/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160722.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 22, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 146 Headlines 21ST CENTURY: "Padilla" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California ALABAMA: Court Won't Name Guardian Ad Litem in "Dunn" Suit ALLERGAN INC: Certification of Botox Cosmetic Buyers Class Sought AMERICAN DEBT: Settlement in "Newton" Lawsuit Gets Final Okay ANSELMO LINDBERG: Class Cert. Bid in "Wolter" Suit Withdrawn ARIEL QUIROS: Wants EB-5 Immigrant Investors' Fraud Case Nixed ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Settlement in "Fox" Suit Has Final Approval ASSET RECOVERY: "Pirkle" Suit Seeks Certification of Class BAXTER CREDIT: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Overdraft Fee BC HYDRO: Activists Lose Bid to Certify Smart Meter Class Action BEVERAGES & MORE: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Green" Suit Transferred to C.D. California BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Glaser" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) CACTUS DRILLING: Court Granted Settlement in "Perry" Suit CALIFORNIA: Oct. 17 Case Management Conference Set CALIFORNIA: Court Wants Class Notice in "Ashker" Suit Finalized CALIFORNIA SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Calls CAPITAL ADVANCE: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to Aug. 4 CITIBANK NA: "Juarez" Case Management Conference Moved to Aug. 17 CHICAGO: Judge Wants "Myers" Complaint Revised CLICKSPARK LLC: Faces "Sicker" Class Suit to District New Jersey COLLECTION BUREAU: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schleifer" Suit Says CONNECTICUT: "Wright" Suit Seeks Certification of Class CONOPCO INC: Motion for Final Settlement Approval Due Sept. 12 CONTAIN ENERGY: Cantu Seeks Certification of Operators Class COSL: Oil Workers Entitled to Extra Month's Pay, Court Rules CUNA MUTUAL: Ogrizovich Seeks Approval of Class Settlement DEL CITY WIRE: Bones Kart Shop Seeks Stay of Proceedings DMNO LLC: Black Seeks Certification of Class DOMETIC GROUP: Clarifies Media Statements on Class Action DRESSER-RAND GROUP: Agrees to Pay $100K to Plaintiffs' Counsel DYNAMEX INC: Seeks Decertification of FLSA Collective Action DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Has Until August 28 to Respond to "Stamer" Suit EL POLLO LOCO: Faces Securities Class Action in California ELECTRO RENT: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Class Action ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY: Untimely Removal Remands "D'itri" Suit ENSIGN INC: Status Conference Continued on Aug. 15 FCA US: Plaintiff Must Be Present at Vehicle Inspection FCA US: Grimstad et al. Seek Certification of 3 Classes FEI CO: Investigates Potential Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims FLINT, MI: Water Crisis Prompts Extra Lead Tests in Philadelphia FLORIDA: Judge Adopts Findings in "Lopez" Suit FLORIDA: Hillsborough County Woman Files Suit Over Tampon Tax FUTURE INCOME: Faces Class Action Over Alleged TCPA Violation GENERAL MOTORS: Owners of Recalled Cars Can Sue for Loss of Value GREGORY TURZA: Ruling May Hit Plaintiffs Attorneys' Legal Fees GRUBHUB: Food Delivery Drivers File Class Action in Chicago GULF COAST: "Francois" Suit Seeks Certification of Florida Class HALYARD HEALTH: Aug. 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set HARBOR FREIGHT: Sued Over Fictitious Discount Price Scheme HARBOUR RESTAURANT: Sutherland Seeks Certification of Class HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Court Granted Settlement in "Bradescu" Suit HOGAN TRANSPORTS: Fairfax Seeks Certification of Collective Class HOME DEPOT: Aug. 4 Hearing on Bid to Transfer Venue of "Henry" HOME DEPOT: Oct. 27 Case Management Conference Set in "Coffen" INTERSTATE-RIM: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action J.P. MORGAN: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Schramm" Suit JAKARTA WATER: Bukit Duri Class Action Postponed for Third Time JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Probes Potential Securities Claims KOSTMAYER CONSTRUCTION: Court Granted Certification of Class LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Bid Due Aug. 15 LG: Has Prelim Deal of Suit Over Moldy Front-Loading Washers LONGWEI PETROLEUM: October 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set LUGGAGE SERVICES: Court Slashes Atty Fee Award in "Talton" Suit LYFT INC: Dec. 1 Final Approval Hearing on Cotter Settlement MAKERBOT: Minnesota Court Dismisses Class Action MARIO BADESCU: Appellate Court Upholds Class Action Settlement MICHAELS STORES: Anderson Claims Time-Barred, 9th Cir. Says MIDWEST POULTRY: Judge Okays $8.4MM Egg Antitrust Settlement MISTRAS GROUP: Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to Aug. 18 MONSTER ENERGY: Court Partly Reverses Marketing Class Action MYLAN PHARMA: Lawyers Quizzed by Appellate Panel in Provigil Case NAPLES TRANSPORTATION: "Pfeuti" Suit Seeks Certification of Class NEW BRUNSWICK: Court Hears Retired Civil Servants' Pension Suit NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Lohr" Suit Removed to W.D. Washington NUCAL FOODS: Direct Purchasers' Settlement Wins Final Approval OCWEN LOAN: Farrin Seeks Certification of Class OHIO ADULT PAROLE: "Sabo" Suit Bid for Class Cert. Granted OREGON: Timber Industry Pays Linn County's Legal Fees PANALPINA WORLD: November 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: Bid on Class Certification Premature, Denied PRECISION CASTPARTS: Southeast Portland Residents File Suit PRIME WHEEL: Faces "Lemus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime QUICKSIUS LLC: Bid to Stay Proceedings in "Dougherty" Suit Denied REALTY REFERRAL: Faces "Pileggi" Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania RED ROBIN: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages REINALT-THOMAS CORP: Settlement in "McDaniel" Has Final Approval SAINT JOHN, NB: Hearing Set in Sexual Abuse Suit vs. Police SAINT JOHN, NB: Judge Reserves Judgment on Abuse Suit vs. Police SAKUMA BROTHERS: Settlement in "Demetrio" Suit Has Final Approval SIRIUS XM: Class Action Trial Scheduled for November 2016 SONOMA, CA: Court Wants Joint Status Report in Retirees' Suit SPALDING NEVERFLAT: Faces Class Action Over False Claims SPOTIFY: NMPA Members Join Royalties Class Action Settlement ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Settles Durata Class Action for $39 Million STERICYCLE INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action SUNTRUST: Ga. High Court Revives Overdraft Fee Class Action SUTTER HEALTH: 9th Cir. Sends "Sidibe" Suit Back to Trial Court SWIFT: Employee Drivers' Class Action Can Proceed TALMER BANK: Livonia Pension System Sues Over Merger TEXAS: Loses Bid to Boot Special Masters in Foster Care Reform TROTT & TROTT: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Certification of Class UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Over Logan Airport Fee Nixed UNION BANK: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ross" Suit Claims UNITED STATES: Former Prosecutor Sues Obama for Inciting Race War UNIVERSAL PICTURES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims VHU EXPRESS: Benjamin's Bid for Conditional Cert. Partly Granted VIGILANT CANINE: Bid for Default Judgment in "McGuire" Denied VISIONWORKS INC: Bid to Seal Docs in "Graiser" Suit Denied VOLKSWAGEN AG: Employees Attempted to Cover Up Emissions Cheating WESTLAKE Services: Settlement in "Duchene" Suit Approved * Israel Court Set to Decide on Gas Monopoly Class Action * Lawsuits Over 401(k) Plans on the Rise Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Pipefitter Sues 20+ Companies ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Couple Sues USX Corp. Over Mesothelioma ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Plumber Sues Dozens Over Lung Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Allowed to Amend Pro Se Complaint ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Vacates Money Judgment vs. Crane Co. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Time in 5 NY Suits Enlarged to 2017 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunday House Demolition Cited for Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Citizens Concerned Over Stedham School Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at Sunnyside Delays Roof Project ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thatcher Mill Fire Causes Asbestos Concerns ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calgarians w/ Asbestos Cancer Need More Choices ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newmarket Man Dies from Asbestos-related Illness ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing Follows Claims of Asbestos at UofL ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Delays Children's Museum Opening ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qld Parliament Asbestos Removal Cost $300K ASBESTOS UPDATE: Italian Court Convicts Former Olivetti Execs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Number of Asbestos Claims Dropped in 2015 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alberta Asbestos Deaths Higher Than Reported ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed at Hillcrest Middle School ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Holland Defends Perth Asbestos Action ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Roofing in Namibia Need to Be Removed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Judge Recommends Summary Judgment Award ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Court Refuses to Transfer Suit to Ill. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Destroyed Evidence Factors in Defense Win ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Angry Over WA Asbestos Scandal ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Korea Strengthens Asbestos Regulations ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Judge Sentences Developer in Asbestos Case ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southampton Man Dies of Asbestos, Smoking ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qld Gov't Call for Release of Asbestos File ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Teacher Exposed to Asbestos in Classroom ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yuanda's Australian Projects Need Probe ********* 21ST CENTURY: "Padilla" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Daniel M. Padilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 21st Century Oncology Holdings, Inc. and 21st Century Oncology of California, Case No. RG16817512, was removed from Alamenda Superior Court to the U.S. District Court California Northern District (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-03711-WHO to the proceeding. The Defendants are providers of radiation therapy and integrated cancer treatments. Daniel M. Padilla is a pro se plaintiff. The Defendant is represented by: Matthew D. Pearson, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: mpearson@bakerlaw.com ALABAMA: Court Won't Name Guardian Ad Litem in "Dunn" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOSHUA DUNN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:14cv601-MHT (M.D. Ala.), District Judge Myron H. Thompson concluded that the appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) is not necessary in light of the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program's participation in the litigation. In the course of preliminarily approving the settlement of the Phase 1 claims in this case, the court ordered the parties to address "whether the court should appoint a guardian ad litem [GAL] to represent at the fairness hearing the interests of class members who are incompetent or otherwise unable to understand or comment on the terms of the settlement agreement." The parties have submitted briefs, both taking the position that appointment of a GAL is not necessary. The Court agrees. According to Judge Thompson, a finding that competent named plaintiffs are adequate representatives -- for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) -- of a class that includes some incompetent members is in no way inconsistent with a finding that a GAL should be appointed to advise the court as to whether those incompetent class members' interests will fairly be served by a proposed settlement agreement, just as a finding of Rule 23(a)(4) adequacy does not obviate the need for a fairness hearing at which competent class members -- though 'represented' in one sense by named plaintiffs -- can themselves be heard. No later than August 17, 2016, plaintiff Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program is to file a brief setting forth in detail its position as to why a settlement agreement promotes the interests, and fairly resolves the claims, of prisoners with cognitive and communication-related disabilities so severe that they would likely be unable to understand the terms of the agreement or submit intelligible comments on them. A copy of the Court's July 7, 2016 Order is available at http://goo.gl/uFzwZhfrom Leagle.com. Ruth Naglich, et al., Defendants, represented by Bryan Arthur Coleman -- bcoleman@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC, Evan Patrick Moltz -- emoltz@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Matthew Reeves -- mreeves@maynardcooper.com - - Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Mitchell David Greggs -- mgreggs@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, Mitesh Bansilal Shah -- mshah@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC, William Richard Lunsford -- blunsford@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Melissa K. Marler -- mmarler@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale PC & Stephen C. Rogers -- srogers@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard Cooper and Gale PC. Alabama Department of Corrections, Defendant, represented by David Randall Boyd -- dboyd@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, John Eric Getty -- egetty@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, John W. Naramore -- jnaramore@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, John Garland Smith -- jgsmith@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, Michael Leon Edwards -- medwards@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham LLP, Susan Nettles Han -- shan@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham, LLP, Anne Adams Hill, Alabama Department of Corrections, Elizabeth Anne Sees, Alabama Department of Corrections, Joseph Gordon Stewart, Jr., Alabama Dept of Corrections & Steven C. Corhern -- scorhern@balch.com -- Balch & Bingham. ALLERGAN INC: Certification of Botox Cosmetic Buyers Class Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled ADEL TAWFILIS, DDS, d/b/a CARMEL VALLEY CENTER FOR ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, AND HAMID A. TOWHIDIAN, M.D., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLERGAN, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-00307-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal.), move the Court to certify the following class or classes: "All purchasers within the United States who purchased Botox Cosmetic directly from Defendant Allergan, Inc. during the Class Period. Excluded from the class definition are all judicial officers assigned to this case, as well as their staff and immediate relatives. The class definition also excludes all employees, agents, or officers of Defendant Allergan, Inc., and all federal, state, and local government employees." For the damages class, the Class Period referenced in the class definition is the period of time beginning on April 1, 2015 and continuing until the date that Court enters an Order certifying the action as a class action. For the injunctive relief class, the Class Period referenced in the foregoing class definition is the period of time beginning on September 25, 2013 and continuing until the date that Court enters an Order certifying the action as a class action. In the event that the Court were to find that the class definition is unsuitable for class certification, Plaintiffs request certification of any narrower alternative class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jUNrK8ux The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy A. Katriel, Esq. THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM, P.C. 4225 Executive Square, Suite 600 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 242 5642 Facsimile: (858) 430 3719 E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com - and - Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq. KRAUSE KALFAYAN BENINK & SLAVENS LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 530 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232 0331 Facsimile: (619) 232 4019 E-mail: ralph@kkbs-law.com AMERICAN DEBT: Settlement in "Newton" Lawsuit Gets Final Okay ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, HEATHER L. NEWTON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN DEBT SERVICES, INC., et al, Defendants, Case No. 3:11-cv-03228 EMC (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Edward M. Chen granted parties' Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and the plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Pursuant to the Court's class certification order, Members of the Class are all consumers in California who paid QSS directly, or indirectly through ADS, for debt settlement services during the four years preceding filing of the complaint, who opened a Special Purpose Account with Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust to be administered by Global Client Solutions, LLC, and did not receive a full refund of all fees and charges paid to all Defendants. The Court approved attorneys' fees award of $348,091, and costs award of $19,409 among Plaintiff's Counsel. A class representative services award of $7,500 to Plaintiff is approved. Following the Settlement Agreement, Global and Rocky Mountain Bank shall pay for administration, class representative service award, and attorneys' fees and costs by delivering a check in the amount of $375,000.00, addressed to and payable to the Consumer Law Office of William E. Kennedy, not later than 15 days after the Effective Date. Not later than 40 days after the Effective Date as that term is defined in the Settlement Agreement, CPT Group, the Administrator shall distribute the payments to the Class Members by first class mail. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Administrator shall distribute the $375,000 pro rata to each of the Class Members, including Class Representative. The undistributed funds shall be donated, half to the Watsonville Law Center in Watsonville, California, and half to the Katherine and George Alexander Law Center in San Jose, California as cy pres. A copy of the Court's decision is available at http://goo.gl/QnEJXLfrom Leagle.com. Global Client Solutions, LLC, et al., Defendants, represented by Jeffrey Aaron Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, John Henry Pelzer, Greenspoon Marder PA, pro hac vice, Meredith H. Leonard, Esq. -- meredith.leonard@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder PA, Richard Wayne Epstein -- richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder PA & Robert Samuel Boulter. ANSELMO LINDBERG: Class Cert. Bid in "Wolter" Suit Withdrawn ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Robert W. Gettleman entered an order in the class action lawsuit styled Elisa Wolter, et al., the Plaintiff, v. Anselmo Lindberg Oliver LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04205 (N.D. Ill.), withdrawing the motion to certify class based on the docket entry by the Clerk on July 19, 2016. A Status hearing was held in the case on July 19, 2016. A joint status report is due today, July 22, 2016. Another status hearing is set for July 27, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GRDcvQpi ARIEL QUIROS: Wants EB-5 Immigrant Investors' Fraud Case Nixed -------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Galloway, writing for VT Digger, reports that the Miami businessman who is accused of defrauding 700 EB-5 immigrant investors at a ski resort in the Northeast Kingdom is asking a Washington County Superior Court judge to dismiss allegations made by state regulators. The Vermont Department of Financial Regulation has brought 15 charges of securities violations against Ariel Quiros, the owner of Jay Peak Resort, and his partner, Bill Stenger, the CEO and president of the ski area. The state, in the amended complaint, is seeking $375,000 in civil penalties and costs for prosecution and investigation of the case. Mr. Quiros has been accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of stealing more than $55 million from investors. The SEC alleges that he and Mr. Stenger misused $200 million in EB-5 immigrant investor funds in a "Ponzi-like scheme." Mr. Quiros has asked the federal court in Miami to dismiss the case. The alleged fraud is also subject of an FBI investigation. Mr. Quiros is also fighting the case in superior court. Mr. Stenger, meanwhile, has asked for more time to respond to the state allegations and is likely to settle soon with the SEC. Mr. Quiros is represented by Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, while the extension for Mr. Stenger was signed by Scott Kline, an assistant attorney general. Washington Superior Court Judge Thomas Tomasi on July 8 granted Mr. Stenger's request for an extension until Aug. 3. Ritchie Berger, Mr. Quiros' defense attorney, argues that the state has "grossly overreached" and fails to "allege actionable fraud in connection with the sale of any security"; that the state has filed the claim under the consumer protection act, which doesn't govern securities transactions; and that the claims regarding Mr. Quiros' purchase of Jay Peak Resort in June 2008 using investor money are "time-barred." Mr. Berger says the state "unveiled this lawsuit amidst great fanfare," and alleged it was a significant securities enforcement case. But the lawsuit, he says, is ultimately a "misguided enforcement action." "While the State's characterization of the litigation may have made good sound bites in the news, the actual allegations of the Complaint tell a very different and less sensational story," Mr. Berger writes. Mr. Quiros' defense attorney says five of the seven projects promised by the developers were completely constructed and the remaining two were under construction. The state's "primary accusation," Berger writes, is that Mr. Quiros failed to use investor funds the way as stated by the private placement memoranda for each project, and yet the projects were, for the most part, built. The state's allegations are the "stuff of everyday private commercial disputes: broken promises and misuse of partnership funds," Mr. Berger says, and "fall far short of making out securities fraud." He describes the investors as "wealthy enough" to invest $500,000 in an EB-5 project "and are all entirely capable of enforcing their own rights against Mr. Quiros and the other defendants." Berger points to class action lawsuits that have already been filed on behalf of investors. Mr. Berger argues that the alleged misrepresentations made to early Jay Peak investors in the Tram Haus and Hotel Jay in 2006 and 2007 can't be pinned on Mr. Quiros because he didn't own the resort until 2008. Deceptive conduct, or a misrepresentation or omission of factual information in connection with the sale of a security, is central to any securities fraud claim, Mr. Berger writes. The state, however, in this case, he says, targeted conduct that allegedly occurred after the securities were sold. The SEC and the state have alleged that Mr. Quiros purchased the Jay Peak Resort on June 23, 2008, using money from immigrant investors that was supposed to be held in escrow for the construction of the two hotels. Subsequently, Messrs. Quiros and Stenger had to acquire more investor funds to backfill the projects, the SEC alleges, setting up a "Ponzi-like" scenario in which the developers were taking money from investors in later projects to pay for earlier ones. Mr. Quiros also allegedly leveraged more than $100 million in investor funds in margin loans through Raymond James Financial Inc. The company reached a $5.95 million settlement with the state on June 29. Mr. Stenger was the front man for the operation. He solicited investors, distributed marketing materials and oversaw the drafting of the agreements with investors, known as private placement memoranda, for how the projects were to be paid for and built and ultimately how the resort would pay back investors. Mr. Berger alleges that Mr. Stenger had "ultimate responsibility" for the private placement memoranda; Mr. Quiros, on the other hand, "reviewed" and "was familiar" with the contents of the agreements and "approved" certain portions of them. Therefore, Mr. Berger says, Mr. Quiros cannot be held accountable for alleged omissions and misrepresentations made to investors in the limited partnership agreements. The fact that "the developers made specific representations as to how the partnership funds were going to be managed and used," and Messrs. Quiros and Stenger "subsequently deviated" from those representations does not constitute securities fraud, Berger says. While the representations Mr. Quiros made may have been false at the time, Berger says, the law is "well settled that false representations or broken promises" that could affect the future are not the basis of "actionable fraud." The state has not proven, he said, that Mr. Quiros made promises and "had no intention of keeping them." Mr. Berger points to the completion of five of the seven projects as proof that there is "no factual allegation of an intent to misuse funds." ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Settlement in "Fox" Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANN FOX, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. CV 14-734-GW(FFMx), (C.D. Cal.), District Judge George H. Wu granted final approval of the parties' Class Action Settlement and the plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. For purposes of the Settlement and the Final Approval Order and the Judgment, the lawsuit is certified as a class action on behalf of the following Class Members consisting of all persons who were called using a dialer without consent on a cellular telephone by Asset Acceptance, LLC or someone acting on behalf of Asset Acceptance, LLC between April 17, 2009 and September 4, 2014. Excluded from the Class is Defendant, its parent companies, affiliates or subsidiaries, and any entities in which any of such companies has a controlling interest; the judge or magistrate judge to whom the Lawsuit is assigned; and, any member of those judges' staffs and immediate families, as well as persons who validly requested exclusion from the Settlement Class. Class Counsel is awarded $262,500 for attorney's fees and costs. Compensation for the Class Representative in the amount of $2,500 is granted. Heffler Claims Group, the Settlement Administrator, shall conduct all administration of the Common Fund and shall prepare and issue all disbursements of the Individual Cash Settlement Amounts from the Common Fund to Authorized Claimants entitled to such benefits within the time period specified in the Agreement. A copy of the court's July 1, 2016 decision is available at http://goo.gl/C2EsdGfrom Leagle.com. Asset Acceptance LLC, Defendant, represented by Ashley R Fickel -- afickel@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett LLP & Edward D Totino, DLA Piper LLP. ASSET RECOVERY: "Pirkle" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ---------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff moves the court to certify a class in the lawsuit styled GAIL PIRKLE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC and BUREAUS INVESTMENT GROUP PORTFOLIO NO 15 LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-946 (E.D. Wisc.). The Plaintiff further requests that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bqHtaJeO The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com BAXTER CREDIT: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over Overdraft Fee -------------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports that a Hayward resident alleges a credit union charged her an overdraft fee despite her account having enough money for the transaction. Sondra Ramirez filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on July 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Baxter Credit Union and Does 1 through 10 citing breach of contract, unfair competition, unjust enrichment and other counts. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she suffered damages as a result of being charged an overdraft fee by the defendant. The plaintiff holds Baxter Credit Union and Does 1 through 10 responsible because the defendants allegedly charged plaintiff and the class an overdraft fee even when there was sufficient funds in the account to pay for the proposed transaction. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, to restore and return all monies allegedly wrongfully obtained plus interest, all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems just. She is represented by Richard D. McCune and Jae K. Kim of McCune Wright LLP in Redlands and Taras Kick, G. James Strenio and Robert J. Dart of The Kick Law Firm APC in Santa Monica. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case number 3:16-cv-03765-DMR BC HYDRO: Activists Lose Bid to Certify Smart Meter Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- CKNW News reports that it's the end of the legal road for a group of activists fighting against BC Hydro's smart meters. The Supreme Court of BC has thrown out an application to certify a lawsuit against the crown corporation as a class-action. That suit was brought by a group called Citizens for Safe Technology, who claim the wireless microwave technology used by smart meters is harmful. BC Hydro has maintained the devices, which transmit hydro readings wirelessly, are safe. In June we told you around 11,000 people are still holding out against getting a smart meter. Alex Bronevitch of Mission is one of them, and is disappointed to hear the crown corporation won. "There's lots of talk about the smart meters. But the main thing is if you don't want one, you're bullied into having to have it. And if you don't want it you're bullied by these letters saying they are going to cut your power off." But Hydro representative Simi Heer says that's not the case. "Those people are in our meter choices program, so those people have elected to either get a radio off meter or a legacy meter, we're not threatening to cut them off." BC Hydro says they welcome the courts decision, and smart meters are "now a part of our standard operating equipment and have been delivering benefits to BC Hydro and our customers for more than four years." BEVERAGES & MORE: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- Hadyanto Sytandar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Beverages & More, Inc. t/a Bevmo, Case No. BC625595 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of discrimination on the basis of disability, specifically by blocking disabled consumers from equal access to and use of their stores. Beverages & More, Inc. is based in Concord, California selling mainly alcoholic beverages. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Green" Suit Transferred to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Joel Green and Chevay Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BMW of North America LLC and BMW AG, Case No. 2:16-cv-03065, was transferred from the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-04800-MWF-GJS to the proceeding. The Defendants are engaged in the import and distribution of BMW luxury and performance vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. CHIMICLES AND TIKELLIS LLP 361 West Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 642-8500 Facsimile: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: awf@chimicles.com bfj@chimicles.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher J. Dalton, Esq. Rosemary Joan Bruno, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL AND ROONEY PC 550 Broad Street Suite 810 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 273-9800 Facsimile: (973) 273-9430 E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com rosemary.bruno@bipc.com BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Glaser" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) --------------------------------------------------------- Milton Glaser v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. _________ (Conn. Super. Ct., June 30, 2016), is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R). Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut 06877. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal L. Moskow, Esq. URY & MOSKOW, LLC 833 Black Rock Turnpike Fairfield, CT 06825 Telephone: (203) 610-6393 Facsimile: (203) 610-6399 E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com - and - C. Andrew Childers, Esq. CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC 1932 N. Druid Hills Road Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30319 Telephone: (404) 419-9500 Facsimile: (404) 419-9501 E-mail: achilders@cssfirm.com CACTUS DRILLING: Court Granted Settlement in "Perry" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Michael H. Schneider entered an order in the class action lawsuit styled BRIAN C. PEERY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. CACTUS DRILLING COMPANY, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:15-cv-00094-MHS (E.D.Tex.), granting Peery's unopposed motion for final approval of collective and class action settlement. Solely for settlement purposes, the FLSA settlement class is defined as: "Any and all persons employed by Cactus Drilling as a Yard Hand, Floor Hands, Lead Tong Hand, Motor Men, Derrick Hand, and/or Driller from February 2, 2012 through October 14, 2015 who opted-in by timely submitting a Claim Form Package." The Court approves Class Counsel's request for 35% of the Maximum Gross Settlement Amount as reasonable attorneys' fees and for reimbursement of $1,443.62 in reasonable costs and litigation expenses. The Claim Administrator's fee of $27,000 is also approved. The Court also approves the payment of the Service Payment of $10,000 to Peery. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gNFPsEQv CALIFORNIA: Oct. 17 Case Management Conference Set -------------------------------------------------- District Judge Thelton E. Henderson ordered that a Case Management Conference shall be held on October 17, 2016, in the case, JOHN DOE, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KAMALA D. HARRIS, et al., Defendants, No. C 12-5713 THE (N.D. Calif.). The parties shall file an updated joint case management statement no later than seven days prior to the case management conference. Following the death of Plaintiff Doe, the action will still proceed in favor of the remaining Plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(2). The case involves the unconstitutionality of an enacted Proposition 35 that required all persons, to register under California Penal Code section 290, who have been convicted of sex- related offenses to provide to police their Internet identifiers and the names of their Internet service providers. The Court deferred the entry of final judgment of the case to allow for a further reasonable time to enable Intervenors to continue pursuing legislation that may resolve the matter. At any juncture during which this case remains pending and it becomes apparent that Intervenors' efforts to pass legislation are either successful or not successful, the parties will provide a joint update to the Court. Parties are barred from seeking extension of the case beyond the current 2015-2016 legislative session. A copy of the Court's July 7, 2016 Order is available at http://goo.gl/sQUL3pfrom Leagle.com. Kamala D. Harris, Defendant, represented by Robert David Wilson -- Robert.Wilson@doj.ca.gov -- California State Attorney General's Office. CALIFORNIA: Court Wants Class Notice in "Ashker" Suit Finalized --------------------------------------------------------------- TODD ASHKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants, No. C 09-05796 CW (N.D. Cal.), the parties on September 1, 2015, reached a Stipulation and Settlement Agreement to resolve this case regarding Defendants' policies and practices related to gang management and their use of segregated housing, including the Security Housing Unit (SHU) at Pelican Bay State Prison. The Court granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement on January 26, 2016. The Settlement Agreement provides entitlement to Plaintiffs' counsel's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. By this Order, the Court sets forth the notice and approval process concerning an agreement negotiated by the parties for payment of $4,550,000 to Plaintiffs for all attorneys' fees and costs incurred during the four years of litigation leading to the date the Settlement Agreement was executed on September 1, 2015. District Judge Claudia Wilken directed the parties to prepare a final version of the Class Notice, incorporating the Scheduling Order. Within 10 business days of the preparation of the final version of the Class Notice, Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is directed to post the Class Notice in English and Spanish in all housing units of all prisons housing prisoners who are or have been Ashker class members in such a manner as to make the notice visible to all prisoners. All 32 male prison institutions are required to be posted with the notice. CDCR is also directed to place a copy of the Order and a copy of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion in the law library of every such prison. Any member of the class can write to the Federal Court about whether the Fee Accord is unfair and should not be approved. A written comment containing the author's full name and CDCR number including all objections and reasons together with any and all supporting papers shall be signed by the class member. At the conclusion of the notice period, the parties shall have ten days in which to file a response to the objections, if any, raised by class members, and for Plaintiffs to submit a proposed order for approval of the Fee Accord and Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(h) and 52. Hearing shall be set 14 days from the date the parties file any further briefing addressing class members' objections, with the intention of holding that date for addressing objections and determining approval. Payment shall be made within ten business days following entry of the Court's order approving the Fee Accord. A copy of the court's order dated July 1, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/ZMVTx6from Leagle.com. Mathew Cate, Secretary, CDCR, et al., Defendants, represented by Adriano Hrvatin -- adriano.hrvatin@doj.ca.gov -- California Department of Justice, Christine Marie Ciccotti -- christine.ciccotti@doj.ca.gov -- California Attorney General's Office, Jay Craig Russell -- jay.russell@doj.ca.gov -- Office of the Attorney General, Jillian Renee O'Brien, California State Attorney General's Office, Loran Michael Simon, California State Department of Justice & Martine Noel D'Agostino, CA State Attorney General's Office. CALIFORNIA SERVICE: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports that an Oakley man alleges a Novato business repeatedly called him despite of never previously having contact with it. He has filed a class-action suit. Hector Membreno filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on July 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against California Service Bureau Inc. alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between 2015 and 2016, he was called on his cellular telephone several times without his consent by the defendant. The plaintiff holds California Service Bureau Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly called plaintiff using an autodialer and/or artificial or pre-recorded voice. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks injunctive relief, $1,500 as treble damages for each and every call, $500 as statutory damages for each and every violation, all damages, all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems just. He is represented by L. Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Annick M. Persinger -- apersinger@bursor.com -- and Yeremey O. Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher PA in Walnut Creek. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case number 3:16-cv-03763 CAPITAL ADVANCE: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Continued to Aug. 4 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. John Robert Blakey entered an order in the class action lawsuit styled Scott D.H. Redman, the Plaintiff, v. Capital Advance Solutions, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04380 (N.D. Ill.), continuing Plaintiff's motion to certify a class to August 4, 2016 at 9:45 a.m. in Courtroom 1725 based on the docket entry made by the Clerk on July 19, 2016. The Court further: a. granted the oral motion for entry of default as to all Defendants; b. denied Plaintiff's motion for discovery without prejudice; and c. struck a status hearing date of September 14, 2016. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RCK8EjlZ CITIBANK NA: "Juarez" Case Management Conference Moved to Aug. 17 ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William H. Orrick extended the Case Management Conference from July 19, 2016 to August 17, 2016, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, in the case, FORTUNATO LOPEZ JUAREZ, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01984-WHO (N.D. Calif.). Accordingly, the Court approved, as stipulated, the deadline for the filing of the joint case management statement from July 12, 2016 to August 10, 2016. A copy of the COurt's order dated July 5, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/PqMP5rfrom Leagle.com. Citibank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Marcos D. Sasso -- msasso@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP. CHICAGO: Judge Wants "Myers" Complaint Revised ---------------------------------------------- In the case, BEN MYERS, AFFORDABLE HOME DEV., LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, DEPT. OF HOUSING, Defendant, Case No. 16 C 5734 (N.D. Ill.), Senior District Judge Milton I. Shadur identified a highly problematic nature of the Plaintiffs' filing with the Court that would take a virtual paper lecture to identify all of the problems with the Complaint. The Court did not dismiss the action itself, as to which no substantive view is expressed in the order. According to the Court, the Complaint's effort to bring the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of poor black tenants who are systematically losing their section 8 papers as a result of the City's discriminatory custom and usage fails, because Affordable qualify as a proposed class action representative. Plaintiffs will have to include, in any Amended Complaint, a proper identification of provisions of the federal fair housing laws or of the federal Constitution or both to confirm their standing to bring this action. Striking the Complaint would enable Plaintiffs to replace the Complaint as promptly as possible with an acceptable work product. To that end Plaintiff's counsel is urged to consult with (or perhaps to affiliate with) some informed federal practitioner who can assist him in putting together a reasonably acceptable Amended Complaint. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 8, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/P1S2rufrom Leagle.com. CLICKSPARK LLC: Faces "Sicker" Class Suit to District New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Clickspark, LLC d/b/a Degreematch and John Does 1-25. The case is captioned Sara Sicker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clickspark, LLC d/b/a Degreematch and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:16-cv-03908-AET-LHG (D.N.J., June 30, 2016). The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. MARCUS ZELMAN LLC 1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101 Ocean, NJ 07712 Telephone: (732) 695-3282 Facsimile: (732) 298-6256 E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com COLLECTION BUREAU: Illegally Collects Debt, "Schleifer" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Schleifer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Collection Bureau of Hudson Valley, Inc., Case No. 7:16-cv-05170-KMK (S.D.N.Y., June 30, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Collection Bureau of Hudson Valley, Inc. operates a collection firm located at 155 N Plank Rd, Newburgh, NY 12550. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL ZEMEL 70 Clinton Ave. Newark, NJ 07114 Telephone: (973) 525-2552 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com CONNECTICUT: "Wright" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled IAN WRIGHT, ET AL., "class member" Plaintiffs, v. DANNEL P. MOLLOY, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01179-SRU (D. Conn.), move the Court for an order of Class Certification. The "class member" Plaintiffs are prisoners confined in State Prisons in the State of Connecticut, who are convicted of class A and B felonies and are been denied good time credits and parole. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nMuikWq8 CONOPCO INC: Motion for Final Settlement Approval Due Sept. 12 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALBA MORALES; LAINIE COHEN; LINDA CLAYMAN; and KENNETH DREW, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CONOPCO, INC., d/b/a UNILEVER, Defendant, CIV. No. 2:13-cv-2213 WBS EFB (E.D. Calif.), District Judge William B. Shubb granted the parties' stipulation to modify the July 12, 2016 Scheduling Order but without changing the Final Approval Hearing date which shall take place as scheduled on October 17, 2016. The Court ordered the following modified scheduling order: -- Plaintiffs shall direct the Notice Administrator to commence the media campaign described in the Notice Plan submitted in support of the Motion for Preliminary Approval by no later than August 1, 2016, and complete it by no later than August 30, 2016; -- Plaintiffs shall file a motion for final approval of the Settlement, together with supporting papers, by no later than September 12, 2016; -- Plaintiffs shall file any motion for approval of an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, as well as any motion for lead plaintiff awards, by no later than September 12, 2016; -- Class members shall file any objections to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or Plaintiffs' requests for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and lead plaintiff awards, by no later than September 29, 2016; -- Class members shall file any requests for exclusion by no later than September 29, 2016; -- Responses to any objections or requests for exclusion shall be filed by no later than October 7, 2016, together with a final report on effectuation of the Notice Plan; -- The Final Approval Hearing shall take place as scheduled on October 17, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.; and -- Class members who wish to receive a portion of the Settlement fund shall file claim forms by no later than October 24, 2016. A copy of the Court's order dated July 14, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/jMbV82from Leagle.com. Conopco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jay P. Lefkowitz -- lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Michael Phillip Esser -- michael.esser@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Ross Weiner -- ross.weiner@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP. CONTAIN ENERGY: Cantu Seeks Certification of Operators Class ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled JUSTIN CANTU, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONTAIN ENERGY SERVICES, LLC F/K/A DELTAIC UPSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, REZA TALABI, MARK ADAMSON, JOHN ADAMSON, and KYLE D. ROWLETT, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00422 (S.D. Tex., July 2, 2016), ask the Court to conditionally certify a class of: "All Helpers and Operators Who Worked for Contain Energy Services, LLC f/k/a DELTAIC Upstream Technologies, LLC, Reza Talabi, Mark Adamson, John Adamson, and Kyle D. Rowlett, At Any Time During the Past Three Years and Received a Salary Plus a Job Bonus/Day Rate (Putative Class Members)." The Plaintiffs further request that the Court: (1) order that a judicially approved notice be sent to all Putative Class Members by mail and e-mail; (2) approve the form and content of Plaintiffs' proposed judicial notice and reminder notice; (3) order Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel the name, last known address, phone number, e-mail address and dates of employment for each of the Putative Class Members in a usable electronic format; and (4) authorize a 60-day notice period for the Putative Class Members to join this case. The Plaintiffs brought the action lawsuit pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs owed to current and former employees who worked for Defendants over the past three years. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants' payroll practice of paying all current and former Helpers and Operators a salary plus a job bonus/day rate and no overtime compensation was improper under the FLSA. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BW1E8m3k The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452 1279 Facsimile: (361) 452 1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com COSL: Oil Workers Entitled to Extra Month's Pay, Court Rules ------------------------------------------------------------ Rita Brown, writing for Energy Voice, reports that a Norwegian district court has ruled a group of oil workers are entitled to an extra month's pay, after they were terminated by email. In a class action lawsuit filed by Norwegian union SAFE, 39 participants argued they were entitled to an extra pay-packet after bosses at rig firm COSL sacked them. On June 30 last year, COSL sent an email to 229 employees notifying them of their dismissal. However, their official letter didn't arrive until days later and after July 1. The court ruled the "employer must cover the economic loss plaintiffs incurred in that period of notice is calculated from July 1 -- in practice one months 'extra' salary". SAFE-lawyer Elisabeth Bjelland, who argued the case in court, said: "The verdict is unanimous. It involves an important, fundamental clarification of questions that have not tried in the judicial system previously." Despite the unanimous ruling in Safe's favor, both parties must cover their own costs, according to the court. CUNA MUTUAL: Ogrizovich Seeks Approval of Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit styled RONALD ALLEN OGRIZOVICH and DONNA LYNN OGRIZOVICH, Husband and Wife, Brenda RENNER, and on behalf of a group of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. CUNA MUTUAL GROUP a/k/a CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY, its affiliates and subsidiaries, CLEARVIEW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and GNC COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:09-cv-00371-DSC (W.D. Penn., July 2, 2016), asks the court to grant an amended motion for preliminary approval of Class Settlement and Certification of Class for Settlement Purposes. The Proposed Settlement will pay to each class members a refund of any amount of over-charged interest or $100.00, whichever is greater, resulting from Defendants CMFG's late payment of credit disability payments to GNC, resulting in interest charges added to the putative Plaintiffs outstanding loan balances. Both Plaintiff and Defendants believe that Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable for the class and that the requirements for final approval will be met. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9tWrUezY The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth R. Behrend, Esq. 355 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor Pittsburg, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 391 2515 E-mail: Behrendlawyers@aol.com DEL CITY WIRE: Bones Kart Shop Seeks Stay of Proceedings -------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit styled BONES KART SHOP, L.L.C, a Connecticut limited liability company, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. DEL CITY WIRE CO., INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01110 (D. Conn., July 2, 2016), moves the Court for an order: (A) taking motion under submission and deferring further activity on it until after the discovery cutoff date to be set in the Court's upcoming scheduling order, or (B) granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VwMZZypa The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plaines, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 358 5345 Facsimile: (212) 571 0284 E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com DMNO LLC: Black Seeks Certification of Class -------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled JAMES BLACK, ASHLEY NEWTON, MARK GANDY, ERIN LAWRENCE, JEFFREY BLAIR, DAVID PIERCE-FEITH, AUSTIN LANE, PATRICE JONES, ZACHARY ADAMS, ASARIA CRITTENDEN, ELIZABETH KUZMOVICH, SHANNON MICSWAIN, LARRY j. JUNT, JR., and CARLOS AYESTAS, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. DMNO, LLC, DORON MOSHE REBI-CHIA, ITAI BEN ELI and ITAMAR LEVY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02708-SM-KWR (E.D. La., July 2, 2016), move for conditional class certification and judicial notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=r47ikEgL The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura L. Catlett, Esq. LAURA L. CATLETT, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 1414 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 521 7958 Facsimile: (866) 587 6697 E-mail: LauraLCatlettlaw@gmail.com - and - Megan Jacqmin, Esq. Megan Jacqmin, Attorney at Law 301 N. Columbia Street Covington LA 70433 Telephone: (504) 655 5066 Facsimile: (504) 335 0646 E-mail: Megan.Jacqmin@gmail.com DOMETIC GROUP: Clarifies Media Statements on Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Dometic Group on July 12 disclosed that in view of the statements Hagens Berman has made regarding an alleged new class action complaint that has been filed against Dometic in the US, the company makes the following clarification. The class action complaint referred to by Hagens Berman, which was filed on July 8, 2016, is not a new complaint but rather an amended complaint; it was filed by the same law firm in the same court. The amended complaint adds two additional plaintiffs, who jointly own an RV, to the original five plaintiffs for a total of seven plaintiffs. Dometic filed a motion to dismiss the original complaint on June 17 and will file another motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Amended complaints are common and this one was not unexpected. Another common part of the legal process is that competing law firms can file similar complaints. Another law firm filed a similar lawsuit against Dometic in the Southern District of Florida. This complaint currently includes seven individual plaintiffs, none of whom claims to have experienced any manifested defect related to a Dometic product. Dometic remains firm in its position that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. This information is information that Dometic Group AB (publ) is obliged to make public pursuant to the EU Market Abuse Regulation. The information was submitted for publication, through the agency of the contact person set out above, at 8.15 CET on July 12, 2016. About Dometic Group Dometic claims to be a global market leader in branded solutions for mobile living in the areas of Climate, Hygiene & Sanitation and Food & Beverage. Dometic operates in the Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific, providing products for use in recreational vehicles, trucks and premium cars, pleasure and workboats, and for a variety of other uses. It operates 22 manufacturing/assembly sites in nine countries, sell its products in approximately 100 countries and manufacture approximately 85% of products sold in-house. It has a global distribution and dealer network in place to serve the aftermarket. Dometic employs approximately 6,500 people worldwide, had net sales of SEK11.5 billion in 2015 and is headquartered in Solna, Sweden. DRESSER-RAND GROUP: Agrees to Pay $100K to Plaintiffs' Counsel -------------------------------------------------------------- On September 24, 2014 and October 24, 2014, two stockholders of Dresser-Rand Group, Inc. ("DRC") filed purported class action lawsuits, which have since been consolidated into one class action, in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Court") against DRC's Board of Directors and CEO, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty. DRC, Siemens Energy, Inc. ("Siemens"), and Siemens' wholly- owned subsidiary, Dynamo Acquisition Corporation ("Merger Sub"), were also named as defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the other defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties. The claims relate to DRC's Board of Directors' approval of the merger agreement dated September 21, 2014, between DRC and Siemens, which was alleged to offer unfair and inadequate consideration for DRC stock. The proposed class action, among other things, sought to prevent the merger, cause the public disclosure of certain information, and monetary damages. On November 17, 2014, DRC filed with the SEC a Form 8-K that included certain supplemental disclosures that were negotiated with the plaintiffs and were provided in connection with, and solely as a result of, a proposed settlement among the parties to the litigation. These supplemental disclosures pertained to DRC's financial projections, background leading to the merger, and alternatives to the merger that were considered by DRC's Board of Directors, including information with respect to the timing of discussions regarding the combined company's board representation and employment of DRC management. Plaintiffs' counsel in the stockholder action subsequently expressed their intention to petition the Court for fees and reimbursement of expenses for obtaining the additional disclosures made by DRC prior to the stockholder vote on the merger. On April 18, 2016, the Court entered an order dismissing the stockholder action with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs and without prejudice as to all other members of the putative class. Pursuant to the order, the Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of determining the plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. After the action was dismissed, DRC agreed to pay fees and expenses in the amount of $100,000 to counsel for plaintiffs. The Court has not considered or approved in any way the amount of this payment of fees and expenses. Counsel for the stockholder plaintiffs include Shane Rowley of Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, who can be reached at (212) 363-7500, and Peter Safirstein of Morgan & Morgan, P.C. who can be reached at (212) 564-1637. Counsel for the DRC defendants include William Savitt -- WDSavitt@wlrk.com -- of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, who can be reached at (212) 403-1000. Counsel for the Siemens defendants include Blair Connelly -- blair.connelly@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins LLP, who can be reached at (212) 906-1200. DYNAMEX INC: Seeks Decertification of FLSA Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Defendants in the class action lawsuit styled JUAN SARAVIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DYNAMEX, INC., DYNAMEX FLEET SERVICES, INC., DYNAMEX OPERATIONS EAST, INC. and DYNAMEX OPERATIONS WEST, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-921 (E.D. Wisc.), move the Court to decertify Plaintiff's collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Dynamex provides transportation services to customers ranging from local companies to Fortune 500 corporations in the United States and Canada. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fqkxityh The Defendants are represented by: Robert G. Hulteng, Esq. Aurelio Perez, Esq. Lauren E. Meyerholz, Esq. Perry K. Miska, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Bush Street, 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433 1940 Facsimile: (415) 399 8490 E-mail: rhulteng@littler.com aperez@littler.com lmeyerholz@littler.com pmiska@littler.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Has Until August 28 to Respond to "Stamer" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo entered an order in the class action lawsuit styled David Stamer, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC Case No. 1:16-cv-05578 (N.D. Ill.), granting Defendant's unopposed motion for 14-day enlargement of time until August 28, 2016, to file a response to Plaintiff's complaint. According to a docket entry made by the Court Clerk on July 14, 2016, the scheduling conference is reset from July 28, 2016 to August 11, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. Hearing on plaintiff's motion to certify class noticed for July 28, 2016 is reset to August 11, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IpyDWitv EL POLLO LOCO: Faces Securities Class Action in California ---------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on July 12 disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of El Pollo Loco securities between May 15, 2015 and August 13, 2015, for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by El Pollo Loco's officers and directors. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., through its subsidiary, El Pollo Loco, Inc., develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants under the El Pollo Loco name in the United States. View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog: www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/el-pollo-loco- holdings-inc-july-2016 El Pollo Loco Accused of Issuing Misleading Sales Growth Guidance According to the complaint, El Pollo Loco officials repeatedly and unjustifiably touted the company's sales growth in company-wide "comparable store sales," a key metric closely watched by market analysts and investors. During an investor conference call on May 14, 2015, El Pollo Loco officials reported a continuation of the company's positive sales growth trend for the first quarter of fiscal year 2015, reporting better than expected revenue and earnings for the quarter, driven by a 5.1% increase in comparable store sales, and confirming guidance for the second quarter of 2015 in the 3-5% range. However, the complaint alleges that at the same time company officials were touting El Pollo Loco's strong financial state, customer traffic to El Pollo Loco restaurants had been substantially declining since the first quarter of 2015. This in turn hurt the company's sales in the first half of 2015 and diminished its ability to meet its sales growth guidance for the second quarter of 2015. In the first quarter of 2015, El Pollo Loco abandoned its highly popular value-priced menu, which was a key factor that drove customer traffic to the company's restaurants. The complaint alleges that company officials closely tracked and monitored comparable store sales on a real-time basis and knew, but concealed from investors, that traffic at El Pollo Loco restaurants was significantly declining. In addition, within days of the misleading statements and omissions that artificially inflated the price of the company's stock, several top El Pollo Loco executives suspiciously sold over six million shares of El Pollo Loco common stock for proceeds of more than $132 million. These company insiders allegedly knew that customer traffic was rapidly deteriorating and that the company's 3-5% comparable sales growth guidance was not achievable. On August 13, 2015, the company announced store sales growth for the second quarter of 2015 was 50% lower than the 3-5% growth that company officials had led the market to expect. On this news, El Pollo Loco stock fell 20% to close at $14.56 per share on August 14, 2015, the lowest closing price since the company's initial public offering on July 14, 2014. El Pollo Loco 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. ELECTRO RENT: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC, on July 12 disclosed that on June 20, 2016, a class action was commenced on behalf of all holders of Electro Rent Corporation ("Electro Rent" or the "Company") common shares in the United States District Court for the Central District of California relating to the proposed acquisition by an affiliate of Platinum Equity, LLC ("Platinum") (the "Proposed Transaction"). The complaint charges Electro Rent and the Board of Directors of Electro Rent (the "Board"), with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder ("Rule 14a-9"). If you are an Electro Rent common shareholder and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from July 12, 2016. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Jason Brodsky or Evan Smith of Brodsky & Smith, LLC at (877) LEGAL-90 or via e-mail at investorrelations@brodsky-smith.com. For additional information you may also visit http://brodsky- smith.com/1082-elrc-electro-rent-corporation.html. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Electro Rent rents, leases, and sells new and used electronic test and measurement ("T&M") equipment primarily for use in the aerospace and defense, telecommunications, electronics, industrial, and semiconductor markets. The Company operates through two segments, T&M and data products. Its equipment portfolio includes general purpose T&M instruments, personal computers, workstations, tablets, and servers. The complaint alleges that Electro Rent, the Board and Platinum breached their duties, and/or aided and abetted such breaches, in connection with their attempt to consummate the Proposed Transaction pursuant to an unfair process and for an unfair price. In addition, the complaint alleges Electro Rent and the Board disseminated a false and misleading Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy") in violation of Sec14(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder in connection with the Proposed Transaction. On May 31, 2016, Electro Rent and Platinum entered into a definitive agreement (the "Merger Agreement") that would culminate in Platinum, through Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2, acquiring all of the outstanding shares of Electro Rent. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Electro Rent public stockholders would have received $13.12 in cash for every share of Electro common stock held, for an approximate aggregate value of $323.4 million. Thereafter, on June 7, 2016, defendants caused the Proxy to be filed with the SEC. Plaintiff's complaint was filed on June 20, 2016. On June 23, 2016, Electro Rent and Platinum entered into a Restated Merger Agreement (the "Restated Merger Agreement"). Under the terms of the Restated Merger Agreement, Electro Rent public stockholders will receive $15.50 in cash for every share of Electro Rent common stock held. On July 7, 2016, the Company filed its Definitive Proxy with the SEC and disseminated it in connection with a scheduled August 5, 2016 shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction. The complaint alleges the Proxy contains a number of false and misleading statements that are material to shareholders who are expected to rely on the Proxy to determine whether to approve the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy omits a number of material facts necessary to make statements made therein not false and misleading, including the events leading to the Merger Agreement, the analyses conducted by the Board's financial advisor, and Electro Rent's prospective financial information. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of all Electro Rent shareholders. The plaintiff is represented by Brodsky & Smith, LLC, which has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary duties. Please visit http://brodsky-smith.com/1082-elrc-electro-rent- corporation.html for more information. ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY: Untimely Removal Remands "D'itri" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DENNIS D'ITRI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ENCOMPASS INDEMNITY COMPANY Defendant, Case No. 4:16CV0346 (N.D. Ohio), District Judge Benita Y. Pearson favored Plaintiff's Motion for Remand over Petition for Removal in an action seeking damages for loss of the structure and contents arising from a residential fire on Plaintiff's property. For a removal to be timely, a petition must be filed within 30 days after receipt through service or otherwise of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief. The court stated that the 30-day clock runs from the point at which a defendant has solid and unambiguous knowledge that the case is removable, even if that information is solely within its own possession. On January 13, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint that pled both the insurance coverage for loss contents and the prior examination under oath and the information regarding their losses that had been provided to Defendant almost two months earlier. Defendant has unambiguous knowledge that the amount-in-controversy exceeds $75,000. Therefore, the thirty-day window for removal began on January 13, 2016 and ended February 12, 2016. Defendant filed its petition for removal on February 15, 2016. Because Defendant's petition for removal was untimely, the court remanded the case. A copy of the decision dated July 1, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/onWJwcfrom Leagle.com. Encompass Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by David Cooper Comstock, Jr., Bonezzi, Switzer, Polito & Hupp. ENSIGN INC: Status Conference Continued on Aug. 15 -------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston continued the status conference in the case STEPHEN HALE and O'BRIAN RANGEL Individually, on Behalf of Themselves, and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING (CALIFORNIA) INC. and ENSIGN UNITED STATES DRILLING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-01042-JLT (E.D. Cal.), from July 7, 2016 to August 15, 2016, and vacated all related deadlines pursuant to the parties' stipulation. The parties are ordered to file a joint status report at least once a week before the status conference. The case involves a putative class action alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and California Labor Code. The court-issued Scheduling Order dated April 18, 2016, indicates that the case is set for another status conference on January 13, 2017. A copy of the court's order dated June 30, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/az2gvkfrom Leagle.com. Ensign United States Drilling (California) Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by David J Cooper -- dcooper@kleinlaw.com -- Klein, Denatale, Goldner, Cooper, Rosenlieb & Kimball, LLP & Olivia Vanessa Franco Chavez -- vchavez@kleinlaw.com -- Klein DeNatale Goldner LLP. FCA US: Plaintiff Must Be Present at Vehicle Inspection ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, DAVID FALTERMEIER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00491-DGK (W.D. Mo.), Chief District Judge Greg Kays found the possibility of engine code or bumper alteration sufficient to qualify the inspection of vehicle as destructive, which means Plaintiff and Plaintiff's counsel shall be allowed to be present at the July 13, 2016, vehicle inspection. The case is a putative class action arising from alleged violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, particularly on the Defendant's misrepresentations during a vehicle safety recall that have caused Plaintiff and all other consumers who have purchased the recalled vehicles since June 4, 2013, an ascertainable financial loss. A copy of the court's order dated July 5, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/PMWL5Gfrom Leagle.com. FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathy Ann Wisniewski -- kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, Scott Harston Morgan -- smorgan@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, Sharon B. Rosenberg, Thompson Coburn LLP & Stephen A. D'Aunoy -- sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP. FCA US: Grimstad et al. Seek Certification of 3 Classes ------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs move the court for class certification in the class action lawsuit styled LYNN GRIMSTAD, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and MARA MANUEL, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FCA US, LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1- 300,000 inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00763-JVS-E (C.D. Cal., July 2, 2016). The Plaintiffs seek to certify a Statewide Class, a Nationwide Class, and an Injunctive Class, to certify Plaintiffs Lynn Grimstad, Mara Manuel, and proposed Plaintiff Jeanette Wickstrom as Class Representatives, and to certify Victoria Orafa and A.O.E. Law & Associates as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kQKNoIbS The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony O. Egbase, Esq. Victoria T. Orafa, Esq. A.O.E. LAW & ASSOCIATES, INC. 350 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 189 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 620 7070 Facsimile: (213) 620 1200 FEI CO: Investigates Potential Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Board of Directors of FEI Company ("FEI" or the "Company") relating to the sale of the Company to Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. ("Thermo Fisher"). On May 26, 2016, the two companies announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Thermo Fisher will acquire FEI in a merger worth approximately $4.2 billion. As a result of the merger, shareholders are only anticipated to receive $107.50 per share in cash. Andrews & Springer's investigation focuses on the inadequate consideration that FEI's shareholders are expected to receive. Wall Street analysts set a $115.00 per share price target for FEI, which is approximately $7.50 per share more than what FEI shareholders are expected to receive. Our firm is also exploring whether FEI's top executives were conflicted and acted in their own self-interest when approving the merger. According to a report by The Oregonian, the FEI - Thermo Fisher merger "will trigger big pay packages for FEI's top executives, . . . . Chief executive Don Kania will reap nearly $25 million from the deal." The article also reported that FEI will pay their executives "250 percent of their bonuses." If you own shares of FEI and want to receive additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases- investigations/fei-company-class-action-investigation or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. FLINT, MI: Water Crisis Prompts Extra Lead Tests in Philadelphia ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Delaney, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that Philadelphia announced July 8 that it will conduct new tests for lead in the city's water, apparently in response to activists' cries that the city wasn't doing enough to assure residents their taps are safe. The city's water department said it will collect samples this summer from at least 50 homes classified as having the highest water lead risks. Previously, the city had not planned to do any lead testing this year. Like many big water systems with a history of meeting federal standards, Philadelphia only has to look for lead every three years. Though the department said it's making the changes because it received updated guidance from the state, the announcement seems designed to ease activist pressure. This summer, for instance, a small band of Philadelphians calling themselves the Philly Unleaded Project plan to independently verify the city's assurances. "It came to our attention because of all the stuff that was happening in Flint," Philly Unleaded's Tony Spagnoli told HuffPost. "That was a really big wake-up call." Mr. Spagnoli, a 33-year-old urban planner, said he welcomes the city's water department's newly announced testing regimen, but he's not going to call off his independent testing effort. He said he and his team of volunteers hope to get some 400 Philadelphia residents to fill liter bottles from their kitchen sinks this summer. Then they'll send the samples to Virginia Tech's lab for analysis by civil engineer Marc Edwards. Why Edwards? Because last summer, Mr. Edwards oversaw a similar independent sampling effort in Flint, Michigan, leading him to warn residents not to drink the water because it was tainted with lead, a brain-damaging metal used for water pipes in many American cities. The Michigan government pooh-poohed Edwards' warnings, but subsequent testing of Flint kids' blood proved him right: There was lead in the water. Mr. Edwards is not directing the sampling effort in Philadelphia. And just because the activists want to test the water doesn't mean it's unsafe -- just that the city hasn't done enough to assure them it isn't. Flint's water became brown and funky after the state changed the city's water source, something very unusual for a water system to do. It was obvious to Flint residents that their water was weird, but the real problem was lead, which is colorless and tasteless. The only way to detect lead in water is by sending the water to a lab. Federal regulations require big cities to test for lead in water samples from people's homes. At least half of those homes are supposed to be connected to water mains via lead service lines, so the sampling pool can give a picture of how bad the lead contamination might be in water from the riskiest possible faucets. But despite an abundance of such homes in the Philadelphia, fewer than half of the city's 134 samples taken in 2014 came from high-risk addresses. The city's sampling that year showed 90 percent of homes had less than 5 parts per billion of lead in their water, well below the 15 parts per billion threshold set by the Environmental Protection Agency. What Mr. Spagnoli wants to know is, what would the numbers be if the city sampled at more sites with lead pipes? Now, the city plans to find out the answer. Avoiding the highest-risk homes is a tactic that actually resulted in criminal charges in Flint. In May, the Michigan attorney general charged two former state officials with several crimes, including a misdemeanor because they failed "to collect required samples included in the Tier 1 category of serviced lines." Both the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and the federal Environmental Protection Agency had given their blessing to Philadelphia's testing procedures, but in June some Philadelphia residents filed a class-action lawsuit. Among other things, the suit alleges that the city's sampling methods are "diluting its testing pool and skewing the results in such a way as to paint a woefully inaccurate picture of the City's overall lead contamination." The case also complains that the city's instructions for taking samples aren't ideal for catching the most lead. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees city water systems throughout the state, recently cited two other Pennsylvania towns for failing to collect samples from the riskiest homes. HuffPost asked the agency why Warwick Township and Lititz Borough received citations for avoiding lead pipe samples, but Philadelphia hasn't. "There is no one-size-fits all approach to resolving violations, and enforcement actions are taken according to the nature and severity of the violation," spokesman Neil Shader said in an email, noting the agency doesn't comment on possible future enforcement actions. Activists applauded Philadelphia's announcement about the new testing. "This change is very welcome, and also we must keep in mind it is the result of painstaking work by ordinary people who have taken it upon themselves to do oversight," said Yanna Lambrinidou, a water expert and affiliate faculty member at Virginia Tech. Ms. Lambrinidou is part of a group of activists and experts that has been pushing the EPA to crack down on Philadelphia. (Lambrinidou said she's given informal advice to Philly Unleaded, though she and Mr. Edwards aren't overseeing Mr. Spagnoli's testing drive.) If Philadelphia was not complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act, it wouldn't make the city that unusual -- the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental nonprofit, reported that more than 5,000 community water systems broke the rules last year, and only 5.7 percent were officially sanctioned by state or federal regulators. Even Flint's water got a pass under the regulation, at least until the EPA issued an emergency order in January, almost a year after serious problems came to light. The city of Philadelphia has insisted all year that its water is safe to drink because it meets federal standards. In a statement on July 8, Water Commissioner Debra McCarty said the agency "strives to go above and beyond for its customers every day." But Gary Burlingame, the director of laboratory services for the Philadelphia Water Department, told HuffPost in April that the Flint crisis may have been a bit overblown, and that it's not clear that drinking water can pose a serious risk of lead exposure. "What we don't have from Flint is a peer-reviewed published study to look at the science of Flint," Mr. Burlingame said then. "All we have is what the news media's reporting and some of the policy and management issues." The blood lead research that forced the government to admit Flint's water was dangerous actually had been peer-reviewed at the time of Mr. Burlingame's statement. In June, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention essentially confirmed those findings in a new paper. "Published peer-reviewed papers help put the pieces together, so the nation can understand and apply that understanding," Burlingame said in an emailed statement for this story. "This paper provides an important step in that understanding. We will carefully study this paper -- and others that we expect have yet to be published -- involving the science behind Flint's unfortunate events." FLORIDA: Judge Adopts Findings in "Lopez" Suit ---------------------------------------------- District Judge Sheri Polster Chappell adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mac. R. McCoy in the case, MABEL LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. MIKE SCOTT, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv- 303-FtM-38MRM (M.D. Fla.). The Report and Recommendation incorporates these findings: (1) Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Class Action Allegations is denied; (2) Defendant's Motion to Strike Notices of Consent to Joinder is granted; (3) The Clerk shall strike the Notices of Consent to Join; (4) Plaintiff's Motion to Excuse Missed Deadline is granted; and (5) Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification and to Permit Notification Be Sent to Putative Class Members is accepted as timely filed. A copy of the court's decision dated July 1, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/RptCP9from Leagle.com. Mike Scott, Defendant, represented by Robert C. Shearman -- Robert.shearman@henlaw.com -- Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, PA & Scott A. Beatty -- scott.beatty@henlaw.com -- Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, PA. FLORIDA: Hillsborough County Woman Files Suit Over Tampon Tax ------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Galka, writing for WJXT News4Jax, reports that things like band-Aids, lip balms and cough drops are tax-exempt, and women around the state are asking for the same treatment for feminine products that they say are necessary to live healthy lives. A Hillsborough County woman has filed a lawsuit seeking to abolish Florida's so-called tampon tax. "Female sanitary products, tampons, pads, stuff like that, used almost exclusively for women, are taxed, and have been taxed, and so we feel like that is discriminatory on its face. It obviously affects women disproportionately," said Dana Brooks, a Tallahassee lawyer who is representing the plaintiff. Three state agencies are named in the suit, as well as Walmart, Walgreens, Target, Publix and CVS. Barbara DeVane of the National Organization for Women supports the lawsuit. She said it's absurd that tampons are being taxed and other products aren't. "If you can exempt bunion pads, why not menstrual pads? Petroleum jelly, wart removers and, for heaven's sake, ostrich feed," Ms. DeVane said. "There are more women than ostriches in the state of Florida." "It's a public hygiene and safety issue that is being disproportionately. These costs are being taken on by women," Ms. Brooks said. The class-action suit is seeking money for women who have bought the products in the past three years. The attorney in the lawsuit said she hopes the Legislature will act and repeal the tax. The New York state Legislature recently repealed a tax on feminine hygiene products, and California has a similar lawsuit pending. FUTURE INCOME: Faces Class Action Over Alleged TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports that a Ventura consumer has filed a class-action lawsuit against a company over its calls to her to allegedly solicit its pension services. Annette Grind filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on July 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Future Income Payments LLC and Does 1-20 alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that starting in July 2015, she was contacted on her mobile phone by the defendant and was charged for those calls. The plaintiff holds Future Income Payments LLC and Does 1-20 responsible because the defendant allegedly called plaintiff to solicit its services using a pre-recorded voice without her consent and continued to call despite her requests to stop. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory damages for each and every violation, $1,500 as treble damages for each and every violation, and any other relief as the court deems just. She is represented by Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman PC in Beverly Hills. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case number 2:16-cv-05009-RSWL-AFM GENERAL MOTORS: Owners of Recalled Cars Can Sue for Loss of Value ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has ruled that owners of General Motors cars recalled for defective ignition switches can sue the company for any loss in the cars' value. But the judge threw out broader loss-of-value claims from owners of GM cars that weren't recalled. Judge Jesse Furman in New York issued the ruling on July 15 on a motion from General Motors to dismiss the claims. He wrote in a 103-page opinion that the ruling "significantly curtails" the size of the plaintiffs' potential recovery. Seattle attorney Steve Berman says the split decision still allows owners of at least 11 million to 12 million cars that had defective ignition switches to sue the automaker. But Judge Furman's opinion said the argument that all GM cars lost value because of the recalls was unsound. GM spokesman Jim Cain said decision was a big win for the company because the judge tossed out the broader claims that a series of recalls in 2014 damaged the company's reputation and devalued all GM cars. Had the plaintiffs won on the reputation claim, it would have exposed the company to many more lawsuits and could have placed any manufacturing company with a recall at risk of lawsuits, Mr. Cain said. Yet to be decided are loss-of-value claims for cars involved in other GM recalls. In 2014, GM issued over 60 recalls covering more than 25 million vehicles. The embarrassing recalls included 2.6 million small cars such as the Chevrolet Cobalt for ignition switches that could slip out of the run position and cause cars to unexpectedly stall. That would knock out power steering and brakes, causing crashes. The air bags also were disabled. The ignition switches are linked to at least 124 deaths and 275 injuries. Mr. Cain said other ignition switch recalls weren't as serious and were fixed with changes to keys, so loss of value claims will be hard to prove. Mr. Berman, the lead attorney for economic loss plaintiffs, says he plans to appeal the ruling on the broader loss-of-value claims. GREGORY TURZA: Ruling May Hit Plaintiffs Attorneys' Legal Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Claire Bushey, writing for Chicago Business, reports that a decision by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could cut an expected $1.4 million in attorneys fees for a class-action lawsuit filed by accountants. The July 8 ruling keeps to a broader trend to check compensation for plaintiffs' attorneys by paying them based on how many clients claim part of a class-action settlement or judgment, rather than simply a percentage of the total pot. The case began almost a decade ago, when Northbrook certified public accountant Ira Holtzman filed a class-action lawsuit against Skokie lawyer Gregory Turza for sending biweekly faxes to advertise his services. In 2013, Mr. Holtzman's lawyers, Anderson & Wanca in Rolling Meadows and Bock & Hatch in Chicago, won a $4.2 million judgment for the class when a judge determined Mr. Turza had violated the 1991 Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Lawyers for plaintiffs who file class-action lawsuits typically work on a contingent basis, financing the case in exchange for a third of any recovered funds. But Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote that Mr. Holtzman's lawyers can only be paid based on the number of accountants who step forward to claim their portion of the judgment -- $500 per fax, of which $167 goes to the attorneys. "If a given recipient cannot be located, or spurns the money, counsel are not entitled to be paid for that fax," he wrote. Attorney James Smith declined to comment. Attorney Brian Wanca could not be reached for comment. Jay Edelson, a Chicago attorney who specializes in bringing class- action lawsuits against technology companies, said the move shows courts' increased scrutiny on how lawyers are paid in class-action lawsuits. "There's been a real shift over the past five years," he said. "You have to look at what the actual claims rates are and how much money is going to the class, and that's how class counsel ought to be paid." Mr. Holtzman's law firms still will collect $1.4 million in fees if every eligible member of the class collects on his or her claim. To find class members, plaintiffs and defendants will hire one of several companies specializing in claims administration, such as Kurtzman Carson Consultants in El Segundo, Calif., or Epiq Systems in Kansas City. GRUBHUB: Food Delivery Drivers File Class Action in Chicago ----------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County record, reports that a group of app-dispatched food delivery drivers have served Chicago- based GrubHub with a class action, saying the company has wrongly classified them as contractors, when they should qualify as employees under the law. Six people who have worked for GrubHub took aim June 28 in Chicago federal court against the web-based food delivery coordinator, arguing their classification as independent contractors violated state and federal labor and wage laws. Named plaintiffs included Thomas Souran and Kelly Reardon, of Chicago; Roy Wilkie, of Portland, Ore.; Carmen Gonzalez, of Glenolden, Pa.; Louis Ramzy, of Brooklyn, N.Y.; and Adam Smith, of Bridgeport, Conn. Collectively, the plaintiffs worked as GrubHub drivers from November 2014 to the present, primarily in 2015. All the drivers alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, while individual drivers also alleged violation of their home state minimum wage and hour laws. A separate class action alleging employee misclassification is pending in federal court in California; anyone covered in that complaint would be excluded from the class in the Chicago action. GrubHub drivers from any state other than California would be allowed to opt in to the Chicago complaint, the lawsuit said. In their lawsuit, the Chicago plaintiffs contended "GrubHub directs drivers' work in detail, instructing drivers where to report for their shifts, how to dress and where to go to pick up or await deliveries. Drivers are required to follow requirements imposed on them by GrubHub regarding handling of the food and timeliness of the deliveries. GrubHub retains the right to terminate the drivers at will." Further, "the driver's services are fully integrated into GrubHub's business, and without the drivers, GrubHub's business would not exist." According to the complaint, GrubHub drivers work on scheduled shifts in blocks of time. They must stay within an assigned area and remain ready to take assignments. Drivers earn a flat fee for each delivery plus tips. The complaint acknowledged that, "GrubHub at times pays minimum wages." The drivers said they typically get two to four jobs per hour, and that such assignments can take from 30 to 90 minutes. Because they can be fired for failing to accept a percentage of assignments, drivers "must accept as many" as possible. And because they must stay close enough to their car to anticipate new assignments and tight deadlines, "drivers are working throughout their entire shifts and this time is all compensable under federal and state wage standards." Each driver argued they were entitled to overtime pay based on an amount of hours worked per week or day. They also contended GrubHub's policy of making drivers bear the expense of fuel, car maintenance and cellphone data further drops weekly compensation below established wage minimums. In addition to class certification and a finding that GrubHub violated the federal and state laws, the plaintiffs also asked the court to award compensatory damages, including back pay, plus liquidated damages and any statutory and regulatory damages, legal fees and injunctive relief forcing GrubHub to comply with relevant wage laws. Representing the named plaintiffs, and the putative class of additional plaintiffs were attorneys James B. Zouras and Ryan Stephan, of Stephan Zouras, of Chicago; and Shannon Liss-Riordan and Thomas Fowler, of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, of Boston, as well as Matthew D. Carlson -- mcarlson@llrlaw.com -- of the Lichten firm's San Francisco office. GULF COAST: "Francois" Suit Seeks Certification of Florida Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled ESTIME FRANCOIS and RENETTE ORDEUS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GULF COAST TRANSPORTATION, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01061-SCB-TBM (M.D. Fla., July 2, 2016), request entry of an Order permitting under supervision of the Court notice to all putative class members affected by the claims in the instant action, and conditionally certify: "a Florida class of current and former taxicab drivers who worked for Defendant during the three years prior to the filing of Plaintiffs' Complaint who were not paid minimum wage compensation for their hours worked each week." The Defendant allegedly did not pay Plaintiffs a minimum wage for hours worked. To avoid their obligation to pay minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors. However, due to the nature of Defendants' business and the Plaintiffs' job duties, the Plaintiffs are employees subject to the FLSA minimum wage requirements. Thus, they were entitled to minimum wage for all hours worked, for which Defendants are now liable. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sRRehN3A The Plaintiff is represented by: LUIS A. CABASSA, Esq. BRANDON J. HILL, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, Esq. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com twells@wfclaw.com bhill@wfclaw.com jriley@wfclaw.com HALYARD HEALTH: Aug. 29 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on July 12 disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Halyard Health, Inc. ("Halyard" or the "Company") and Kimberly-Clark Corporation ("Kimberly-Clark") on behalf of investors who (i) purchased or otherwise acquired Kimberly-Clark securities on or after February 25, 2013 and received Halyard securities in connection with Kimberly-Clark's spin-off of Halyard in October 2014 and/or (ii) purchased or otherwise acquired Halyard securities between October 21, 2014 and April 29, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders who purchased or acquired Halyard securities during the Class Period may, no later than August 29, 2016, petition the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. For additional information please visit https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/halyard-health-inc#join Investors who wish to discuss this action and their legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com. Halyard provides health and healthcare supplies and solutions worldwide. Prior to October 2014, Halyard was the Health Care operating segment of Kimberly-Clark, a manufacturer of personal care, consumer tissue, and professional products. In October 2014, Halyard was spun out of Kimberly-Clark, with Kimberly-Clark shareholders receiving one share of Halyard stock for every eight shares of Kimberly-Clark stock they owned as of October 23, 2014. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period the defendants made materially false and misleading statements about Halyard's business, operations and compliance policies. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Halyard's MICROCOOL surgical gowns consistently failed effectiveness tests and failed to meet industry standards; (ii) Kimberly-Clark and Halyard knowingly provided defective MICROCOOL surgical gowns to U.S. workers during the Ebola crisis; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, the defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. According to the complaint, on May 1, 2016, 60 Minutes reported that Kimberly-Clark and Halyard knowingly provided defective surgical gowns to U.S. workers at the height of the Ebola crisis. As reported, a Halyard insider claimed that although Halyard's MICROCOOL surgical gowns were prone to leaks and did not consistently meet the industry safety standards for the treatment of Ebola, Kimberly-Clark and Halyard nonetheless "aggressively" marketed the MICROCOOL gowns to hospitals during the Ebola epidemic. Following this news, shares of Halyard's stock declined $1.21 per share, or 4.3%, to close on May 2, 2016 at $26.95 per share, on heavy trading volume. Halyard shareholders may, no later than August 29, 2016, petition the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. HARBOR FREIGHT: Sued Over Fictitious Discount Price Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Salls, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that fictitious pricing lawsuits, like the one filed recently against Harbor Freight Tools USA by a class of customers "appear to be trending," according to TruthinAdvertising.org executive director Bonnie Patten. "As of June 2016, TINA.org is tracking 61 federal class-action lawsuits involving fraudulent discount pricing claims involving 43 different retailers," Ms. Patten told Legal Newsline. "Of these cases, 25 were filed in 2015; and in the first six months of 2016, nearly the same number of cases (24) have been filed." The class action suit filed against Harbor Freight on May 20 by Ted Shimono and other similarly situated plaintiffs in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleges that the company is deceiving its customers by advertising sale prices that are based on fictitious regular prices for the items in question. The lawsuit alleges that Harbor Freight is, as a result, selling low-quality products at artificially inflated prices. According to the lawsuit, Harbor Freight advertised tools, equipment, accessories and other products through a "deceptive and misleading pricing campaign" at the point of purchase and through mailed and distributed flyers, catalogs, circulars, in-store displays, web pages, emailed offers and print advertisements. "In many of (Harbor Freight's) retail outlets, the fictitious discount price scheme is prominently displayed throughout the store, advertising supposed deep discounts on essentially every single item of inventory sold in the store," the lawsuit said. The plaintiffs also said there is no comparable price for many of the products sold by Harbor Freight, which sells name-brand and house-brand merchandise, other than prices the company itself set. The lawsuit claims Harbor Freight's advertising practices constitute deceit by suppression of facts and violate the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the state's Unfair Competition Law and its False Advertising Law. Harbor Freight did not respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit. While the majority of cases that TINA.org is presently tracking are pending or on appeal, Ms. Patten said many of these pending class actions are facing motions to dismiss. "Based on current TINA.org statistics from similar fictitious pricing cases, it appears likely that the biggest challenge for plaintiffs in the Harbor Freight Tools USA case will be defeating a motion to dismiss, which inevitably will be filed by the defendant," Ms. Patten said. Ms. Patten said fictitious pricing exploits consumers' desire to obtain a bargain, and means that consumers may pay more for a good or service than they may have if they continued to seek a lower price on the same merchandise. Ms. Patten said the court does not always agree, however. "Many deceptive pricing complaints are successfully challenged by retailers as not providing the factual specificity necessary to state a claim, including detailing the consumers' economic harm," Ms. Patten said. As an example, Ms. Patten cited a recent case against Kohl's Department Stores, which is currently on appeal, in which a Massachusetts federal court granted the company's motion to dismiss because "(the) fact that plaintiff may have been manipulated into purchasing items because she believed she was getting a bargain does not necessarily mean she suffered economic harm." HARBOUR RESTAURANT: Sutherland Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff moves the Court for an Order certifying collective action and authorizing notice to all class members pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, in the class action lawsuit captioned JEREMIAH SUTHERLAND, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HARBOUR RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, d/b/a Makoto, a foreign limited liability company, STARR RESTAURANT ORGANIZATION, LP, a foreign limited partnership, STARR RESTAURANT ORGANIZATION GP, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, and STEPHEN STARR, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21400-MGC (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2016). The Plaintiff defined the Class as: "All persons who worked for Defendants as servers during the three years preceding this lawsuit, were paid as tipped employees below the Florida minimum wage and were forced to share or kick-back a portion of their tips to non-tipped employees and were not properly compensated for all hours worked." The Defendants employed servers to perform duties including the sale and ordering of guest food and beverage orders, the serving of the food and beverages ordered, the opening of bottled wine for guests, and other duties as needed. Each of these servers was paid a reduced minimum wage plus tips. The Defendants forced each of them to share their tips with nonservice bartenders. The Defendants suffered or permitted each of them to work without being compensated for their work. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=04AvhPqz The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358 6800 Facsimile: (305) 358 6808 E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com legal@kuvinlaw.com HILLSTONE RESTAURANT: Court Granted Settlement in "Bradescu" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MAIA BRADESCU, STEVEN LUMINELLI, and VANESSA TAMAYO, on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, Case No. SACV 13-1289-GW(RZx), (C.D. Calif.), District Judge George H. Wu granted final approval to the parties' Class Action Settlement and the Class Counsel's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs and the Class Representatives' Incentive Payments. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of action, the Class Representatives, Defendant Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., and all members of the California Settlement Class and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Settlement Class, which are defined as follows: -- California Settlement Class: All current and former non- exempt employees of Hillstone who performed work in California in any Covered Positions (Covered Positions means any non-culinary position, including, but not limited to, Bartender, Service Bar, Bar Check, Service Bartender, Night Service Bar, Server, Greeter, Service Assistant, Night Checkout, Cocktail, Restaurant Other, Rover, Flying Chicken, Cart Driver, Cleaning R & M, Hourly Manager, and/or Dining Room Key Employee), between April 5, 2011 through February 23, 2016. -- FLSA Settlement Class: All current and former non-exempt employees of Hillstone employed throughout the United States (excluding California) who worked in any Covered Positions (Covered Positions means any non-culinary position, including, but not limited to, Bartender, Service Bar, Bar Check, Service Bartender, Night Service Bar, Server, Greeter, Service Assistant, Night Checkout, Cocktail, Restaurant Other, Rover, Flying Chicken, Cart Driver, Cleaning R & M, Hourly Manager, and/or Dining Room Key Employee), between August 22, 2010 through February 23, 2016. Class Counsel is awarded $233,100 for attorney's fees, and the amount of $38,911.31 for costs. The Court also approves the Incentive Payments to Class Representative Bradescu in the amount of $5,000, to Class Representative Tamayo in the amount of $2,000, and to Class Representative Luminelli in the amount of $2,000, to reimburse the Class Representatives for their valuable services in initiating and maintaining this litigation and the benefits conferred onto the Settlement Class and Defendant's current and future employees as a result of the Action. The Court approves the payment of settlement administration costs in the amount of $39,000 to ILYM Group, Inc., the Claims Administrator, for services rendered in the case. A copy of the court's Final Approval Order and Judgment dated July 8, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/cKOH4Bfrom Leagle.com. Hillstone Restaurant Group Inc, Defendant, represented by Greg S. Labate -- glabate@shepparmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Matthew Martin Sonne -- msonne@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP & Lisa Maria Harris -- lmharris@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP. HOGAN TRANSPORTS: Fairfax Seeks Certification of Collective Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Don Fairfax in the class action lawsuit styled DON FAIRFAX, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. HOGAN TRANSPORTS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00680-GCS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), asks the Court to grant conditional certification of a collective class, expedited discovery, and issuance of notice. The collective class consists of all of Defendant's current and former Fleet Managers during the three years before this Complaint was filed up to the present. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rMU3IHnI The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven C. Babin, Jr., Esq. Lance Chapin, Esq. CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP, LLC 580 South High Street, Suite 330 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221 9100 Facsimile: (614) 221 9272 E-mail: sbabin@chapinlegal.com HOME DEPOT: Aug. 4 Hearing on Bid to Transfer Venue of "Henry" -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, MICHAEL HENRY, Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-04858-JST (N.D. Calif.), District Judge Jon S. Tigar extended parties' submission of modified proposed forms of notice and notice plans on September 9, 2016 due to the pending motion to transfer venue of the action set for trial on August 4, 2016. A deferred submission of notice and notice plan promotes efficiency and eliminate the risk of conflicting decisions. The Court adopted the following Additional deadlines from the parties' May 26, 2016 Joint Case Management Statement: -- Event Deadline 30 days after Deadline for defendant to provide mailing addresses and email approval of class addresses for putative class members to the administrator notice 45 days after Deadline for class notice to be mailed to class members approval of class notice 60 days after mailing Deadline for class members to opt out of class notice Dispositive motion filing date January 13, 2017 Discovery cut-off March 1, 2017 Pretrial statement April 4, 2017 April 14, 2017 at Pretrial conference 2:00 p.m. May 8, 2017 at 8:30 Trial a.m. Length of trial (in days) Eight Trial dates set by the Court are regarded as firm disfavoring any further requests for continuance. A copy of the Court's decision dated July 5, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/VJBUizfrom Leagle.com. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc, Defendant, represented by Donna Marie Mezias -- dmezias@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Joel M. Cohn -- jcohn@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice & Liz Kathryn Bertko -- lbertko@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. HOME DEPOT: Oct. 27 Case Management Conference Set in "Coffen" -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that a Case Management Conference shall be held on October 27, 2016 in the case ELLEN COFFEN, Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03302-PJH (N.D. Calif.). A copy of the court's July 8, 2016 order is available at http://goo.gl/j0wVQUfrom Leagle.com. As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f), lead counsel shall meet and confer prior to the Case Management Conference with respect to those subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16). Not less than seven days before the conference, counsel shall file a joint case management statement addressing each of the items listed in the "Standing Order For All Judges of the Northern District -- Contents of Joint Case Management statement," which is attached in the order and can also be found on the court's website. A proposed order is not necessary. Following the conference, the court will enter its own Case Management and Pretrial Order. If any party is proceeding without counsel, separate statements may be filed by each party. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, represented by Edmund T. Wang -- ewang@kslaw.com -- King Spalding LLP. INTERSTATE-RIM: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- The Los Angeles employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on July 12 disclosed that it filed a class action Complaint alleging that Interstate-RIM Management Company, LLC failed to pay their California hourly employees the correct amount of overtime wages and allegedly failed to provide their Golden State workers with meal and rest periods in accordance with the California Labor Code. The Interstate Management Company lawsuit, Case No. BC624979 is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for the State of California. The class action lawsuit claims that Interstate Management paid their non-exempt employees non-discretionary incentive pay based on their performance for the company. The Complaint further alleges that as a matter of law the incentive pay received by Interstate Management Company's employees should have been included in the employees' hourly rates for the purposes of paying them the correct overtime pay. The class action lawsuit further alleges that other non-exempt employees working for the company were also not correctly paid all their overtime wages. The Complaint also seeks penalties relating to alleged missed meal breaks because allegedly Interstate did not have a policy to provide their California employees thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth (5th) hour of work. If you think your company is violating the California Labor Code and would like to know if you qualify to make a claim, please contact an experienced California labor lawyer on July 12 by calling (800) 568-8020. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. J.P. MORGAN: 9th Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Schramm" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the district court's entry of judgment in favor of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. in the appellate case, BARBARA L. SCHRAMM, an individual; STEVEN L. WEINSTEIN, an individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., a banking corporation; CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-56284 (9th Cir.) The Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiff Schramm waived her argument, in proving that Chase's mortgage disclosures were unlawful, as it was never clearly made before the district court. The Court further opined that even if the argument was not waived, the Federal Reserve Board's Staff Interpretation controls only when the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) or Regulation Z are ambiguous, which Schramm does not argue in the case. A copy of the Ninth Circuit's decision dated July 12, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/wcqLccfrom Leagle.com. JAKARTA WATER: Bukit Duri Class Action Postponed for Third Time --------------------------------------------------------------- The Jakarta Post reports that a class action lawsuit brought by residents of Bukit Duri in South Jakarta was postponed for a third time on July 12 after the defendants failed to attend. The defendants include Jakarta Governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama, South Jakarta Mayor Tri Kurniadi and Jakarta Water Management Agency head Teguh Hendrawan. The previous two hearings, on June 8 and 22, were similarly adjourned after the defendants did not show up and the plaintiffs' documents were deemed incomplete. "We have decided to adjourn the hearing for one week," said presiding judge Riyono at the Central Jakarta District Court, adding that the hearing would be conducted on July 19. Bukit Duri residents lawyer Vera Soemarwi said the defendants were still undecided as to whether to accept the class action lawsuit "The judges have asked them to decide at the next hearing," she said. The plaintiffs, whose houses are on the verge of being cleared to make way for the Ciliwung River normalization project, are represented by four local residents in the class action lawsuit. The residents insist that the program violates the law. JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Bronstein Probes Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, is investigating potential claims on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Juno Therapeutics, Inc. ("Juno" or the "Company") (JUNO). Such investors are advised to contact Peretz Bronstein or his investor relations analyst, Yael Hurwitz at info@bgandg.com or 212-697- 6484. The investigation concerns whether Juno and certain of its officers and/or directors have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On July 7, 2016, post-market, Juno revealed during a clinical trial for the Company's chemotherapy drug, fludarabine, three patients had died. Following this news, Juno stock dropped as much as 35% in post-market trading on July 7, 2016. If you purchased Juno shares or if you are aware of any facts relating to this investigation, you can assist this investigation by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/#!juno/c3onh You can also contact Peretz Bronstein or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC: 212- 697-6484 or via email info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, email and telephone number. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of its 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. KOSTMAYER CONSTRUCTION: Court Granted Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. Susie Morgan entered an order in the lawsuit styled FABIAN ESPARZA, the Plaintiff, v. KOSTMAYER CONSTRUCTION, LLC, ET AL., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-04644-SM-SS (E.D. La., July 2, 2016), granting Esparza's motion to conditionally certify the case as collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Court conditionally certifies this matter as a collective action with respect to all individuals who worked or are working performing manual labor for Kostmayer Construction LLC during the previous three years and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA, and who did not receive full overtime compensation. The Court further ordered that: 1. Esparza file a revised notice form and a revised opt-in consent form in accordance with the order by July 8, 2016. 2. Defendants produce to Esparza a list of the names, last- known mailing addresses, email addresses, and dates of employment of all potential class members by July 15, 2016. 3. Class members seeking to opt in to this case will have 90 days from the date on which the notice and consent forms are mailed to opt in to the lawsuit. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2pCuboAb LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Bid Due Aug. 15 ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NICOLE WERTZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. RENAUD LAPLANCHE, CARRIE DOLAN, AND LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION, Defendants, No. C 16-02670 WHA (N.D. Cal.), District Judge William Alsup scheduled a hearing to appoint lead plaintiff on August 15, 2016. The Court said that lead plaintiff would be single investors with large losses and experienced in managing litigation. According to the court, a group of movants should narrow its candidates to one or two single investors and file answers to the appended questionnaire by August 1, 2016. All opposition briefs shall be filed and served by August 1, 2016, while any reply briefs shall be filed and served by August 8, 2016. Pursuant to Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), a real investor, not a lawyer, is held in charge of any securities class action. The PSLRA created a statutory position of responsibility called "the lead plaintiff". Obligation of the lead plaintiff include the following: (1) to select and propose class counsel for court approval; (2) to assess the trial and securities track records of the specific lawyer candidate who would perform the actual work for the class; and (3) to evaluate competitive proposals from various lawyers seeking the job of class counsel. A copy of the court's July 1, 2016 decision is available at http://goo.gl/bPJSibfrom Leagle.com. LG: Has Prelim Deal of Suit Over Moldy Front-Loading Washers ------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberly Janeway, writing for ConsumerReports, reports that LG has agreed to a preliminary settlement of a class-action lawsuit that alleges that LG front-loading washers were prone to developing mold, odors, or both. About 700,000 to 800,000 washers bought in the U.S. between 2002 and 2006 are affected, according to one of the lawyers representing consumers. The manufacturer denies any wrongdoing, and the court didn't decide who's right. Owners of these washing machines have until October 10 to file a claim. A similar settlement in June involved 5.6 million front-loaders made by Whirlpool between 2001 and 2010 and sold under the brand names Whirlpool, Kenmore, and Maytag. LG Settlement Details So why did LG settle? "These kinds of settlements are commonplace -- designed to forego protracted legal proceedings," says John Taylor, vice president of LG's public affairs and communications. We asked Taylor if design changes that address front-loader washer mold and odors have been made since 2006. Yes, including a magnet that props the door open ever so slightly to allow fresh air to circulate in the wash tub; a redesigned antimicrobial door gasket with drain holes to help the gasket dry more quickly to keep mold and mildew away; and a high-powered "Tub Clean" cycle that removes detergent residue to keep odors and mildew away. It is recommended that consumers run this cycle every month to help keep the washer clean and fresh. Here's what else owners need to know: Who qualifies? Owners of all LG front-loading washing machines bought in the U.S. between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2006. What are the compensation options? If you had front-loader washer mold or mold-related odor problems you may be compensated $35, or a $105 rebate applies if you buy an LG front-loader within a year after the settlement receives final approval from the court. Why only $35? "Each case is different, with its own strengths and weaknesses, and its own damages model. This is the amount agreed to by the parties," says Jonathan Selbin, one of the lawyers representing LG washer owners. How do I file a claim? Pre-qualified class members are identified in LG's database by serial number and should receive a notice. LG has your info if you sent in the warranty registration card or complained to them and received service or a replacement. You do not have to submit a photo of the washer's serial number or proof of purchase. A claim must be filed online, faxed, or postmarked no later than October 10, 2016. See this settlement website -- http://www.lgwashersettlement.com/-- for details. What if I'm not in LG's database? If you are not a pre-qualified class member, you must submit a photo of the washer's serial number if you still own it, or proof of purchase. See the settlement website for details or call 1-855- 856-9355 for a recorded message. You can also contact the settlement administrator by emailing info@lgwashersettlement.com I got rid of my LG front-loader. Can I get the $35 refund? Yes, if you have proof you bought it between 2002 and 2006, such as a credit card receipt, canceled check, or proof of an extended warranty. Or you could file for the $105 rebate if you want to buy a new LG washer once the settlement receives final approval. When will I receive the money? When the court approves the settlement and there are no appeals. The final approval hearing is on October 13 at the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey. What if my machine doesn't have mold or odors but was made during the time period covered? You're excluded from the class and get nothing. Unhappy with the preliminary settlement? You can object or exclude yourself. Find the details in the settlement FAQ section of the settlement website. LONGWEI PETROLEUM: October 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP regarding the Longwei Petroleum Securities Litigation. In re: LONGWEI PETROLEUM INVESTMENT HOLDING LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: All Actions C.A. NO. 1:13-cv-00214 SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF LONGWEI PETROLEUM INVESTMENT HOLDING LIMITED ("LONGWEI"), BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 AND JANUARY 3, 2013, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"): YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on October 20, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. before the Honorable Richard M. Berman at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl St., Courtroom 17B, New York, New York 10007 (the "Fairness Hearing") for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed settlement for the sum of $1,340,000 in cash (the "Settlement Fund"), should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the plan of allocation is fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whether the application of lead counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees of up to 25% of the Settlement Fund, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $115,000 and awards of reasonable costs and expenses (including lost wages) directly relating to the representation of the Class to certain of the Class Plaintiff(s) serving on behalf of the Class not to exceed a total of $5,000 should be approved; and (4) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice. It is estimated that the Net Settlement Fund will be approximately $800,000. IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF LONGWEI BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 AND JANUARY 3, 2013, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION. A detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Proof of Claim and Release form can be found on the case website. PLEASE READ AND REFER TO THE NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, which contains the governing terms of the proposed settlement and serves as the definitive notice to you. The Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Settlement Notice") contains more details about this litigation and the proposed settlement, including what you must do to exclude yourself or "opt out" of the settlement, object to the terms of the settlement, or submit a proof of claim for payment pursuant to the settlement. If you have not received a detailed Settlement Notice and a copy of the proof of claim and release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by writing to Longwei Petroleum Investment Holding Limited Securities Litigation, c/o Heffler Claims Group, P.O. Box 58504, Philadelphia, PA 19102-8504 or by downloading from www.longweipetroleumsecuriteslitigation.com If you are a class member, in order to share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked no later than October 5, 2016, establishing that you are to recover. You are excluded from the class if (i) you are a defendant in the Action; (ii) you are a member of any of the defendants' immediate family; (iii) you are an entity in which any defendant has a controlling interest; (iv) a director or officer of Longwei; (iv) you are an affiliate, legal representative, heirs, predecessors, successors and assigns of an excluded party; or (v) you request exclusion from the Class. If you desire to be excluded from the class, you must submit a request for exclusion postmarked by October 6, 2016, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Settlement Notice referred to above. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. Any objection(s) to the Settlement must be mailed on or before October 6, 2016 to FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP, lead counsel for class plaintiffs and the class at the following address: Stuart J. Guber, FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP, 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania 19046. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. If you have any questions about this settlement, you may contact lead counsel, FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP for class plaintiffs and the class at the address listed above. You can also call lead counsel, FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP at (215) 277- 5770. LUGGAGE SERVICES: Court Slashes Atty Fee Award in "Talton" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALONZO TALTON, Plaintiff, v. LUGGAGE SERVICES AND LOGISTICS, LLC, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-02505-YGR (N.D. Calif.), District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted in part Plaintiff's Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Award in the submitted motion for Class Settlement. Upon Court's review, the requested award of attorneys' fees in the amount of 25% of the common fund created by the settlement is reduced to 20%, which entitles the Class Counsel the amount of only $194,000.00. The requested costs and expenses of $13,613.01 is approved and the Class Representative's Incentive Award of $7,500.00 is also granted. A copy of the Court's July 14, 2016 decision is available at http://goo.gl/dHJPsCfrom Leagle.com. Luggage Services and Logistics, LLC, et al., Defendants, represented by Sue Jacobs Stott -- sstott@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Maureen K. Bogue -- maureen@pacificemploymentlaw.com -- Pacific Employment Law LLP & Robb Drew McFadden -- RMcFadden@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP. LYFT INC: Dec. 1 Final Approval Hearing on Cotter Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, PATRICK COTTER, ALEJANDRA MACIEL, and JEFFREY KNUDTSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LYFT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:13-cv- 04065-VC (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Vince Chhabria granted the preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement after finding it sufficiently fair, reasonable, and adequate to allow dissemination of notice of the Settlement to the Settlement Class and to hold a Fairness Hearing. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on the fairness, adequacy, and reasonableness of the Settlement Agreement on December 1, 2016 at 10:00 AM CST or at such other date and time later set by Court Order. In no later than 14 days before the hearing, Plaintiffs shall file a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and a Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Service Awards. The following deadlines are established by the Preliminary Approval Order: (1) Mailed Notice Date: within 60 days of this Preliminary Approval Order; (2) Opt-Out Deadline: 60 days after the Mailed Notice Date; (3) Objection Deadline: 60 days after the Mailed Notice Date; (4) Claims Submission Date: December 1, 2016; and (5) Fairness Hearing: December 1, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. A copy of the court's order dated July 1, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/hdg1UCfrom Leagle.com. Lyft, Inc., Defendant, represented by Zachary W. Shine -- zachary.shine@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Alexander Barnes Dryer -- adryer@kvn.com -- Keker and Van Nest LLP, Brian Davis Berry -- brian.berry@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Michelle Sabrina Ybarra -- mybarra@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP, R. James Slaughter -- rslaughter@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP, Rachael Elizabeth Meny -- rem@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP, Simona Alessandra Agnolucci -- sagnolucci@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP & Thomas Michael McInerney -- tmm@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C.. MAKERBOT: Minnesota Court Dismisses Class Action ------------------------------------------------ 3DPrinting Industry reports a class action lawsuit over the MakerBot debacle has been dismissed. The case centered on the fifth generation printer and now a Minnesota court has decided that the company did not wilfully mislead customers and investors after all. There were obvious issues with the extruder in the MakerBot Replicator and they have been well documented. The court inferred that the company had not behaved impeccably, but there was no evidence of serious malpractice. It will take some time for the dust to clear, though, and new CEO Jonathan Jaglom has a big job on his hands. This company was the industry darling MakerBot was the darling of the industry at one point and investors wanted a piece of the action. At its peak the New York-based company had more than 500 employees, having started with 60 in 2009. It was a totem for the industry. There were bold predictions for world domination and everything looked good when Stratasys bought the company for $400 million in 2013. But MakerBot ran into quality control issues with the "Smart Extruder", the maker community turned on the company for profiting from open source work, its reputation suffered and last year the company laid off a number of its staff on two separate occasions. This year parent company Stratasys outsourced the manufacturing and MakerBot is now a shadow of its former self. Can MakerBot come back? Of course it can come back, the question is if it will. The company is still going, Stratasys is one of the biggest names in 3D printing and there is always potential in such a young industry and an even younger business for the company to turn around. A number of investors, though, felt they hadn't been given the full facts and launched a class action lawsuit. There was even talk of Securities Fraud, as the investors claimed they had been oversold on the printer's potential and indeed the state of the company's health. Stratasys did predict 25% growth in 2013, which was more than reasonable considering the growth in the industry and the growing public acceptance of 3D printing. It couldn't account for the problems with the new printer, though, and the impact they would have on the company. Non-actionable puffery? This was dismissed out of hand by the judge. The court described those statements as "non-actionable puffery". So the investors might feel aggrieved that the shares that were valued at $120 in September 2014 to $30 just a year later, but the courts have dealt with the case and it's over. The judge did not grant leave to appeal, so this case is done. What does that mean for MakerBot? Well it still faces a mountain to climb and the new CEO will have to work wonders to keep the company going, let alone going forward. Other manufacturers have stolen a march, MakerBot's market share has dropped and now it must convince a sceptical maker community of the company's intentions and its viability. Good will is thin on the ground in the industry and that might be the biggest hurdle facing the company right now. The only way to overcome this is to make outstanding products. MARIO BADESCU: Appellate Court Upholds Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Kelly, writing for Northern California Record, reports that a recent state appellate court decision upholding the notification plan for a 2014 class-action settlement shows that judges have wide discretion when it comes to notifying class members of a settlement agreement, according to a Vanderbilt law professor who studies class-action lawsuits. A court of appeals ruled in June that publishing the terms of the class-action settlement in the case Choi v. Mario Badescu Skin Care Inc. one time in Parade magazine, which had a circulation of approximately 30 million and was included with more than 600 newspapers nationwide, was legally valid. There are numerous ways that the court can notify class members about a settlement agreement, according to Brian Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University's school of law. "If the parties are able to get addresses for the class members, then sending everyone a letter to notify them is typically considered the gold standard for notice," Mr. Fitzpatrick told the Northern California Record. "The questions really arise when you don't have the addresses for everyone, and what kind of notice might you do instead of that. Or, questions arise if you do have the addresses, but in light of the expense of sending out letters to everyone, sometimes the parties ask the court to do a different type of notice." Newspapers are just one of many other means of getting the word out about class-action suits, Mr. Fitzpatrick said. "So the different types of notices that you might have to resort to if you don't have addresses, or you might ask to do because of the expense of first-class mail are things like emails -- sometimes you can get the emails of class members -- or some kind of advertising," he said. "This is where the question of 'Well, can we put an advertisement in the newspaper, which newspaper, what about magazines, which magazines, what about internet advertising, television advertising,' and oftentimes the parties hire experts in communicating with people to advise them and the court as what alternatives methods should be used to reach a certain percentage of the class population." Several class members appealed the settlement, claiming, among other things, that the court should have ordered multiple publications under California law. The appeals court held that the appellant's reasoning invoked the wrong section of the law, and that courts have wide latitude in deciding what notification is best. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that follows the general principle in class- action settlements. "The rule is that you have to send the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances," he said. "So when the circumstances vary, what is practicable varies, as well. Typically, if you have mailing addresses, the courts typically make you send a letter, even if it's expensive. You're not going to have all the mailing addresses, probably. There are going to be class members who have moved, or whose data has been lost, but as many addresses as you have, the