbestos, and ultimately requiring the Plaintiffs to hire a
different company to undo the damage that Ben had caused. To make
matters worse, Ben insisted on getting paid and, when the
Plaintiffs refused, made threatening phone calls causing them to
fear for their physical safety.
The Plaintiffs sued Groupon as well as American Duct Pros, Inc.,
and its alleged alter ego National Duct Cleaning Services, Inc.
ADP and NDCS never responded to the Plaintiffs' complaint and the
Clerk of the Court entered default against them on April 1 and
April 16, 2015 respectively. The Plaintiffs assert eleven causes
of action against Groupon for fraud (First Claim), negligent
misrepresentation (Second Claim), negligence per se (Third Claim),
negligence (Fourth Claim), intentional infliction of emotion
distress (Sixth Claim), negligent infliction of emotional distress
(Seventh Claim), breach of contract (Eighth Claim), breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Ninth Claim),
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq. (Tenth Claim), false
advertising in violation of California Business & Professions Code
Section 17500 et seq.(Eleventh Claim), and violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section
1750 et seq. (Twelfth Claim).
In her Order dated August 14, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ZMReRyfrom Leagle.com, Judge Freeman concluded that
the existing allegations are insufficient to establish that
Groupon can be held liable for Ben's actions as his employer or
principal and there is no plausible suggestion that Ben's
misrepresentation concerning his asbestos qualifications, his
entry into a separate agreement to perform duct removal and
asbestos abatement, and the consequent injury to the Plaintiffs
from those actions were all foreseeable from the failure to send a
"licensed, bonded, or insured" technician to clean vents. She
also held that the Plaintiffs have also failed to factually allege
that Groupon is a "home improvement contractor" or a "home
improvement salesperson" bound by California Business &
Professions Code Sections 7150-1768 so that Groupon's violation of
any of those sections could constitute negligence per se.
The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to amend their First, Second,
Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Claims against
Groupon no later than November 11, 2015.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mani Sheik, Esq.
SHEIK LAW
1 Maritime Plz Ste 1000,
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415) 205-8490
Groupon, Inc. is represented by:
Michael James Boland, Esq.
Stephen Earl Carlson, Esq.
Theodore Thomas Cordery, Esq.
IMAI TADLOCK KEENEY & CORDERY, LLP
100 Bush St # 1300,
San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: (415) 675-7000
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dec. 14 Energy Future Fibro Claims Bar Date
------------------------------------------------------------
The following notice was filed with the UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE:
Power Plant Employees and Contractors
If you or a family member ever worked at a power plant, you
could have been exposed to asbestos.
To keep your right to compensation if you become ill in the
future (or have asbestos-related illness today), you must
submit a claim by December 14, 2015, at 5:00 p.m.,
prevailing Eastern Time
A bankruptcy has been filed by Energy Future Holding Corp., Ebasco
Services, Inc. EECI, Inc. and certain subsidiaries ("EFH"). EFH
owned, operated, maintained, or built power plants across the
United States and in other countries where asbestos may have been
present. Workers at these power plants (and family members and
others who came into contact with these workers) may have been
exposed to asbestos.
Under the supervision of the Court, EFH is seeking a "clean start"
by restructuring its debts. As part of this process, the Court
has decided that anyone who has a claim today against EFH for
asbestos-related illness or who may develop asbestos-related
illness in the future, must submit a claim by December 14,
2015, at 5:00 p.m., prevailing Eastern Time to be eligible for
compensation now or in the future (the "Asbestos Bar Date")
Which power plants are included?
Power plants related to EFH in which asbestos exposure may have
occurred were located across the United States and in foreign
countries. The list of included power plants is provided at the
end of this notice.
How could this affect me?
You could have been exposed to asbestos if you or a family member
worked at any of the included power plants as an employee, a
contractor or in any other role. You also could have been exposed
by coming in contact with another person who worked at a power
plant (for example, if asbestos was brought home on your spouse or
parent's clothing). You may also file a claim on behalf of a
deceased family member.
What are my options?
If you believe that you or a family member may have been exposed
to asbestos at an included plant, submit a claim by December 14,
2015, at 5:00 p.m., prevailing Eastern Time. Even if you have not
been diagnosed with disease or experienced symptoms, you must make
a claim to preserve your right to compensation if you develop
asbestos-related illness in the future. You can submit a claim
yourself or you can ask a lawyer to help you.
If you do not submit a claim by December 14, 2015, at 5:00 p.m.,
prevailing Eastern Time and later develop asbestos-related
disease, you will not be eligible for compensation.
This notice explains your options regarding the Court's order
related to asbestos claims ("Asbestos Bar Date Order"), how to
submit an asbestos claim and the consequences of doing nothing.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oakfabco in Ch. 11 to Resolve Fibro Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oakfabco, Inc., formerly known as Kewanee Boiler Corporation, has
sought bankruptcy protection to address asbestos claims, more than
25 years since selling its boilers business to Coppus Engineering
Corporation in a bankruptcy sale.
On Oct. 28, 1986, Kewanee filed a voluntary petition for relief
under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code for the purpose of dealing
with ongoing losses associated with the boiler business. During
the bankruptcy case, Kewanee sold its boiler manufacturing assets
to Coppus Engineering Corporation and was renamed Oakfabco, Inc.
In March 1988, the Court confirmed Oakfabco's second amended
chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The Debtor did not take steps
in connection with its 1986 bankruptcy case to limit its liability
to future tort claimants as the main reason for the 1986 filing
was to deal with ongoing losses associated with the boiler
business.
In 1996, the Court determined that future victims of torts from
defective boilers cannot be forced into participating in the
limited distribution that unsecured creditors are entitled to
receive under the 1988 Plan. See Kewanee Boiler Corp. v. Smith (In
re Kewanee Boiler Corp.), 198 B.R. 519, 539 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.
1996). Rather, the Court determined that the tort claimants may
seek to collect against the reorganized Debtor.
Because no provision for future tort claims was made in the 1988
Plan, and as a consequence of the Court's decision in Smith,
claimants have continued to file claims against the Debtor since
confirmation of the 1988 Plan. Such claimants seek money damages
for personal injury and wrongful death alleged as a result of
exposure to asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured or
sold by the Debtor or a predecessor in interest.
At present, the Debtor estimates that there are approximately
3,400 active Asbestos Claims and over 30,000 inactive Asbestos
Claims outstanding against the Debtor.
The Debtor is the policyholder under various insurance policies
that provide coverage for Asbestos Claims. Among the issuers of
such insurance are: (i) First State Insurance Company, New England
Reinsurance Company, and Twin City Fire Insurance Company; (ii)
Affiliated FM Insurance Company; and (iii) American Casualty
Company, Continental Casualty Company and Columbia Casualty
Company. Hartford, Affiliated FM, and CNA are referred to
hereinafter collectively as the "Settling Insurers." For several
years, resolution of the Asbestos Claims has been handled
exclusively by the Settling Insurers, pursuant to a 2010
Cost-Sharing Agreement.
After years of covering the Debtor's defense and indemnity costs
relating to the Asbestos Claims, it is anticipated that the
Debtor's coverage for defense costs, if not exhausted already,
will be soon exhausted. As such, only those plaintiffs who rush
to judgment likely will be compensated. As a result, in
consultation with its counsel, the Debtor determined that it is in
the best interests of the Debtor and its asbestos-related
creditors for the Debtor to attempt to monetize its remaining
insurance and commence the Chapter 11 case to effect a fair and
efficient distribution to those creditors.
To that end, the Debtor conducted negotiations with the Settling
Insurers prior to filing the Chapter 11 case. Those negotiations
resulted in settlement agreements that monetize the policies
issued by the Settling Insurers in the amount of $17,333,079, with
$4,550,000 from Affiliated FM, $3,000,000 from Hartford, and
$9,783,079 from CNA. The Debtor has documented and executed
settlements with Affiliated FM and Hartford. The Debtor reached
an agreement with CNA. Documentation of that settlement is in
process as of the filing of the Chapter 11 case.
A portion of the proceeds of the settlement with the Settling
Insurers will be used to fund the Chapter 11 case. Prior to the
Petition Date, the Settling Insurer's each provided, for the
benefit of the Debtor, an advance payment of $50,000, aggregating
$150,000, to Reed Smith LLP, for professional servicers to be
rendered and expenses to be incurred by Reed Smith for services to
be provided to the Debtor in connection the preparation for the
commencement of these proceedings. Additionally, prior to the
Chapter 11 filing, Hartford and Affiliated FM made subsequent
payments of $450,000 and $675,000, respectively, in connection
with their obligations under their settlement agreements. All
such sums provided by the Settling Insurers (which aggregate
$1,275,000) were deposited in Reed Smith's client trust account.
Reed Smith set-off the amount of its fees and expenses incurred to
the date of this Chapter 11 filing against the balance in its
trust account and has agreed to transfer the remaining balance to
a debtor-in-possession account that will be used to fund the costs
of administering the Chapter 11 case. It is intended that funds
remaining in the debtor-in-possession account after payment of
administrative expenses of the Chapter 11 case will be
transferred, together with other insurance settlement payments, to
the liquidating trust to pay Asbestos Claims.
A copy of Frederick Stein's declaration in support of the Chapter
11 petition and first day pleadings is available for free at:
http://bankrupt.com/misc/Oakfabco_1st_Day_Affidavit.pdf
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Spent $400K for Fibro Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc.'s expense for asbestos-related
litigation was $400,000, net of insurance recoveries, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.
The Company states: "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and
lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and
specific facts known. Costs related to such matters were not
material to the periods presented.
"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or
health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was
integrated into certain of our products. We have never
manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos-
containing components into our products for several decades. A
substantial majority of asbestos-related claims have been covered
by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed
without payment. The remainder of our closed cases have been
resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in the
aggregate. Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are
generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage
for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims vary
depending on several factors and are subject to policy limits. As
a result, we may have greater financial exposure for future
settlements and judgments. For the six months ended June 30, 2015,
and 2014, expense for asbestos-related litigation was $0.4
million, and $0.6 million, net of insurance recoveries,
respectively.
"It is management's opinion that none of these claims or lawsuits
or any threatened litigation will have a material adverse effect
on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Claims and lawsuits, however, involve uncertainties and it is
possible that their eventual outcome could adversely affect our
results of operations for a particular period."
Lennox International Inc., is a provider of climate control
solutions. The Company operates in three reportable business
segments of the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration (HVACR) industry. Its reportable segments are
Residential Heating & Cooling, Commercial Heating & Cooling, and
Refrigeration. Residential Heating & Cooling consists of Furnaces,
air conditioners, heat pumps, packaged heating and cooling
systems, indoor air quality equipment, comfort control products,
replacement parts. Commercial Heating & Cooling consists of
Unitary heating and air conditioning equipment, applied systems,
controls, installation and service of commercial heating and
cooling equipment. Refrigeration segment consists of Condensing
units, unit coolers, fluid coolers, air cooled condensers, air
handlers, process chillers, controls, compressorized racks,
supermarket display cases and systems.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had 5,200 Fibro Claimants
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. had 5,200 claimants alleging bodily injury
from asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015.
The Company states: "We, like many other industrial companies,
have been named as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of
lawsuits filed in the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from
asbestos. The claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities
that we own or formerly owned, or from products that we formerly
manufactured for specialized applications. Most of these cases
involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred.
Historically, most of the closed asbestos claims against us have
been dismissed without any indemnity payment by us; however, we
can make no assurances that this pattern will continue.
"For the six months ended June 30, 2015, is facing 5,200 claimants
alleging bodily injury from asbestos.
"Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred and are based on
information as received by us, which may lag actual court filing
dates by several months or more. Claims are recorded as closed
when a claimant is dismissed or severed from a case. Claims are
opened whenever a new claim is brought, including from a claimant
previously dismissed or severed from another case. In 2014, by
virtue of a new Texas law, which amended the Texas Civil Code, the
Texas courts commenced dismissing dormant asbestos cases without
prejudice to re-filing by plaintiffs. In the fourth quarter of
2014, the Texas courts dismissed almost 3,000 claimants with
claims against us. We expect additional dismissals in 2015.
"Our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance
receivables are based on an actuarial study performed by a third
party, which is updated every three years. During the third
quarter of 2012, we completed an actuarial study of our asbestos
related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables,
which will be updated again in the third quarter of 2015. The
study is based on, among other things, the incidence and nature of
historical claims data through June 30, 2012, the incidence of
malignancy claims, the severity of indemnity payments for
malignancy and non-malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim
type, estimated future claim frequency, settlement values and
reserves, and expected average insurance recovery rates by claim
type. The study assumes liabilities through 2049. Overall, we
expect to recover approximately 48% of our future indemnity costs.
We have completed Coverage-In-Place-Agreements with most of our
larger insurance carriers.
"The ultimate liability and related insurance recovery for all
pending and anticipated future claims cannot be determined with
certainty due to the difficulty of forecasting the numerous
variables that can affect the amount of the liability and
insurance recovery. These variables include but are not limited
to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims; (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims; (iii)
changes in the nature of claims received; (iv) changes in the laws
applicable to these claims; and (v) financial viability of co-
defendants and insurers."
Cytec Industries Inc., is a global specialty materials and
Chemicals Company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling
value-added products. The Company's products serve a diverse range
of end markets, including aerospace and industrial materials,
mining and plastics. The Company operates in four segments:
Aerospace Materials, Industrial Materials, In Process Separation
and Additive Technologies. Its Aerospace Materials segment is a
global provider of technologically advanced materials for
aerospace markets. Its Industrial Materials product line includes
Structural materials and Process materials. The Company's In
Process Separation segment product line includes Mining chemicals
and Phosphines. Its Additive Technologies include Polymer
additives, Specialty additives and Formulated resins.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Units Had 3,600 Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's subsidiaries had 3,600 asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 27, 2015.
The Company states: "Our subsidiaries and numerous other companies
are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases
typically involve product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or
used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-
parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of
corporate defendants. While we have observed an increase in the
number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including
lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large
percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims
and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. Our
historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at
having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate,
settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of
litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent
to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the
future.
"As of June 27, 2015, there were approximately 3,600 claims
outstanding against our subsidiaries. This amount includes
adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted.
This amount is not adjusted for claims that identify incorrect
defendants or duplicate other actions. In addition, the amount
does not include certain claims pending against third parties for
which we have been provided an indemnification."
Pentair plc formerly Pentair Ltd., is global water, fluid, thermal
management, and equipment protection partner. The Company operates
in three segments: Water & Fluid Solutions, Valves & Controls, and
Equipment Protection & Thermal. Water & Fluid Solutions is a
provider of water management and fluid processing products and
solutions. Valves & Controls is the manufacturers of valves,
actuators and controls. Valves & Controls segment's products,
services and solutions address applications in the general
process, oil and gas, power generation and mining industries.
Equipment Protection & Thermal is a provider of products focused
on electronics and electronic equipment, and is a provider of
electric heat management solutions. On September 28, 2012,
Pentair, Inc. (Pentair) completed its merger (the Merger) with
Panthro Merger Sub, Inc. (Merger Sub). On September 28, 2012, the
Company merged with Tyco's Flow Control business.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Had $243.6-Mil. Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was
$243.6 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 27, 2015.
The Company states: "Periodically, we perform an analysis with the
assistance of outside counsel and other experts to update our
estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of
the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and
future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim
experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of
potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for
resolving claims also impacts these estimates.
"Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents
estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims
and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated
liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount
of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors,
including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the
solvency and creditworthiness of insurers.
"Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $243.6
million and $249.1 million as of June 27, 2015, and December 31,
2014, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current
liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for
pending and future claims and related defense costs. Our estimated
receivable for insurance recoveries was $112.4 million and $115.8
million as of June 27, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively,
and was recorded in Other non-current assets in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.
"The amounts recorded by us for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets are based on our strategies for resolving
our asbestos claims and currently available information as well as
estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include
the number and type of new claims filed each year, the average
cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues
with insurance carriers, the amounts of insurance and the related
solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers, and the
indemnifications we have provided to and received from third
parties. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the latter portion of the
projection period. Other factors that may affect our liability and
cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal
tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among
subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance
recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those
recorded if assumptions used in our calculations vary
significantly from actual results."
Pentair plc formerly Pentair Ltd., is global water, fluid, thermal
management, and equipment protection partner. The Company operates
in three segments: Water & Fluid Solutions, Valves & Controls, and
Equipment Protection & Thermal. Water & Fluid Solutions is a
provider of water management and fluid processing products and
solutions. Valves & Controls is the manufacturers of valves,
actuators and controls. Valves & Controls segment's products,
services and solutions address applications in the general
process, oil and gas, power generation and mining industries.
Equipment Protection & Thermal is a provider of products focused
on electronics and electronic equipment, and is a provider of
electric heat management solutions. On September 28, 2012,
Pentair, Inc. (Pentair) completed its merger (the Merger) with
Panthro Merger Sub, Inc. (Merger Sub). On September 28, 2012, the
Company merged with Tyco's Flow Control business.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.73-Bil. Fibro Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., had $1.73 billion net asbestos
reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.
The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance
industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that
have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond
the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has
received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos
claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others
seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim
filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking
asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition to
contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy
proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses
by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by
significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by
insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement
demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but
remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those
who allege very serious injury and who can present credible
medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial
settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any
credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates
delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims
involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense
payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.
The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult
to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both
issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's
favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's
coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be
materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-
occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims
against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a
moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it
remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.
Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable
to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.
In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking
damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries.
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) had previously entered
into settlement agreements in connection with a number of these
direct action claims (Direct Action Settlements). The Company had
been involved in litigation concerning whether all of the
conditions of the Direct Action Settlements had been satisfied. On
July 22, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit ruled that all of the conditions of the Direct Action
Settlements had been satisfied. On January 15, 2015, the
bankruptcy court entered an order directing the Company to pay
$579 million to the plaintiffs, comprised of the $502 million
settlement amounts, plus pre- and post-judgment interest of $77
million, and the Company has made that payment. It is possible
that the filing of other direct actions against insurers,
including the Company, could be made in the future. It is
difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including
whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these actions
against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability. The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and
has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions.
The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office, Field Office and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-
by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in
any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or
indemnity payment.
Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.
Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first six months
of 2015 were $623 million, compared with $100 million in the same
period of 2014. Net payments in the first six months of 2015
included the payment of the $502 million settlement amounts
related to the Settlement of Asbestos Direct Action. Net asbestos
reserves were $1.73 billion at June 30, 2015, compared with $2.25
billion at June 30, 2014.
The Travelers Companies, Inc., is a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range of
commercial and personal property and casualty insurance products
and services to businesses, Government units, associations and
individuals.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had 22,003 Unresolved Fibro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 22,003 unresolved asbestos-related claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 26, 2015.
Colfax Corporation (Colfax) is a global industrial manufacturing
and engineering company. The Company is engaged in provides gas-
and fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and
services to commercial and governmental customers around the world
under the Howden, ESAB and Colfax Fluid Handling brand names. The
Company's reportable segments are gas- and fluid handling and
fabrication technology segments. The gas- and fluid handling
segment is engaged design, manufacture, install and maintain gas-
and fluid-handling products for use in a range of markets,
including power generation, oil, gas and petrochemical, mining,
marine and general industrial. Its fabrication technology
formulates, develops, manufactures and supplies consumable
products and equipment for use in the cutting and joining of
steels, aluminum and other metals and metal alloys.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has $52.26-Mil. Fibro Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had $52.26 million accrued asbestos-related
liability, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 26, 2015.
Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a
number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as
new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving
each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method
in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance
policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various
policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.
Various aspects of the final judgments of the Delaware Court of
Chancery and Superior Court for a specific subsidiary have been
appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, and an oral argument
before the Delaware Supreme Court was held on May 27, 2015. The
Delaware Supreme Court has certified certain questions of law to
the New York Court of Appeals, New York's highest appellate court,
including the question of what allocation methodology should be
applied to the subsidiary's policies. In the event that the New
York court were to apply a methodology other than "all sums", the
subsidiary's future expected recovery would likely be reduced by
amounts that we estimate could range from minimal to $30 million.
In the litigation involving another subsidiary, the New Jersey
Supreme Court refused to grant certification of the appeals,
effectively ending the matter. This will have no material impact
on the Company's financial condition or results of operations.
Colfax Corporation (Colfax) is a global industrial manufacturing
and engineering company. The Company is engaged in provides gas-
and fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and
services to commercial and governmental customers around the world
under the Howden, ESAB and Colfax Fluid Handling brand names. The
Company's reportable segments are gas- and fluid handling and
fabrication technology segments. The gas- and fluid handling
segment is engaged design, manufacture, install and maintain gas-
and fluid-handling products for use in a range of markets,
including power generation, oil, gas and petrochemical, mining,
marine and general industrial. Its fabrication technology
formulates, develops, manufactures and supplies consumable
products and equipment for use in the cutting and joining of
steels, aluminum and other metals and metal alloys.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 PI Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation's consolidated wholly-owned limited
liability company, Dana Companies, LLC, had 25,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.
The Company states: "As part of our reorganization in 2008, assets
and liabilities associated with personal injury asbestos claims
were retained in Dana Corporation which was then merged into Dana
Companies, LLC (DCLLC), a consolidated wholly-owned limited
liability company. The assets of DCLLC include insurance rights
relating to coverage against these liabilities, marketable
securities and other assets which are considered sufficient to
satisfy its liabilities. DCLLC had approximately 25,000 active
pending asbestos personal injury liability claims at both June 30,
2015 and December 31, 2014."
Dana Holding Corporation (Dana Holding) is a global provider of
technology driveline, sealing and thermal-management products. The
Company's driveline products include axles, driveshaft and
transmissions. The Company operates in four business segments:
Light Vehicle, Commercial Vehicle, Off-Highway and Power
Technologies. Under Light Vehicle segment, the Company provides
front and rear axles, driveshafts, differentials, torque couplings
and modular assemblies. Under Commercial Vehicle segment, the
Company offers axles, driveshafts, steering shafts, suspensions
and tire management systems. Under Off-Highway segment, the
Company's products include axles, driveshafts and end-fittings,
transmissions, torque converters and electronic controls. Under
Power Technologies segment, the Company offers gaskets, cover
modules, heat shields, engine sealing systems, cooling and heat
transfer products.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Accrues $80MM for Fibro Defense
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation accrued $80 million for indemnity and
defense costs for settled, pending and future claims, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.
DCLLC had accrued $80 million for indemnity and defense costs for
settled, pending and future claims at June 30, 2015, compared to
$81 million at December 31, 2014. A fifteen-year time horizon was
used to estimate the value of this liability.
Dana Holding Corporation (Dana Holding) is a global provider of
technology driveline, sealing and thermal-management products. The
Company's driveline products include axles, driveshaft and
transmissions. The Company operates in four business segments:
Light Vehicle, Commercial Vehicle, Off-Highway and Power
Technologies. Under Light Vehicle segment, the Company provides
front and rear axles, driveshafts, differentials, torque couplings
and modular assemblies. Under Commercial Vehicle segment, the
Company offers axles, driveshafts, steering shafts, suspensions
and tire management systems. Under Off-Highway segment, the
Company's products include axles, driveshafts and end-fittings,
transmissions, torque converters and electronic controls. Under
Power Technologies segment, the Company offers gaskets, cover
modules, heat shields, engine sealing systems, cooling and heat
transfer products.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DCLLC Records $52-Mil. Insurance Recovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation reported that its consolidated wholly-
owned limited liability company, Dana Companies, LLC (DCLLC),
recorded $52 million as an asset for probable recovery from
insurers for the pending and projected asbestos personal injury
liability claims at June 30, 2015, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.
At June 30, 2015, DCLLC had recorded $52 million as an asset for
probable recovery from insurers for the pending and projected
asbestos personal injury liability claims, unchanged from the $52
million recorded at December 31, 2014. The recorded asset
represents our assessment of the capacity of our current insurance
agreements to provide for the payment of anticipated defense and
indemnity costs for pending claims and projected future demands.
The recognition of these recoveries is based on our assessment of
our right to recover under the respective contracts and on the
financial strength of the insurers. DCLLC has coverage agreements
in place with insurers confirming substantially all of the related
coverage and payments are being received on a timely basis. The
financial strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually
with the assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not
represent the limits of the insurance coverage, but rather the
amount DCLLC would expect to recover if the accrued indemnity and
defense costs were paid in full.
DCLLC continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in the
normal course of business, is separately managed and has an
independent board member. The independent board member is required
to approve certain transactions including dividends or other
transfers of $1 million or more of value to Dana. Dana Holding
Corporation has no obligation to increase its investment in or
otherwise support DCLLC.
Dana Holding Corporation (Dana Holding) is a global provider of
technology driveline, sealing and thermal-management products. The
Company's driveline products include axles, driveshaft and
transmissions. The Company operates in four business segments:
Light Vehicle, Commercial Vehicle, Off-Highway and Power
Technologies. Under Light Vehicle segment, the Company provides
front and rear axles, driveshafts, differentials, torque couplings
and modular assemblies. Under Commercial Vehicle segment, the
Company offers axles, driveshafts, steering shafts, suspensions
and tire management systems. Under Off-Highway segment, the
Company's products include axles, driveshafts and end-fittings,
transmissions, torque converters and electronic controls. Under
Power Technologies segment, the Company offers gaskets, cover
modules, heat shields, engine sealing systems, cooling and heat
transfer products.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $123-Mil. Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related liability was $123
million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2015.
The Company states: "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits in
which current and former employees and other parties allege
exposure to asbestos. We assess our potential liability using a
statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related
claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future
defense and processing costs. The liability for resolving both
asserted and unasserted claims was based on the following
assumptions:
* The ratio of future claims by alleged disease would be
consistent with historical averages adjusted for inflation.
* The number of claims filed against us will decline each
year.
* The average settlement values for asserted and unasserted
claims will be equivalent to historical averages.
* The percentage of claims dismissed in the future will be
equivalent to historical averages.
"Our liability for asbestos-related claims is not discounted to
present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of
future payments. Approximately 21% of the recorded liability
related to asserted claims and approximately 79% related to
unasserted claims at June 30, 2015.
"For the six-months ended June 30, 2015, the Company's asbestos-
related liability was $123 million.
"We have insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to
resolve asbestos-related claims, and we have recognized an asset
for estimated insurance recoveries at June 30, 2015, and December
31, 2014.
"We believe that our estimates of liability for asbestos-related
claims and insurance recoveries are reasonable and probable. The
amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and related
insurance recoveries were based on currently known facts. However,
future events, such as the number of new claims filed each year,
average settlement costs, and insurance coverage issues, could
cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to be higher or
lower than the projected amounts. Estimates also may vary in the
future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of asbestos
litigation materially change; federal and state laws governing
asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability or amount
of compensation of claimants; and there are material changes with
respect to payments made to claimants by other defendants."
Union Pacific Corporation (UPC) operates through its principal
operating subsidiary, Union Pacific Railroad. Union Pacific
Railroad (UPRR) links 23 states in the western two-thirds of the
country by rail, providing a critical link in the global supply
chain. UPRR's business mix includes Agricultural Products,
Automotive, Chemicals, Coal, Industrial Products and Intermodal.
UPRR, along with its subsidiaries and rail affiliates, operates
through one reportable operating segment. UPRR is a Class I
railroad operates in the United States. UPRR have 31,838 route
miles, linking Pacific Coast and Gulf Coast ports with the Midwest
and eastern United States gateways and providing several corridors
to key Mexican gateways.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CB&I Has 5,800 Fibro Plaintiffs at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving approximately
5,800 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015.
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 June 30, 2015, we have been named a
defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving
approximately 5,800 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately
1,700 claims were pending and 4,100 have been closed through
dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and
through June 30, 2015, 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 June 30, 2015, we had approximately $5,100 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. (CB&I) is an energy
infrastructure focused company and a provider of government
services. The Company operates in four segments: Engineering,
Construction and Maintenance; Fabrication Services; Technology,
and Government Solutions. The Engineering, Construction and
Maintenance segment offers engineering, procurement, and
construction for energy infrastructure facilities, as well as
integrated maintenance services. The Fabrication Services segment
provides fabrication of piping systems, process and nuclear
modules, and fabrication and erection of storage tanks and
pressure vessels. The Technology segment offers licensed process
technologies, catalysts, specialized equipment, and engineered
products. The Government Solutions segment undertakes programs and
projects, including design-build infrastructure projects for
federal, state, and local governments, as well as offers
environmental services for government and private sector
customers.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Testimony Partially OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, in an order and reasons dated Aug.
4, 2015, granted in part and denied in part the motion to exclude
certain testimony of Dr. Stephen Terry Kraus filed by defendants
Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding, Inc., et al., in the asbestos-
related lawsuit captioned SALLY GROS VEDROS, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN
SHIPBUILDING, INC., ET AL., Section: "J"(4), CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-
1198 (E.D. La.).
A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/qRUb72from Leagle.com.
Sally Gros Vedros, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.
Lori Vedros Kravet, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.
Valerie Vedros White, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.
Gerald Vedros, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.
Albert Bossier, Jr., Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff, Cross
Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Gordon Peter
Wilson, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Michael Scott Minyard,
Barfield & Associates & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP.
Onebeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe,
APLC & Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz &
Duhe, APLC.
American Employers Insurance Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant,
represented by Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe,
APLC, Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Gordon Peter
Wilson, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Samuel Milton Rosamond, III,
Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.
American Motorists Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell
& Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP,
Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A.
Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue
Williams, LLP & Gordon Peter Wilson, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.
Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, Cross Claimant, Cross
Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael A. Olsen, Mayer Brown, LLP,
Alexandra Lamothe, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, Lee Blanton Ziffer, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC, Robert Edward Guidry, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner &
Richeson, LLC & Sophia L. Lauricella, Thompson, Coe, Cousins &
Irons, LLP.
CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot
L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..
Eagle, Inc., Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth
Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.
General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,
Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..
Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.
Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita
Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Brian C. Bossier, Blue
Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP &
David Leroy Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.
Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP.
Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Michael Scott
Minyard, Barfield & Associates & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP.
Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Tracy C. Rotharmel, Liskow & Lewis.
J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen
Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP, David Leroy Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP,
Michael Scott Minyard, Barfield & Associates & Richard Marshall
Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Jonathan Paul Hilbun, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Louis
Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.
McCarty Corporation, Defendant, Cross Claimant, represented by
Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas
Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.
Maryland Casualty Company, Defendant, Cross Defendant, represented
by Edward T. Hayes, Leake & Andersson, LLP, Adam D Whitworth,
Leake & Andersson, LLP & Marc E. Devenport, Leake & Andersson,
LLP.
Continental Insurance Co, Defendant, represented by Glenn Gill
Goodier, Jones Walker, Hansford P. Wogan, Jones Walker, William C.
Baldwin, Jones Walker & William P. Wynne, Jones Walker.
Reilly-Benton, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Diane Sweezer Davis,
Funderburk Finderburk Courtois, LLP, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins,
Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jennifer D. Zajac, Willingham
Fultz & Cougill & Kenneth R. Royer, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill,
LLP.
Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale, Jevan Smoot Fleming, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale.
Uniroyal Inc, Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes,
Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Jason K. Elam,
Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $32MM Punitive Damages Award in PI Suit Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, in a decision dated Aug. 5, 2015, reversed the award of
punitive damages in the amount of $32.5 million to the estate of
Secundino Medina, and affirmed the remainder of the judgment,
which includes $60,000 in economic damages to the Medina's estate
and $130,455 to each of Medina's daughters; $2.0 million in
noneconomic losses for each of Medina's daughters.
The case is PATRICIA SOTO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
BORGWARNER MORSE TEC INC., Defendant and Appellant, NO. B252995
(Cal. App.).
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/SGIAt6from Leagle.com.
The Arkin Law Firm, Sharon J. Arkin; Farrise Firm, Simona A.
Farrise, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Selman Breitman, Jerry C. Popovich ; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com --
Joshua S. Lipshutz, Esq. -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- and Joseph
C. Hansen, Esq. -- jhansen@gibsondunn.com -- for Defendant and
Appellant.
Fred J. Hiestand, Civil Justice Association of California as
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Treadwell's Bid to Dismiss "Koulermos" Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision dated Aug. 13, 2015, denied defendant Treadwell
Corporation' summary judgment motion in the asbestos-related
lawsuit filed by Micheal Koulermos to the extent that the motion
seeks dismissal of any cross-claims against it.
The case is captioned IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION
relating to MICHAEL KOULERMOS and MARIAN KOULERMOS, Plaintiffs, v.
A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190406/2014, SEQ. NO. 004 (N.Y. Sup.).
A full-text copy of Judge Moulton's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/FcX4n3from Leagle.com.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro-Related Deaths Above Average in Maine
------------------------------------------------------------
WCSH6.com reported that a new study found that in Maine the number
of asbestos-related deaths were higher than the national average.
Asbestos was a common material used in just about everything from
flooring to plastering, and was even used in oven mitts at one
point. Then 50 years ago, it was determined that it caused lung
cancer and other serious illnesses. The exact number of deaths
related to asbestos is unknown.
The study by the Environmental Working Group Action Fund found
between 1999 and 2013, more than 2,000 people died due to
asbestos-related causes in Maine. When researchers looked at each
county their found York and Cumberland had the highest number of
cases.
According to the EWG Action Fund:
-- York County: 300
-- Cumberland County: 264
-- Sagadahoc County: 202
-- Kennebec County: 195
-- Androscoggin County: 181
Bob Rickett with Abatement Professionals of Westbrook has spent
the last 30 years removing asbestos and lead paint from homes and
buildings around the state.
"It is not like a fire where if you put your hand over a fire it
burns you. This is something that exposure over time," said
Rickett.
He points to Maine's old housing stock and the fact that asbestos
was used in more than 2,000 products as the reason behind the
study's findings.
"It is going to take a long time to get rid of it. It isn't
something that is going to happen overnight," he said.
According to Rickett, some homes still have the asbestos sidings
or even an asbestos roof, which was used because it supposedly
lasts longer. Even as he works to remove the deadly material, he
knows the damage is done. He experiences it in his own home, his
father who spent years plastering in and around the state, now
suffers from asbestosis.
"It is a serious issue, and I deal with it now but I am also very
sad that my father is a victim or is going to be a victim of this.
And there is nothing they can do to fix it or correct it,"
explained Rickett.
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection is involved with
almost every project where asbestos is removed.
Rickett said to be safe, if you are in a home or building built
before 1980, assume asbestos is there unless a test proves
otherwise.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exec Sentenced for Exposing Children in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merced Sun-Star reported that the third and final defendant
convicted of exposing Merced County, California high school
students to asbestos was sentenced to serve time in federal
prison.
Joseph Cuellar was ordered to serve 44 months in state prison and
22 months in federal prison. The terms will be served
concurrently, making Cuellar eligible for parole in less than two
years, prosecutors from the Merced County District Attorney's
Office said.
Cuellar, Patrick Bowman and Rudy Buendia III were executives of a
now-defunct nonprofit, Firm Build. The company contracted with the
Merced County Office of Education to provide job training to high
school students. Bowman was Firm Build's president, Cuellar was
its administrative manager, and Buendia was its construction
project site manager.
Prosecutors said Bowman, Buendia and Cuellar cut corners on a
renovation project, intentionally using students in September 2005
to March 2006 to remove the cancer-causing substance at Castle
Commerce Center's Automotive Training Center.
"It's been a long and difficult road to justice," said Walter
Wall, Merced County deputy district attorney. "I'm glad to see it
finally come to an end and to them receive some justice."
During a federal court hearing in 2013, many of the students, who
are now in their mid-20s, testified their clothes were covered in
dust while removing the materials.
Some said the debris from breaking up the material caused a
foglike cloud inside the building, and others said the dust
entered their noses and mouths. Some of the former students have
complained of suffering from frequent nose bleeds, chest pains and
other issues.
In addition to the federal case, the trio in 2013 also pleaded no
contest in Merced County Superior Court to state charges of
treating, handling or disposing of asbestos in a manner that
caused an unreasonable risk of serious injury to students, with
reckless disregard for their safety. Under the terms of their plea
deals, the time they spend in federal prison will cover the
convictions in both state and federal court. They have also been
ordered to pay a total of $1.8 million to dozens of victims who
were exposed to asbestos while working for the group.
Bowman and Buendia began their prison sentences last year. Cuellar
was ordered to surrender to the U.S. Marshal's Office to begin his
sentence, prosecutors said.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Atty Raises Concerns About NJ Locomotive
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Malinconico, writing for Paterson Press, reported that an
attorney who has handled asbestos-related litigation for more than
three decades says he is concerned that one of the two locomotives
outside the Paterson Museum, New Jersey, may contain the disease-
causing mineral.
The lawyer, Jon Gelman, said he was photographing the locomotive
during a recent visit to the museum when he spotted whitish-grey
fibers that he said he believes to be asbestos. Gelman said it was
common for steam locomotives of that vintage to have asbestos as
part of the insulation around the boilers.
About 20 years ago, the city spent $22,000 to have asbestos
removed from the larger of the two locomotives at the site, said
the museum's director, Giacomo Destefano. "We took care of that
right away," said Destefano.
But officials said they are not sure whether the smaller
locomotive ever was evaluated for asbestos. The smaller locomotive
is the one on which Gelman said he saw the suspicious fibers. But
the city only owns the larger of the two, Destefano said. The
other one is owned by the Great Falls Preservation and Development
Corporation, a private group that rents space at the museum, he
said.
After Paterson Press inquired about the asbestos earlier in early
June, Destefano said he sent the Great Falls development a letter
about the situation. Great Falls development did not respond to
phone messages left by Paterson Press.
Officials at City Hall said it was important to note that there's
been no determination that the locomotive contains asbestos. But
Gelman said the city ought to cordon off the smaller locomotive
until tests are done to determine whether the equipment had any
toxic material.
The locomotives stand near the museum's parking lot and are easily
accessible to anyone who wants to climb aboard and explore them.
"I can't see kids being exposed like this," said Gelman, whose
offices are in Wayne. "It's unconscionable."
Gelman acknowledged that he cannot say for certain that the
material near the locomotive's boiler is asbestos. "Of course, it
would have to be tested," he said.
Gelman initially reached out to the media with his concerns
instead of contacting museum officials directly.
"I figured they wouldn't take any action and would never tell the
people who might have been exposed," he said.
Now, the lawyer said, he would alert local health officials.
Asbestos generally poses the most danger to people exposed to its
fibers in confined spaces, like factories or mines, for prolonged
periods of time. But Gelman said asbestos on the locomotive would
pose a threat even though it is in open air and visitors only
spend a short time around it.
"All you need is to inhale one fiber and years later you can get
sick from it," he said.
Mayor Jose "Jose" Torres and Paterson Law Director Domenick
Stampone said it was not clear to what degree -- if at all -- the
city was responsible for a privately-owned locomotive on
municipally-owned property.
"Obviously, ownership is usually nine-tenths of the law," Torres
said.
Gelman said he was dismayed that officials were not blocking off
the locomotive, especially because of Paterson's legacy in
asbestos litigation. He said the former Union Asbestos and Rubber
Company (UNARCO) plant, which he said operated from 1943 to 1953
was the subject of a landmark asbestos study by prominent Paterson
physician Irving Selikoff.
Gelman said he represented many UNARCO plant workers who became
ill with asbestos-related diseases. "A lot of my clients died
from asbestos," he said.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Factors in Former Miner's Death
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Naylor, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that a former
miner who spent 30 years at the coal face died of an industrial
disease.
An inquest heard how 90-year-old Ernest Harvey worked at various
pits in Derbyshire and Leicestershire, England. But it was during
11 years as a carpenter and joiner on building sites that he was
exposed to asbestos, which a coroner concluded had contributed to
the lung cancer he developed after his retirement.
Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court was told that Mr Harvey
was admitted to the Royal Derby Hospital on Christmas Eve last
year with breathing difficulties and died there January 2.
A post mortem examination revealed scarring in his lungs due to
exposure to coal dust, a "massive" tumour and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease.
Dr Gurprit Atwal, who carried out the examination, said:
"Histology revealed there was also a heavy concentration of
asbestos bodies, four per 1cm squared, which would indicate a
heavy exposure to asbestos at some time during his lifetime.
"It could have been a high concentration over a short period or a
lesser concentration over a longer period, most likely decades
prior to death. I think that is a key factor (into Mr Harvey's
death)."
Dr Atwal gave a cause of death as bronchial pneumonia due to the
cancer tumour in the lung.
Dr Robert Hunter, senior coroner for Derbyshire, said the father-
of-five, of The Close, Albert Village, Swadlincote, had worked at
various mines between 1939 and 1982, when he retired.
He was also in the army from 1946 to 1947 and he worked as a
joiner and carpenter on various building sites between 1964 and
1975.
One of Mr Harvey's daughters told the court that her father had
previously been a smoker but had stopped 50 years ago and that
prior to the final 12 months before he died he was "an active
person with a good quality of life."
Dr Hunter reached a conclusion that Mr Harvey died due to an
industrial disease.
He said: "Dr Atwal has said that one of the main causes of lung
cancer is smoking, but after 10 years of stopping the risk of
dying from the disease is the same as someone who has never smoked
before.
"As Mr Harvey stopped smoking 50 years ago his risk of developing
lung cancer due to him previously being a smoker is negligible.
"But in reaching a conclusion of industrial disease I do not have
to satisfy myself that asbestos exposure was the sole cause of the
lung cancer, just one of them. It is clear that during his time
working on building sites he would have been exposed to asbestos
in high levels."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Reaches Defense Verdict for Lockheed
----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Missouri jury has reached
a defense verdict in favor of Lockheed Martin Corp., rejecting
claims that the aircraft manufacturer was liable for a decedent's
mesothelioma, which was allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos-
containing ovens contained in airplanes on which the decedent
worked.
The Missouri Circuit Court for Clay County jury reached the
verdict on June 22 after a six-day trial, allocating 0 percent
liability to the defendant. Judge Janet Sutton presided over the
trial, which ended after two hours of jury deliberations.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gran Exposed to Fibro by Washing Overalls
----------------------------------------------------------
Allison Coggan, writing for Hull Daily Mail, reported that a woman
dying of cancer believes washing her husband's work overalls
exposed her to deadly asbestos.
Gwen Gouland, 78, developed a persistent cough and flu-like
symptoms in November and was sent for tests.
However, doctors broke the news she was suffering from
mesothelioma, a terminal cancer.
Mrs Gouland, of Gilberdyke, England, thinks she was exposed to the
dust throughout the 1960s and 1970s while washing her father Dunc
Parkin and her husband Norman's overalls.
She said: "My husband worked as a turner and he used to come home
at least once a week with two sets of overalls for me to clean.
"They were always incredibly dirty and dusty -- I used to joke
with him they could stand up on their own.
"I would take them outside and hit them against the side of the
wall to help get all the dirt and dust from them. Clouds of dirt
and dust used to fill the air."
When her mother became ill, she used to wash overalls belonging to
her father, who worked for the same firm as her husband.
Mrs Gouland has four children, six grandchildren and one great-
grandchild and said her diagnosis has stunned her family. She
said: "I become tired and breathless from simple tasks. I am not
having chemotherapy at the moment but have been referred for
palliative care.
"My family and I have found my diagnosis very difficult to come to
terms with, especially as it has all happened so suddenly."
Mrs Gouland's husband worked in the tool room at Hawker Siddeley,
now run by BAE Global Systems in Brough, in the 1960s and 1970s
until he left in the 1990s. Her father worked in the maintenance
team in the 1960s until he left in 1974. Both men have since died.
'Help Gwen get justice'
LEGAL firm Irwin Mitchell is investigating Mrs Gouland's exposure
to asbestos.
Specialist lawyer Ian Toft said: "We would urge her husband and
father's former workmates to come forward with the information we
need to secure justice for Gwen."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 1,300+ Claims Filed in Akron Fibro Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that more than 1,300 damage claims
were filed in a northeast Ohio court on behalf of the heirs of
Akron-area rubber and auto workers who died or developed serious
illnesses from exposure to asbestos.
The claims in Summit County Probate Court range from $2,100 to
$23,000 depending upon the severity of medical diagnoses.
A fund totaling $80 million was set up in 2004 after insurer
Travelers Cos. reached a settlement with attorneys representing
tens of thousands of U.S. rubber workers, boilermakers and other
laborers who had filed asbestos-related claims from as far back as
the 1980s, The Akron Beacon Journal reported.
The court appointed an independent administrator to begin
finalizing paperwork that will go to the special claims company
handling the payout fund.
A lengthy series of appeals delayed payments until the 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court in New York, where claims had been consolidated,
ordered Travelers to the damages.
Travelers insured Johns Manville Corp. of Denver, the largest U.S.
manufacturer of asbestos-containing products for more than half a
century.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Spent GBP50,000 for Fibro Defense
----------------------------------------------------------
Zoie O'Brien, writing for Guardian, reported that the legal bill
paid by the council of Waltham Forest, England, during its
prosecution for failing to protect its staff from deadly asbestos
cost the taxpayer GBP50,500, it has emerged.
The authority was fined GBP66,000 in May after pleading guilty to
four charges relating to asbestos in the basement of the Forest
Road town hall. Despite warnings dating back to 2002 the council
failed to act, leaving staff and visitors exposed to the cancer-
causing substance. The authority was also ordered to pay court
costs of GBP16,000 to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), which
brought the prosecution.
A Freedom of Information Act disclosure has now revealed the
council paid GBP50,500 to hire QC Mr Richard Matthews to represent
it in court.
Dr Nick Tiratsoo and Trevor Claver submitted the original freedom
of information request which eventually led to the discovery of
the asbestos.
They were told documents requested could not be disclosed because
they were contaminated by the deadly substance.
Mr Tiratsoo said he believes the overall legal costs incurred by
the council would have been higher than the disclosed figure.
He said: "I bet the true figure is a lot higher, but whatever the
case, this is yet another appalling waste of public money.
"The council was banged to rights, and pleaded guilty on all
counts.
"Why then did it need to employ a barrister who is apparently
'widely regarded as the foremost regulatory and corporate defence
Queen's Counsel in England and Wales'?
Share article
"Talk about throwing good money after bad."
It was revealed in court that the council spent more than
GBP300,000 repairing the basement and clearing the asbestos.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man's Death Caused by Exposure to RAF Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------
Sleaford Target reported that a man died from a type of cancer
that was caused by being exposed to asbestos while serving in the
RAF an inquest has heard.
Frank Tate, of Spring Lane, Horbling, England, was exposed to
asbestos when it was being sprayed on to aircraft during his
service at either North Luffenham between 1965 and 1966 or
Cottesmore between 1967 and 1974.
An inquest into the death of the 67-year-old heard how Mr Tate had
contracted a cough and clinical research showed he had a tumour on
the right side of his lung which led to a diagnosis of epithelioid
mesothelioma, an asbestos-related cancer.
A letter written by Mr Tate before his death read at the inquest
said that he and others were fascinated by the process as the
watched on at the aircraft being sprayed.
His letter said: "We were exposed to fibres and asbestos dust. All
storage bins had dust on them and in them and we had to empty the
bins. We were not told of the dangers of asbestos."
Mr Tate underwent clinical trials after being diagnosed which
involved chemotherapy.
Professor Robert Forrest, coroner for South Lincolnshire, said:
"Epithelioid mesothelioma is almost always caused by exposure to
asbestos.
"Mr Tate was asked if he had been exposed to asbestos and he said
he had. He saw a practitioner on December 14, 2013 and then
attended an appointment at Grantham Hospital in January, 2014 and
fluid was drained from his lung. This was consistent with the
diagnosis of mesothelioma.
"During the course of employment he was exposed to asbestos and
was diagnosed with epithelioid mesothelioma and this led to his
death at his home address."
Retired systems manager Mr Tate left the RAF in the 70s and worked
for Geest in Spalding and then Future Key Products.
The coroner ruled Mr Tate's death was due to industrial disease.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.Va. High Ct. Reaffirms Diagnoses Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Moses and James J. A. Mulhall of Steptoe & Johnson PLLC,
in an article for The National Law Review, said the West Virginia
Supreme Court has recently held that a diagnosis of asbestosis, or
evidence of asbestos bodies in the lungs, must be found before a
diagnosis of asbestos-related lung cancer can be made in a
workers' compensation claim. In a pair of opinions issued on May
7, 2015, the Court reaffirmed that holding.
Both opinions revisited the issue of asbestos-related lung cancer
diagnoses. Both claimants appealed the Board of Review's
affirmation of the Workers' Compensation Office of Judges' denial
of workers' compensation benefits based on the claimants' lung
cancer diagnoses. Both claimants had evidence of a prior smoking
history, neither claimant had pleural plaques or parenchymal
changes, and asbestos bodies were not found in either claimant's
lung tissue samples.
On review, the Court affirmed the Board of Review's affirmation of
the denial of the claims, holding that claimants cannot receive
compensation for asbestos-related lung cancer without a diagnosis
of asbestosis or evidence of asbestos bodies in the claimant's
lungs. The Court held that in the absence of occupational
pneumoconiosis and asbestosis, lung cancer cannot be causally
attributed to occupational exposure.
These two decisions reinforce concrete precedent regarding the
diagnosis of asbestos-related lung cancer. For example, the Court
has previously affirmed benefit denials due to an absence of a
diagnosis of asbestosis noting that the claimant's lung cancer
"was a result of his significant smoking history and not
materially contributed to by occupational pneumoconiosis and/or
asbestos exposure." Further, the Court previously affirmed a
denial of benefits despite a claimant's prior award of 10%
disability for occupational pneumoconiosis because the claimant
"did not have asbestosis or physical evidence of asbestos
exposure."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Suit Targets Dozens of Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacksonville Journal-Courier reported that a resident from
Merritt, Illinois, is suing more than 50 companies, corporations
and businesses he claims played a role over the past 65 years in
his development of an asbestos-related illness.
Melvin Grady filed the lawsuit in Morgan County court through
attorneys with Wylder Corwin Kelly of Bloomington, a firm that
regularly represents clients in Illinois who have been injured by
exposure to asbestos.
Grady, 87, claims in the lawsuit that exposure to asbestos during
his employment as a farmer and farm equipment mechanic in the
1950s and 1960s, as a utility man at Wood River Power Station in
Alton in the early 1950s, as an automobile repairman in the early
and mid-1960s, and as a service technician for GTE in the late
1960s caused him to develop asbestosis. He said he was routinely
exposed to asbestos through his contact with products that
contained asbestos and work sites where asbestos was present.
Asbestosis is a chronic lung disease caused by inhalation of
asbestos fibers. Grady was diagnosed with asbestosis in November
2013.
Grady claims the companies and businesses named in the lawsuit
knew of the dangers of exposure to asbestos, but failed to warn
him -- as a consumer of asbestos-containing products or as an
employee with a group that was frequently invited to do work at
locations where asbestos was present -- of the dangers.
Grady's wife, Louise, is also named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
The Gradys are seeking at least $50,000.
Assertions made in a lawsuit present only one side of a case.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Concerns Keep Tulsa Airport Tower Closed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newson6.com reported that asbestos concerns prompted the Federal
Aviation Administration to send a portable control tower to Tulsa
International Airport. It was to be fully operational sometime
July 3.
Until then, air traffic controllers worked from the ground floor
of the current tower. Because of that they're only able to operate
one runway.
The trouble at the tower started June 24 when a contractor using a
solvent to remove tiles created fumes that forced workers to
abandon the top floor.
Environmental experts said the fumes are not hazardous, but the
airport is waiting for air sample tests before giving the all
clear.
The airport did release a statement June 25 regarding the air
quality, saying:
"Environmental consultants analyzing the air quality of Tulsa
International Airport's air traffic control tower have determined
that the facility's air quality tests below detection limits for
any hazardous particles. The consultant gathered 10 total samples,
five in the tower cab and five in the tower break room.
The tests were conducted during the early morning hours following
a request from the air traffic controllers union for assurance
that the air quality in the tower was safe for controllers.
Controllers were evacuated from the tower because of fumes
generated from a cleaning solvent used by a contractor removing
floor tiles.
Aircraft operations have continued at TUL throughout the day with
minimal disruption. Airport officials are now waiting on the FAA
and NATCA to determine when the upper level of the control tower
will resume operation."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Court Commanded to Nix $2.6MM Verdict
------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for The Southeast Texas Record, reported that
the Texas Supreme recently commanded a Dallas District Court to
wipe a $2.64 million asbestos verdict against Dow Chemical.
In January, justices heard oral arguments in the case of Magdalena
Abutahoun et al v. Dow Chemical and were tasked to decide whether
Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Code prevents Dow Chemical's alleged
liability.
Chapter 95 states a property owner is not liable for injury,
death, or property damage to a contractor for failure to provide a
safe workplace, unless the property owner exercises or retains
some control or had actual knowledge of the danger and failed to
adequately warn.
The issue the Supreme Court had to decide was a property owner's
liability for independent contractors, opining on May 8 that an
appellate court was right to hold plain meaning of the text of
Chapter 95 does not preclude its applicability where a claim is
based upon negligent actions of the premises owner.
"The sole issue in this appeal is whether Chapter 95 applies to an
independent contractor's negligence claims against a property
owner when the claims are based on injuries arising out of the
property owner's negligent activities and not the independent
contractor's own work," states the high court's opinion.
"Applying the plain meaning of the statute, we hold that Chapter
95 applies to all independent contractor claims for damages caused
by a property owner's negligence when the requirements
. . . are satisfied."
Justices affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, which reversed
the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in
Dow's favor.
However, court records show that on June 18 the Supreme Court had
to issue a mandate to the trial court, the 160th District Court of
Dallas County, to obey the ruling.
"Wherefore we command you to observe the order of our said Supreme
Court in this behalf, and in all things to have recognized,
obeyed, and executed," the mandate states.
The case stems from a suit brought by Robert Henderson, now
deceased.
Court records show that on June 11, 2010, Henderson, 68 at the
time of his death, filed suit in Dallas County District Court
against more than a dozen defendants, including Dow Chemical.
Henderson, an insulator helper contractor, alleged he was exposed
at Dow Chemical's Freeport facility from 1967-1968 while tearing
off asbestos insulation.
At trial, a jury found Dow Chemical was 30 percent at fault for
Henderson's asbestos-related cancer, levying a $9 million verdict.
On Aug. 16, 2011, the trial court entered a second amended final
judgment of $2.64 million.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals reviewed the award and
reversed the judgment, finding that Chapter 95 barred the
plaintiffs' claim based on Dow Chemical's alleged negligence as
the premise owner.
In their appellate brief, the plaintiffs contend that even though
Chapter 95 was enacted 18 years ago, the Texas Supreme Court has
never analyzed the scope of Chapter 95's applicability.
"Commentators on both sides of the bar have remarked on the need
for this Court's review and the increasing unlimited expansion of
the applicability of Chapter 95 by the courts of appeal," the
brief states.
Baron & Budd attorneys Denyse Clancy, John Langdoc and Christine
Tamer are representing the plaintiffs.
Dow is represented in part by Stephen Tipps, attorney for the
Houston law firm Baker Botts.
Supreme Court case No. 13-0175
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Parish Accused of Covering Up Fibro Danger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for Louisiana Record, reported that the
Parish of Jefferson is being sued by man who claims his lung
cancer is due to being exposed to asbestos while employed by the
Parish and construction companies.
C.J. Mayfield, and wife Dorothy Mayfield, filed suit against the
Parish of Jefferson in the 24th Judicial District Court on May 8.
Mayfield asserts he was employed by Jefferson Parish from 1950 to
1958, R.J. Lacoste Company from 1958 to 1974 and C.J. Claim
Construction Company Inc. from 1974 to 2005. The plaintiff claims
that while working for Jefferson Parish and while working on
projects on Jefferson Parish projects when working for R.J.
Lacoste Company and C.J. Claim Construction Company Inc. he
engaged in the installation and removal of underground water and
sewage pipes and worked with cement containing asbestos. Mayfield
alleges through the work he was exposed to asbestos dust and
fibers and in March 2015 was diagnosed with malignant squamous
cell carcinoma lung cancer which has been linked to asbestos
exposure. The plaintiff further contends the exposure to the
asbestos materials was particularly harmful to him because he is
an addicted smoker.
Mayfield claims that throughout his work with and for Jefferson
Parish he was never warned of the hazard of working with asbestos.
He further claims the defendant misrepresented and suppressed
information about the potential for disease caused by asbestos
exposure.
The defendant is accused of negligence.
An unspecified amount in damages is sought for physical pain and
suffering, mental pain and anguish, loss of income, medical
expenses and loss of enjoyment of life.
Mayfield is represented by Matthew G. Greig of New Orleans-based
Didrikson Law Firm.
The case has been assigned to Division F Judge Michael P. Mentz.
Case no. 749-511.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $5MM Verdict Hangs on Ga. High Court Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reported that
five years after he won a $10.5 million verdict, a man with a
fatal form of lung cancer called mesothelioma awaits a decision
from the Georgia Supreme Court on whether it will hear an appeal
brought by a manufacturing company where he worked that used
asbestos.
A $4 million portion of the verdict -- now over $5 million with
interest -- hangs in the balance, along with either reversal or
vindication of a South Georgia trial court judge.
The 2010 trial in Ware County Superior Court over claims by Roy
Knight and his wife took a month. The verdict went against three
defendants who either made or used asbestos. One of them, Scapa
Dryer Fabrics Inc. -- whose portion of the judgment was just over
$4 million -- appealed, claiming a long list of errors by Waycross
Circuit Judge Michael DeVane.
The judge took harsh criticism from Scapa's defense attorney, H.
Lane Young II of Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young. In a Daily
Report article after the verdict, Young called the jury
"uneducated, improperly charged by the court and hopelessly
confused." The veteran asbestos defense attorney described the
trial as the "most frustrating experience" of his career because
of the judge's inexperience with such complex litigation.
The criticism of the judge was unfair and unfounded, according to
Knight's attorney, Robert Buck of the Buck Law Firm in Atlanta,
who tried the case with Christian Hartley of Mount Pleasant, South
Carolina. Both are experienced asbestos plaintiffs attorneys.
"He showed immense patience with the entire process," Buck said of
the judge. He added that DeVane never once lost his judicial
temperament in a month of long days of testimony and evenings of
hearing opposing lawyers argue over what was to be presented to
the jury the next day.
By a 5-2 vote, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict
on March 30, backing up the judge's calls on 11 of Scapa's 13
claims of error, and saying the other two were harmless.
Scapa challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the scientific
reliability of an expert witness' testimony, the lack of a hearing
prior to the admission of that expert testimony, the jury's
failure to allocate fault to other nonparties submitted on the
verdict form, and some of the jury charges and DeVane's
evidentiary rulings.
Judge Christopher McFadden wrote for the majority that "there was
sufficient evidence to support the verdict, the expert witness'
testimony was scientifically reliable, a hearing as to the
admissibility of the testimony was not mandatory, the jury was not
required to allocate fault to others, and there has been no
showing of both harm and error as to any jury charge or
evidentiary rulings. Accordingly, we affirm."
Presiding Judge Anne Barnes, Presiding Judge Sara Doyle, Judge
Michael Boggs and Judge William Ray II joined McFadden.
Presiding Judge Gary Andrews dissented, joined by Judge Elizabeth
Branch. Andrews framed his concerns around the testimony of the
plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Jerrold Abraham, who said there is
no safe level of exposure to asbestos and that all exposures to
asbestos contribute to a diagnosis of mesothelioma.
"The Knights failed to produce reliable scientific testimony to
prove on the issue of specific causation that Mr. Knight's
exposure to asbestos at the Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc. plant was a
contributing cause of his mesothelioma," Andrews wrote. He also
asserted that "the trial court erred by admitting unreliable
expert testimony on the issue of specific causation." Andrews said
the judgment should be reversed and the case should be remanded
for a new trial.
Knight, who is 75 and increasingly weakened by the disease and
chemotherapy, may not be able to endure a new trial, according to
his attorney. "Most of my clients die before I can ever get their
case to trial," Buck said. He added that delay is a defense
strategy because the amount awarded to the family drops after the
plaintiff's death.
If the high court approves Scapa's request to review the Court of
Appeals' decision, arguments will likely revolve around the expert
testimony that formed the basis of Andrews' dissent.
In an interview, Young said Buck's expert dispensed "junk
science."
"It's absolutely dead wrong that there is no safe level of
exposure to asbestos," he said. "I think the issue is can you get
to the jury by saying all exposures contribute" to mesothelioma.
Buck responded that Young's scientific evidence is "fiction."
"If you look at real-world scientists, we cite 109 different
uncompensated leading scientists who all agree with Dr. Abraham."
They will have a chance to argue again if the high court decides
to hear the appeal. If the Supreme Court says no, "Then it's
over," Young said. The Court of Appeals decision -- and the
verdict reached in DeVane's court -- will stand.
The Supreme Court case is Scapa v. Knight, A14A1587.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Auckland Director Fined $25K for Fibro Site Work
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Day reported that the director of a building company has
been convicted and fined for working in an asbestos-ridden
construction site, after being warned not to.
Nihal Homes sole director Ranjit Singh was fined $25,000 at the
Auckland District Court, after being charged under the Health and
Safety in Employment Act. It was found that after Singh was
issued a prohibition notice to cease work on a Symonds St property
in central Auckland, he returned to the site with a contractor to
conduct work.
The court heard that a prohibition notice for the site was issued
by a WorkSafe inspector on March 14, 2014. The Auckland
Environmental Health team had tested the site and found it
contained asbestos.
Singh was at the site when the notice was issued, and it was
explained to him that work must cease.
Additionally, "he was advised of this on two more occasions",
WorkSafe said in a statement.
"The prohibition notice was clearly visible. It was attached to a
fence around the work site and stated that no further work could
continue until the notice was lifted by an inspector."
However, on March 22, eight days later, "Mr Singh went to the work
site with a contractor who removed a wooden ramp from the site. A
neighbour told Mr Singh that he was not supposed to be there and
that the site was closed. The neighbour then advised WorkSafe".
When interviewed by the inspector, Singh said he was only removing
items from the site to prevent them getting wet.
But the court found that removal of the ramp required physical
exertion and was part of the contractor's job - therefore it
constituted work and was contravening the prohibition order.
WorkSafe's chief inspector Keith Stewart said prohibition orders
were important for keeping workers safe.
"WorkSafe inspectors issue prohibition notices if they believe
there is a likelihood of serious harm to any person. In this case,
the work site had tested positive for asbestos.
"Prohibition notices are issued to keep people safe and should not
be ignored," he said.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victim Launches Suit vs. Wunderlich Factory
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Toscano, writing for The Age, reported that a Melbourne man
suffering lung disease has launched legal action against operators
of the notorious Wunderlich cement factory in Sunshine North for
allegedly exposing him to deadly asbestos dust.
Law company Slater & Gordon filed the lawsuit, representing the
man who lived near the western suburbs factory site for 15 years.
He now suffers asbestosis and has severe lung damage.
The man's lawsuit against factory operator Seltsam Pty Ltd
coincides with the release of a state government audit
identifying 25 people who lived near the Wunderlich factory had
died or become ill with asbestos-related diseases.
"Victoria's health department has acknowledged the terrible legacy
caused by the Wunderlich factory. Sadly, it has confirmed that
there have been a higher than normal number of cases of
mesothelioma in the area," Slater & Gordon lawyer Michael
Magazanik said.
". . . we have issued proceedings for another man with
asbestosis."
The company previously represented the family of grandfather-of-
six Marian Ciopicz, who lived about 600 metres from the McIntyre
Road factory and died due to breathing in asbestos while playing
in the area as a young boy.
A Supreme Court jury awarded damages of almost $500,000 after Mr
Ciopicz's illness was attributed to his exposure.
The trial heard that asbestos waste including dust, scraps and
off-cuts had been dumped in the backyard of the factory, into a
pond, trenches and towards a railway line.
Silvio Comin, who worked at the Wunderlich factory, told the trial
there was so much asbestos waste piled behind the factory that he
had to wear sunglasses to cope with the glare. He said that dust
at times escaped four to five metres into the air above the
factory and when it was windy it was "just like a snowstorm".
The Victorian Health and Human Services Department investigation,
which recently identified the extent of the factory's asbestos
health risk, also deemed all 54 homes near the site were now safe
and suitable to live in. The factory was shut in the early 1980s.
"Slater and Gordon has, for many years now, seen the devastation
caused by the former Wunderlich asbestos factory in Sunshine North
and we continue to act for those affected," Mr Magazanik said.
"While we cannot change the past, it is important that the current
residents of Sunshine North are kept fully informed and are able
to go about their lives safely."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Jurors Award $11.5MM at End of Trial
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that jurors in Missouri have
awarded $11.5 million to the family of a former machinist's mate
who was allegedly exposed to asbestos-containing gaskets and
packing in Crane Co.'s valves.
The Missouri 22nd Judicial Circuit Court reached the verdict on
July 2 after two weeks of trial and six hours of deliberations.
Crane Co. was the lone remaining defendant at the time of the
verdict, sources said.
Honorable Rex Burlison presided over the trial.
Jurors voted 9-3 to award the plaintiffs $1.5 million in
compensatory damages. The jury also awarded $10 million in
punitive damages, sources said.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Victim Seeks Support from Co-Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Lewis, writing for Penarth Times, reported that a
pensioner who has suffered from an asbestos related disease for
most of his life is calling for support from former colleagues.
Colin Morgan, 68, from Penarth, England, was exposed to asbestos
dust and fibres throughout his working life at the former Brains
brewery on Caroline Street and now wants other employees to come
forward. Colin has since suffered a serious lung disease which
has caused breathlessness and limited his daily movement.
The brewery contained a large network of asbestos-insulated pipes
which ran throughout the premises, including the cellars, steam
room and boiler room. It was Colin's job to sand and paint the
asbestos lagged pipes during refurbishment.
Helen Bradley, an experienced industrial disease specialist and
partner with Birchall Blackburn Law, says:
"We'd like to know exactly where all the asbestos lagged pipes
where within the brewery, and any details about the laggers and
the work carried out on the pipes.
"We also know that an old mash tun -- a type of vat in which malt
is mashed during the brewing process -- was removed from the
premises while Colin worked there.
"These huge vats were insulated with asbestos to help maintain a
constant temperature. We're hoping that former employees with more
information like this will come forward to help Colin."
Jan Garvey, from the National Asbestos Helpline, says: "Asbestos-
related diseases, like asbestosis and pleural thickening, can take
10 to 50 years to develop after exposure to the deadly dust and
fibres.
"When the symptoms finally take hold they can make retirement a
misery. Simply walking a short distance can leave a person
struggling for breath and they can develop a debilitating cough,
tiredness and weight loss.
"Colin needs his former colleagues to come forward or he will
struggle if he can't get the right support to help him cope with
the lung disease."
Brewery spokesman Charles Brain said he was unaware of anyone
being exposed to asbestos at the old brewery saying: "Mr Morgan
did not work there for long, so he may have been exposed to
asbestos somewhere else."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Worker Sues Fibro Firm for Cancer Pain
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tallentire, writing for The Northern Echo, reported that a
former asbestos worker who is fighting cancer for a third time is
suing his old employer for his "five years of pain and suffering".
Colin Stephenson, 66, had his voicebox removed due to cancer in
2009, lost part of his lung to the disease six months later and is
now fighting lung cancer a second time. He is seeking
compensation from Cape Insulation, better known as Cape Asbestos,
which employed hundreds of people in Bowburn, County Durham and
where Mr Stephenson worked from 1967 to 1991.
The grandfather-of-two, from Ferryhill, England, said: "I have
suffered five years of pain and suffering and have undergone a
variety of procedures and treatments, I believe, as a result of
inhaling asbestos dust and fibres over the years I worked closely
with the material.
"I hope that my legal team at Irwin Mitchell will be able to get
justice for me and provide the answers I need about why more was
not done to protect me, and my colleagues, from the risks
associated with asbestos."
In 2013, The Northern Echo reported how cancer sufferer Caroline
Wilcock, who grew up in Bowburn, had become the first person to
successfully sue Cape's successors for damages without having
worked in the factory. She recalled happily playing snowball
fights with friends as a child -- blissfully unaware the "snow"
they were throwing at each other was deadly asbestos dust.
Mr Stephenson, who made asbestos sheeting and insulation, said the
factory floor was extremely dusty and dust and fibres were
released into the air and covered his hands and overalls.
Roger Maddocks, from Irwin Mitchell, said: "Colin has suffered a
significant amount of pain and a number of invasive procedures and
understandably he wants to know the reasons behind the illness he
has suffered.
"Sadly, many employers fail to act to protect their workers from
the consequences of exposure to asbestos, despite knowing how
dangerous it is, and we hope that by issuing court proceedings we
can secure justice for Colin and get the answers he so desperately
needs."
Cape did not respond to the Echo's request for comment.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Victorian Wildlife at Risk Due to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reported that the health of native wildlife is being
put at risk by the careless dumping of asbestos in a Victorian
state forest.
Asbestos has been found dumped in the Yarra State Forest on three
separate occasions, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning says.
DELWP Forest Officer Joy Harte said the illegal dumping was
putting wildlife and park visitors at risk and patrols had been
increased to try and catch the culprits.
"This behaviour presents a risk to the wellbeing of all native
animals including the koalas and their joeys we see living near
where the rubbish has been dumped," Ms Harte said in a statement.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Nurse Diagnosed with Mesothelioma
---------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Telegraph reported that a former nurse from Rotherham
diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a terminal cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos -- is speaking out to raise awareness of the
disease on Action Mesothelioma Day.
Kalliopi Copley, aged 68, from Wickersley, was diagnosed in
November 2012 and said she is determined to raise awareness of the
disease, which claims 2,500 lives in the UK every year.
The mum-of-two believes she may have come into contact with
asbestos during her work at hospitals in Rotherham and Sheffield
and is taking legal action.
She said: "Asbestos is still present in public buildings like
hospitals, schools and universities and this must be removed and
made safe."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Sufferer Seeks Help from Colleagues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brown, writing for Chronicle Live, reported that a cancer
sufferer is appealing to his former colleagues to try and help
prove he was exposed to deadly asbestos.
Brian Coffey, 67, from Walkergate in Newcastle, England, was
diagnosed with mesothelioma -- a cancer believed to be caused by
asbestos fibres being inhaled and causing mutations in the lining
of the lungs and gut -- in April. And now he is seeking fellow
workers from the Morley Coachworks in Byker and the Prescription
Pricing Authority in central Newcastle to back his bid for
compensation.
"My mesothelioma diagnosis absolutely knocked us for six and I'm
worried about what the future holds for me and Patricia as my
condition gets worse," said Brian, who has been married to his
wife Patricia for almost 45 years.
"I suffer a lot of pain in my chest and stomach and struggle to do
a lot of things for myself as I'm constantly struggling for
breath.
"And to find out my mesothelioma may have been caused by my
exposure to asbestos while working simply added insult to injury.
"I want to know where I was exposed to the material and if my
former employers could have prevented my exposure by taking the
appropriate safety measures.
"Nothing will change my situation, but I hope my former colleagues
will come forward with the information my legal team needs to get
the answers I'm looking for."
Brian believes he came into contact with the deadly dust and
fibres while employed by Morley Coachworks in Byker between 1985
and 1986 and at the Prescription Pricing Authority from 1987 to
1994.
His colleagues at Morley Coachworks worked on brake and clutch
linings, which were made from asbestos, and he would regularly
sweep the floor at the end of the day.
While he also says he worked as a porter in the basement of the
PPA where pipework was lagged with asbestos.
Roger Maddocks, a partner at solicitors Irwin Mitchell and
specialist asbestos-related disease lawyer, said: "Exposure to
asbestos can cause a wide range of serious conditions decades
after exposure to the material, including mesothelioma, which is
sadly an incurable cancer of the lung lining.
"Victims like Brian often struggle to recall the exact details of
their exposure to asbestos, but understandably want answers as to
how and why they were exposed to the material responsible for
their illness.
"We hope that his former colleagues from Morley Coachworks or the
Prescription Pricing Authority who remember Brian will come
forward with the information we need to get him and his wife the
answers they deserve.
"We would like to hear from anyone who worked at, or has
information about the conditions at Morley Coachworks in the mid
1980's.
"We would also like to hear from anyone who carried out the
removal of asbestos lagging at the PPA facility in Newcastle."
Mr Coffey's appeal coincided with Action Mesothelioma Day, which
took place on July 3, and which was dedicated to remembering
victims of this asbestos-related disease.
Mesothelioma causes around 2,500 deaths every year, according to
the latest Health and Safety Executive (HSE) figures, with the
numbers continuing to rise.
"The number of victims of mesothelioma has yet to peak and we have
seen that the disease is now affecting those outside of the
traditional heavy industries associated with diseases caused by
asbestos exposure," Mr Maddocks said.
"Recent years have seen a rise in the number of people affected by
asbestos who have spent their working lives in public buildings,
hospitals, schools and other academic institutions. It is
absolutely crucial that more is done to make these buildings safer
for employees, which means monitoring asbestos and the eventual
removal of the hazardous material, before it becomes dangerous.
"The Palace of Westminster and Buckingham Palace have recently
been the subject of asbestos investigations and removal. A full
risk register is now needed for public buildings across the
country so that the safe removal of the harmful asbestos can be
carried out, and a stringent monitoring programme can be put in
place.
"Mesothelioma is a very aggressive, and sadly, incurable disease
and those who fall victim suffer simply because the appropriate
precautions were not taken to keep them safe, they were not warned
of the dangers of asbestos or provided with the correct protective
equipment.
"We hope that by supporting Action Mesothelioma Day we will help
to raise awareness of the dangers of asbestos and mesothelioma, as
well as encouraging employers and the government to take action to
protect future generations from further suffering."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Workers' Overalls Causes Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scunthorpe Telegraph reported that a woman died as a result of
exposure to asbestos, an inquest heard.
Cecilia Florence Cosgrove, 73, of Weymouth Crescent, Scunthorpe,
died of mesothelioma -- a cancer of the lining of the lungs -- on
January 10.
An inquest held at the Civic Centre in Scunthorpe heard Mrs
Cosgrove had worked at an industrial site pressing overalls
between 1978 and 1979.
A statement read on behalf of Mrs Cosgrove's son, Barrie Cosgrove,
said that the steam presses used for cleaning contained asbestos
dust, as well as the pipes to the presses and a corrugated roof.
Coroner Paul Kelly recorded a verdict of death as the result of an
industrial disease.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Homebuilder Awarded $6-Mil. in Fibro Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that a
plaintiff who filed asbestos lawsuits against more than 10
companies has been awarded $6 million. Michael Dalier filed
lawsuits against the companies after he was diagnosed with
mesothelioma. Although the award was only made against two
companies, and did not include punitive damages, the jury still
awarded Dalier millions of dollars.
Galier filed the lawsuits alleging negligent workplace exposure
was the cause of his mesothelioma. Galier had worked in
construction as a homebuilder and as a contractor at rental
properties and was allegedly exposed to asbestos through products
that contained the carcinogen. His lawsuit also claimed asbestos
exposure when he was an auto mechanic and through secondary
exposure via his father.
Two companies -- Murco Wall Products and Welco Manufacturing Co
-- were held liable for Galier's asbestos exposure.
Initially, lawsuits were filed against more than 10 companies but
some of those lawsuits were settled before going to court. A claim
against one company was dismissed and a different company was
found not liable for Galier's exposure.
Asbestos exposure has been linked to asbestosis, mesothelioma and
lung cancer, all of which can take decades to appear following
initial exposure. Lawsuits filed against companies that used
asbestos in their products allege they knew about the risks but
continued to use the potentially harmful drug in their goods.
Lawsuits have also been filed against employers, alleging
employees were not given proper safety gear or training and were
not warned about the hazards of working with asbestos or asbestos-
containing products.
In some cases, lawsuits alleging secondary exposure have also been
filed. Those lawsuits allege the family members of people who
worked with asbestos were put at risk of developing life-
threatening diseases. According to those lawsuits, asbestos fibers
became attached to their loved one's clothing and were carried
into the home where they came loose.
A recent study by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Action
Fund suggests that 15,000 Americans die every year from asbestos
exposure. That study drastically increased the number of deaths
with a suspected link to asbestos from around 5,000 annually. The
EWG Action Fund's study included deaths from asbestosis,
mesothelioma and lung cancer attributed to asbestos exposure.
"Clearly, asbestos kills more Americans each year than we
thought," said Sonya Lunder, a senior research analyst with the
EWG and EWG Action Fund.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Potential Fibro Suit Filed for "Beau" Hicks
------------------------------------------------------------
David Yates, writing for SETexas Record, reported that a former
district judge who gave up the bench to become Jefferson County's
district attorney recently filed a petition to perpetuate
testimony to investigate the asbestos exposure of the late
referring legend H.T. "Beau" Hicks Jr.
District Attorney Bob Wortham, formerly of the 58th District Court
in Beaumont, filed the petition on June 30 in Jefferson County
District Court.
The anticipated defendants include Atlantic Richfield, Chevron
USA, ExxonMobil, Beazer East, John-Shir, Koppers and Owens-
Illinois.
Hicks, 83, died last August. Since 1957, he officiated high school
and college football, and moonlighted as a scout for the NFL.
In his petition, Wortham, who officiated with Hicks for a time,
says Hicks was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2014.
The former judge seeks testimony from several individuals
regarding Hicks' asbestos exposure during his employment with
Mobil in Beaumont from 1952 to 1968, and also Sinclair Koppers in
Port Arthur from 1968 to 1970.
Wortham specifically seeks the testimony of Charlie Best, Joe
Bonura, Herbie Broussard and Boyd Ladd, stating the individuals
are advancing in age and that their testimony must be preserved
while the investigation continues.
Tina Bradley of the Beaumont law firm Hobson & Bradley represents
Wortham.
Judge Kent Walston, the current judge of the 58th District Court,
has been assigned to the case.
Case No. A-1972
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Golden Wonder Factory Builders Warned of Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Burkett, writing for Northamptonshire Telegraph, reported
that the daughter of a man who helped to build the Golden Wonder
factory in Corby, England, in the 1960s is urging his former
colleagues to get themselves checked out after he died from
mesothelioma.
George Usher, of Cumbria, who was 77, died last month after a
short battle with the disease -- a form of cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos dust and fibres.
The former electrician believed he was exposed to asbestos dust
during his short period of employment with Yorkshire-based
engineering and construction firm NG Bailey in 1964.
He worked for the firm for about six months, during which he
worked on the construction of the original Golden Wonder crisp
factory in Rockingham Road, Corby.
When it opened it was the world's largest crisp and snack factory.
The firm moved to its current location in Princewood Road in 1989
following a fire.
Mr Usher's role involved the installation of electrical systems at
the factory, a job which required him to work side by side with
laggers, who would mix asbestos paste to lag the pipework used in
the factory.
He recalled the atmosphere in the boiler house, where he was
posted for the majority of his time, as very dusty, with plumes of
asbestos dust rising into the air regularly.
Now Mr Usher's daughter, Charlotte, 48, of West Yorkshire, has
instructed lawyers to investigate how and where her father was
exposed to asbestos.
Roger Maddocks, a partner and expert asbestos-related disease
lawyer at Irwin Mitchell, representing Charlotte, said:
"Mesothelioma is an aggressive and incurable cancer that causes a
significant amount of suffering for victims like George.
"Action Mesothelioma Day, which took place on July 3 aims to raise
awareness of the terrible disease and the importance of diagnosing
the disease early so treatment can be provided.
"It can take decades for the symptoms of the disease to become
apparent, so we need to hear from George's former colleagues, and
anyone who worked as a contractor on the Golden Wonder crisp
factory construction, about the working conditions they were
exposed to and details of the lagging process.
"Charlotte, her sister Caroline and their mother, Jean, want
answers about why this happened to their husband and father, as
well as to encourage those who worked with George, or anyone who
may have been exposed to asbestos to visit a doctor as soon as
possible to be X-rayed.
"Employers have known of the dangers of asbestos for decades and
should have taken action to protect workers and contractors, such
as George, from the deadly substance.
"Therefore, we would urge his former workmates and contractors who
worked on the construction of the factory to come forward with the
crucial information we need."
Charlotte said: "Mesothelioma is a terrible disease and we would
urge anyone who worked with Dad to go to a doctor and get a chest
X-ray as soon as possible.
"We hope raising awareness of mesothelioma will lead to more
people getting checked out for the effects of asbestos exposure.
"If we help convince one person to visit their doctor, have a
chest X-ray and access the treatment they need so they can live
longer and spend more time with their family then something good
will have come from the experience our family has had."
NG Bailey declined to comment.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Outdated EPA Rules May Increase Fibro Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Povtak, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has an antiquated and inadequate
policy in place that allows the release of asbestos-contaminated
wastewater and threatens public health, according to the Office of
Inspector General.
The EPA's National Emission Standard for Asbestos, first issued in
1973, includes a provision that still permits the demolition of
structurally unsound buildings without first removing asbestos
products -- often resulting in toxic runoff and contaminated soil.
"Demolitions may be releasing potentially harmful amounts of
asbestos into the environment," said Michael Wilson, toxicologist
who helped author the June OIG report. "The amount of asbestos
released into runoff wastewater can often exceed the legally
reportable quantity."
The renovation, remodeling or demolition of older structures
becomes particularly dangerous if microscopic asbestos fibers are
disturbed. An exposure can lead to serious asbestos-related health
issues such as mesothelioma, asbestosis or lung cancer.
The report is based on the EPA's Alternative Asbestos Control
Method (AACM) experiments from 2005 to 2011 that included
demolition procedures and collection of data on the release of
asbestos into the environment.
It also was based on buildings that were constructed with asbestos
cement products and asbestos-containing joint compound. Both
building materials were common in new construction before 1980.
Wilson said the result of the demolitions likely would violate the
EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act if the reportable quantity of asbestos was released.
Public Health Risk Needs Reassessment
He believes the EPA should reassess the public health risk from
the contaminated wastewater caused by the demolitions.
The report made four recommendations:
Evaluate the potential public health risk from the release of
asbestos fibers through untreated discharge of runoff wastewater.
Issue a technical report that details the findings and is
available to the public.
Based on the technical report, implement any action needed in a
timely manner.
Share and discuss any regulatory changes and enforcement.
Asbestos was a common building material throughout much of the
20th century. It was once lauded for its ability to strengthen and
fireproof at a reasonable cost. However, research showed it also
was toxic, becoming a serious health risk as it aged and became
airborne.
The EPA and its regulations are credited for the dramatic decline
in the use of asbestos products in commercial and residential
construction over the last 40 years.
EPA Disagrees with Critics
The EPA responded to the report by disagreeing with the OIG
findings, believing the AACM experiments did not provide an
appropriate basis for comparison.
"We disagree with the recommendations in this draft report . . .
However, we share the OIG's concern regarding the potential for
asbestos exposure," wrote Janet McCabe, EPA acting assistant
administrator, in an accompanying attachment to the report. "We
recognize asbestos as a known human carcinogen, and note that
there is no known safe level of exposure to asbestos."
McCabe said the original National Emission Standards for Asbestos
regulation was last amended in 1990, and a variety of work
practices have been developed to prevent contamination of nearby
properties. She also admitted a lack of clarity in the amendment.
"These documents are disparate and dated, and we believe could be
reviewed, revised and consolidated into a single guidance
document," she wrote.
She also said the EPA will complete the project before April 2016
and take the following actions:
Assemble a team of asbestos experts and inspectors to advise and
assist.
Review the rule applicability regarding containment of asbestos-
contaminated waste materials and revise existing guidance
documents.
Compile implementation guidelines.
Review applicability determinations issued by regional offices.
Review existing sampling and analysis methods that are applicable
to asbestos in various media and incorporate into the guidance.
Consolidate into a single set of guidance materials and implement
them.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dads Fears for Family's Health Over Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Bagnall, writing for Daily Post, reported that a dad fears
for his family's health after potentially dangerous asbestos was
spread around their house after a mistake by blundering
contractors.
Kevin Henry complained to Wrexham council, in England, when old
floor tiles containing asbestos were removed after a new kitchen
had been fitted on top of them. Dust and shards from the tiles
were dispersed around the kitchen of Mr Henry's Chirk council
house and found their way into the lounge, following work at the
end of May.
An Emergency Asbestos Contractor was sent to the property after
the 42 year-old, who is married with an eight month-old boy Noah
and two year-old girl Jai, raised concerns.
Now Mr Henry, who lives on Highfields, fears for his family's
health after a letter by Wrexham council's head of corporate and
customer services, Trevor Coxon, told them there was "no
substantial risk" and the property was "deemed safe" to live in.
Apologising to the family Mr Coxon wrote: "The tiles should have
been removed prior to the new kitchen being installed.
"The contractor acknowledges this and internal actions have been
taken by the contractor in terms of processes and actions against
individual operatives."
Mr Henry, a maintenance manager, said: "What does that mean there
is 'no substantial risk'? Does that mean there is some sort of a
risk?
"Asbestos is dangerous and I am seriously worried about my
family's health now.
"It was very upsetting and I just do not want anybody else to go
through this."
In a letter of complaint to Wrexham council, Mr Henry said: "We
believe the standard of asbestos removal from our kitchen has been
so low, that without doubt we have been exposed to unquantified
levels of airborne asbestos fibre concentration.
"We have been advised to record this incident with our GP with
specific interest to our children's future health."
He added: "I discovered pieces that had been brought in to our
lounge by our family on the floor in the lounge, beneath the
couches and on and in the couches.
"I am extremely angry at the fact my tiny children have been
touching this material, which -- while once being in a good
condition -- is now in a very poor condition."
Wrexham council's lead member for housing, Cllr Ian Roberts, said:
"An investigation has taken place involving all parties including
the Health and Safety Executive.
"The council has been guided by the Emergency Asbestos Contractor
who attended the property, and provided the council with an
'asbestos handover' certificate confirming that the property was
left safe for the residents to remain.
"This has been explained to the tenant."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Moorhead Man Develops Disease from Fibro Work
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Millerbernd, writing for InfoRum, reported that Steve Lemke
rode his bike 15 miles a day last summer, but the man from
Moorhead, Minnesota, can't even make it to the end of the block
this year.
Lemke, 62, says he doesn't know when exactly he developed
pulmonary fibrosis from asbestosis, but it's likely linked to his
work in the flooring business here in the 1970s and '80s.
At the time, those who worked with asbestos didn't know about the
risks it came with.
"Nobody even knew anything about asbestos, we never wore masks,"
Lemke said. "I mean, a lot of the floors we were taking out were
installed in the '50s and '60s."
He has seen a brother and two uncles, all of whom he worked with
in the Fargo-Moorhead area, die from diseases that developed as a
result of asbestos exposure.
Once he was no longer able to work in the flooring business in
2010, Lemke started delivering pizzas -- a job he kept for about
five years.
Then, in December, he was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis and
emphysema. He's now on oxygen full-time and is fourth in a line of
15 people in the region to get a new set of lungs.
His family is working to pull together funds to pay for the
estimated $500,000 procedure and the medication required after the
surgery that costs about $45,000 per year. His stepdaughter,
Ashley Young, said her parents' insurance "doesn't put a dent" in
the cost of the procedure.
"It's not really a choice to not go through with it, we just have
to find a way to pay for it," she said.
Once Lemke travels to the Mayo Clinic for his procedure, he could
stay for anywhere from three to six months, he said. In that case,
he will have to find a place for his family to live in Rochester,
Minn., and enroll his two teenage children in school there.
A benefit and silent auction for Lemke will be held at First
Congregational Church at 406 8th St. S. here on July 12 from 4 to
7 p.m.
Cash and check donations can also be made payable to Steve Lemke
Benefit Fund at Alerus Financial at 51 N. Broadway in Fargo. Lend
A Hand will provide up to $5,000 in matching funds. Online gifts
can be made at www.dmflendahand.org under the "benefit events"
tab.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Accused Firm of Gaming Fibro Recovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that last
summer, Ford Motor Company accused a major New York City asbestos
firm of engaging in the same type of misleading behavior that led
to a landmark 2014 ruling and a handful of racketeering lawsuits,
court records show.
On Aug. 7, Ford asked New York City Asbestos Litigation Judge
Barbara Jaffe to reduce a once-$11 million verdict by the amount
it felt should have been paid to plaintiff Arthur Juni by the
bankruptcy trusts covering exposure caused by Raybestos and Wagner
products.
The letter created a testy exchange with plaintiffs firm Weitz &
Luxenberg. One of the firm's lawyers wrote that it was difficult
to remain civil while responding to the claims, labeling Ford's
move an "outburst."
Ford claimed Juni repeatedly referred to exposure from two other
companies' brake products, but Weitz & Luxenberg never submitted
claims to their trusts while pursuing his lawsuit against Ford and
other defendants.
Juni was entitled to $125,000 from the Raybestos trust and between
$100,000 and $300,000 from the Wagner trust, Ford claimed. It was
later shown that the Wagner trust was not accepting claims at the
time.
"Plaintiffs' counsel was under a duty to their clients, litigants
and the Court to mitigate damages by filing all viable claims with
asbestos bankruptcy trusts," Ford's attorneys wrote.
"The only conceivable motive for plaintiffs' counsel's failure to
file such meritorious claims is gamesmanship, pure and simple.
"Plaintiffs' attorneys know that any amount received from such
trusts would be set-off from a judgment."
Ford attached a 2014 ruling from Judge George Hodges, of a
bankruptcy court in North Carolina, that said plaintiffs attorneys
at other firms had been delaying filing their clients' trust
claims while lawsuits against Garlock Sealing Technologies were
pending. By doing so, Hodges ruled, plaintiffs attorneys had
unfairly maximized recovery against Garlock, which eventually
filed for bankruptcy in 2010 and is in the process of setting up
its own trust.
Garlock made its argument after being permitted discovery into 15
cases. It has filed racketeering lawsuits against the plaintiffs
firms involved in those cases.
Weitz & Luxenberg is not among the firms sued by Garlock.
The firm's Juni case is notable in that the multimillion-dollar
verdict was overturned earlier this year, and an appeal of that
decision is pending.
In April, Jaffe granted Ford's motion for judgment notwithstanding
the verdict and dismissed the complaint.
"The Court misapprehended the relevant law and overlooked the
critical facts, improperly invaded the jury's province, and
erroneously failed to view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the nonmovant," Alani Golanski of Weitz & Luxenberg
wrote.
Ford argued that the opinions of Juni's expert witnesses on
causation lacked a sufficient foundation and were based on invalid
assumptions.
Another noteworthy aspect of the case is that court records show
Juni was treated by Dr. Richard Taub, who headed a Columbia
University mesothelioma research center at the time.
Taub has been identified as the doctor at the center of the
indictment of former New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.
Silver is accused of trading state research funds to Taub in
exchange for referrals to mesothelioma patients like Juni. Silver
was of counsel at Weitz & Luxenberg for years and is accused by
federal prosecutors of using his position in state government to
illegally earn millions of dollars in referral fees at the Weitz
firm and another firm.
The Weitz firm has denied any knowledge of the alleged scheme.
Taub has since been let go by Columbia and has filed a lawsuit
against his former employer.
Golanski responded to Ford's claims of gaming the asbestos
recovery system in an Aug. 13 letter to Jaffe.
"Wow. Where to begin?" Golanski wrote. "And more of a dilemma, how
to begin while remaining civil?
"Another explanation that is both 'conceivable' and,
coincidentally, true is that the Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal
Injury Trust is not yet open for, and not yet accepting, any
claims arising from asbestos exposures to Wagner Electric
Corporation products."
Golanski called Ford's Warner allegation a "gaffe" and defended
the firm's election not to file a Raybestos claim. He said the
company's estimation of the worth of Juni's claim is not reliable.
The figure Ford used would be subject to a massive reduction,
leaving it at a worth of $1,050, he said.
"(T)here is simply no basis in New York law for any reduction from
a verdict for sums that speculatively or hypothetically might be
realized -- here $1,050 -- from a settlement that has not yet
occurred," Golanski wrote.
Ford didn't back off in its reply letter to Jaffe, claiming
Golanski did not explain why no claim was filed to the Raybestos
trust. It also disagreed with his $1,050 figure.
And though Golanski was correct that the Wagner trust was not
accepting claims at the time, he is wrong that no set-off could be
ascribed to that entity, Ford claimed.
A day later, Golanski wrote to Jaffe that Ford's admittance that
he was correct about the Wagner trust renders its "initial
outburst . . . wholly irresponsible."
It is unclear from court documents what affect the exchange had on
the case. Ford's post-trial motion did not ask for an offset in
the amount of what it felt would have been recovered from the
trusts.
Instead, the company asked for an offset of the amount the
plaintiff earned in settlements with other solvent civil
defendants -- roughly $1.7 million.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CCAW Applauds Changes on Position in Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Conference of Asbestos Workers (CCAW) welcomes a
significant revision of Health Canada's position on the
harmfulness of asbestos. However, the CCAW is also calling on the
federal government to implement a Canada-wide ban on asbestos as
well as to ban the use of asbestos in products like drywall and
water pipes.
"The harmful health effects resulting from exposure to asbestos
are an immediate concern for our workers," said Louis Dugay,
President of the CCAW. "Certainly, the public acknowledgement of
the dangers associated with these products and materials are a
welcome step forward."
Updated language from Health Canada now acknowledges that
"asbestos, if inhaled, can cause cancer and other diseases." While
the health consequences associated with all types of asbestos have
been recognized globally, this strengthened language marks a
definitive shift in the treatment of asbestos by the Canadian
government.
The World Health Organization has stated that asbestos of all
types can cause diseases such as lung, larynx and ovary cancer as
well as mesothelioma and asbestosis. Certain types of asbestos
continue to be manufactured in Canada, despite the health risks
posed.
CIO, CTO & Developer Resources
The CCAW would like to see the federal government move forward
with a ban on all asbestos products, thereby enhancing the safety
of workers in Canada. This would bring Canada's standards in line
with other countries including Australia, the United Kingdom, and
Japan.
"Asbestos workers in Canada should be afforded the same health and
safety regimes as their counterparts in other skilled trades in
Canada, and around the world," said Vince Engel of the
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied
Workers. "It is time for the federal government to join the 50+
countries that have banned asbestos globally and remove this toxic
products from commercial, industrial and residential
environments."
About the Canadian Conference of Asbestos Workers
The CCAW is an association consisting of nine local unions in
Canada affiliated with the International Association of Heat and
Frost Insulators and Allied Workers. The CCAW represents
approximately 6000 Insulators and Asbestos workers in Canada.
Contacts:
Vince Engel
Heat and Frost Insulators and Allied Workers
Kate Harrison
Summa Strategies Canada
613-235-1400 x 226
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US EPA to Update Fibro Standard
------------------------------------------------
Chemical Watch reported that the US EPA has agreed to update its
Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
in response to a recommendation by its Office of Inspector
General.
Since 1973, under the NESHAP Regulation, the EPA has allowed
buildings that are structurally unsound and in imminent danger of
collapse to be demolished, without first removing regulated
asbestos-containing materials, the OIG said in a report.
The agency's alternative asbestos control method experiments show
that this can result in the release of significant amounts of
asbestos into runoff wastewater. The experiments also demonstrate
that the amount of released asbestos "often exceeds the legally
reportable quantity" of one pound in a 24-hour period, the OIG
said, and recommended that the EPA should update its guidance to
address such potentially harmful releases and assess the potential
public health risk posed by them.
In response, the agency agreed that its guidance in the area was
"dated and disparate" and said it would put together a team of
asbestos experts to advise it in producing an "updated
consolidated guidance document, which has practical application to
the regulated community."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Coventry Hospital Handyman Wins GBP150,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Eccleston, writing for Coventry Telegraph, reported that a
grandad has been awarded GBP150,000 after working with asbestos
for just a few days at Coventry and Warwickshire Hospital in the
1970s left him with incurable lung cancer.
Thomas Pritchard was a handyman at the hospital in Stoney Stanton
Road, Hillfields, for around nine months during 1970-71 when he
came into contact with the deadly substance.
A persistent and worsening cough saw the 71-year-old go to his
doctor in November 2013.
Medics drained four pints of fluid from his lungs and discovered
he had mesothelioma, a terminal lung condition, associated with
exposure to asbestos.
During the early 1970s, Mr Pritchard had spent a day working on
the task of removing and replacing old asbestos-based insulation
padding from a boiler and its pipes at the hospital.
He then spent another day on the same duties in the pump room and
also mixed powdered asbestos and water by hand, without any
personal protective equipment such as a dust mask or gloves.
Mr Pritchard also spent several days walking the corridors and
inspecting the asbestos-covered pipes for damage, possibly
breathing in the deadly fibres even further.
No other job throughout his life brought him into contact with
asbestos.
On the recommendation of his doctor, he approached Asons
Solicitors of Greater Manchester who investigated his work history
to find exactly how he contracted the disease.
Asons obtained his medical records, sent a letter of claim to the
hospital and the defendant in the case -- the Secretary of State
for the Department of Health -- refused to make an interim payment
until a medical report was available.
Instead, Mr Pritchard was awarded a GBP16,000 lump sum from the
government and then Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit,
before a final damages amount was negotiated for GBP150,000.
The compensation will allow Mr Pritchard to move from his home in
Londonderry to Gloucestershire to spend his remaining days among
his family.
Mr Pritchard was represented by Gavin Evans, solicitor and head of
the serious disease unit at Asons, who said: "This is a tragic
case in which our client was exposed to this deadly dust for only
a very short period in the early 1970s, but has many years later
developed mesothelioma.
"It is a horrible disease which could have been prevented in this
case, had my client's former employers taken adequate precautions
to prevent him inhaling the deadly dust.
"I am so glad, for his sake, that his claim was settled pretty
quickly once the medical evidence was obtained."
Latest figures from the Association of Personal injury Lawyers
indicates that there were 2,538 mesothelioma deaths in the UK
during 2013.
Much of the old hospital site has now been demolished and
redeveloped.
Figures also suggest that 80 out of every 100,000 people in the UK
are affected, and that 85 per cent of cases are due to workplace
exposure to asbestos.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Found in Cedar Rapids School
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that the main building at Washington
High School in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has been closed as officials
deal with the presence of asbestos.
A contractor working in the building raised concerns with the Iowa
Natural Resources Department, and the school district said in a
news release that testing showed one area of the building "is
currently above an acceptable level."
Tiny fibers of the carcinogen can be breathed in and lodge in the
lungs, leading to fatal illnesses such as asbestosis, lung cancer
and mesothelioma.
The building will remain closed while officials devise a solution.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Toxic Dust Found in Timaru Hospital Basement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Montgomerie, writing for The Timaru Herald, reported that
asbestos found under Timaru Hospital is minimal and will be
removed, the South Canterbury District Health Board in New Zealand
says.
Chief executive Nigel Trainor said an audit of the hospital's
tunnels, clinical services building's basement and administration
block's basement on High St turned up "minimal" levels of asbestos
dust in all three areas.
The audit, which the health board carried out as part of a review
of the administration building's future, showed residual dust in
basement areas which were not publicly accessible.
Trainor said the asbestos was not airborne and the amount found
was "well below the workplace exposure standards" above which
people exposed to the substance risked lung problems. The dust
posed a "minimal" risk to staff and contractors' health, Trainor
said.
"We have informed staff, notified WorkSafe NZ and are actively
working with the local team as well as experts to conduct testing
of other sites and planning for the removal of the asbestos dust."
The health board had contained the affected areas, parts of which
stored up to 10 per cent of patients' paper records, as a
precaution.
Trainor said the board was seeking occupational health advice for
existing or previous staff who might be concerned about their
exposure to the asbestos.
The board held electronic records for all recent patients and did
not expect the restrictions to affect patients' treatment.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Exposure Kills Allestree Builder
-------------------------------------------------------
Aly Walsh, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that kind,
perceptive and a true gentleman are just a few of the terms that
were used to describe a builder who died through his exposure to
asbestos as a young man.
John Kelly, who died aged 73 at his home in Crabtree Close,
Allestree, in January from malignant mesothelioma, came into
contact with the deadly fibres only in his first job as an
apprentice plumber, an inquest into his death was told.
Mr Kelly continued to work as a plumber up until his late 40s and
then turned his hand to building until he retired.
Assistant Deputy Coroner Paul McCandless said there was no
evidence that Mr Kelly had been exposed to asbestos at work after
the age of 21.
Mr McCandless said it was most likely Mr Kelly's exposure to
asbestos was when he was removing pipes covered with lagging
during his six years as an apprentice plumber.
"This may be one of the shortest work histories I have encountered
but no less compelling," said Mr McCandless.
He concluded that Mr Kelly's death was due to industrial disease.
Mr Kelly left his wife of 40 years, Val, three daughters and five
grandchildren -- all of Allestree.
His daughter, Clare Godfrey, 38, said cards from family and
colleagues after her dad's death had described him as "the most
honest and honourable man" but the word that appeared multiple
times was "kind".
She said: "Dad really was the kindest person we ever knew. He was
a perfectionist and took great pride in all his work. Not only was
he a very talented, clever and inventive man, he was modest with
it, too."
Mrs Godfrey said that, when she and her sisters were growing up,
her dad was always doing some DIY project at home.
She said: "There was no job he couldn't do. We'd often get home
from school to find a wall knocked down or a sink appearing in
each of our bedrooms -- although the sinks were probably due to
Dad having to live with four girls and were his only fighting
chance of getting into the bathroom! Mum never had to wait for
anything to be mended or built and Dad used to often joke that us
girls were bought up on a diet of brick dust sandwiches."
Mr Kelly had many other interests, including snooker, fishing and
music. Daughter Sarah Coyne, 38, said: "He adored music and taught
himself to play both the piano and guitar, beautifully. We have
fond childhood memories of him strumming along, singing silly
songs he'd made up to make us laugh."
Mr Kelly also loved to fly and had passed his private pilot's
licence.
Mrs Coyne said: "Mum has never been very good with heights but she
did go up with him -- because, if you could put your trust in
anyone, it would be Dad and, when flying with any of us, he called
us 'precious cargo'.
Mrs Coyne said her father was "a perceptive and sensitive man" and
that he "would see all and say nothing" but, she added: "Anything
he did say would be worth hearing.
"Nothing got past our dad. He knew when we were sad and always did
anything he could to help and protect us all. He was always there
for us."
She said that Mr Kelly had adored his grandchildren and they felt
the same about him.
Daughter Amy Kelly, 36, said: "The worst thing about losing dad,
apart from losing our idol and hero, is Mum losing Dad. They were
best friends. They did everything together. They loved travelling
and travelled a lot. In particular, Whitby was a favourite place
they shared with many happy memories, often visiting weeks at a
times in their caravan. He was a true gentleman and treated Mum so
well in the 40 years they were married.
"The world has lost one of the kindest, most decent people it ever
had. We like to think there will always be a part of Dad still
here with us, living on through his children and grandchildren,
and in all the memories we share."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Joiner Dies of Lung Cancer Due to Fibro
--------------------------------------------------------
Martin Naylor, writing for Derby Telegraph, reported that a joiner
who died from lung cancer caused by asbestos was exposed to the
deadly dust when he was a teenage apprentice.
Brian Johnson's inquest was told how workmates would cut sheets of
asbestos and he saw the dust "blowing around in the air" as he
swept up.
Derby and South Derbyshire Coroner's Court also heard that Mr
Johnson would brush the dust from his overalls.
In a statement made before his death, he said he was exposed to
the asbestos while working at HA Bowering, in Wood Street,
Alfreton, in the late 1950s.
Mr Johnson, of Kilburn, said: "My work as an apprentice saw me
working at benches assembling window frames and various items were
taken in and out of the workshop.
"This included large sheets of asbestos, around 8ft by 4ft, which
would be cut with a circular saw so they could be used in ceiling
linings.
"My bench was around 20ft away and the cutting sent clouds of
asbestos dust into the air. The dust would settle on the machines
and if the doors were open the dust would be blown around."
Mr Johnson, who was 74 when he died at the Royal Derby Hospital on
June 26, said in his statement that as the apprentice at the firm
it would be his job to tidy up the workshop at the end of the day.
He said: "I would use a brush, shovel and wheelbarrow to sweep up
the asbestos dust which was then taken outside to be burned and it
was also my responsibility of cleaning the benches. I would brush
the asbestos dust into piles and leave it against the walls."
Mr Johnson, of Woodhouse Road, said the firm did not provide
protective masks or make him aware of the danger of exposure to
asbestos during the two years he worked there.
After leaving HA Bowering he went on to work for W Wood (Heanor)
Ltd, in Fletcher Street, Heanor, William Walkerdine, in Derby and
Creative Interiors, based at the West Meadows Industrial Estate,
also in Derby, but said he was not exposed to asbestos during any
of those jobs.
He was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in March this year
and underwent one dose of chemotherapy.
Dr Robert Hunter, senior Coroner for Derbyshire, said: "On April
28 he was admitted to the Royal Derby Hospital for treatment to a
chest infection and rapidly deteriorated.
"He did not want any more invasive treatment and was transferred
to the Nightingale Macmillan Unit, where he died on June 26."
A post-mortem examination gave his cause of death as bronchial
pneumonia due to malignant mesothelioma. Dr Hunter reached a
conclusion that Mr Johnson died as the result of an industrial
disease.
He said: "Mr Johnson was exposed to asbestos during his working
life and that exposure led to his diagnosis of malignant
mesothelioma."
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. Ct. Flips Dismissal of Broker from Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an appellate court has
reversed the dismissal of an asbestos broker from a lawsuit
pending in Washington, finding that the defendant's contacts with
the state were not random or isolated.
In the June 29 opinion, the Washington Court of Appeals, Division
One, found that the defendant benefited indirectly from marketing
and sale laws in the state and "have accepted that benefit," it
cannot say its relationship with Washington "lacked purpose."
The plaintiffs asserted the claims on behalf of Donald Noll,
contending that he developed malignant pleural mesothelioma as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing products.
*********
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. Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, 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 * * *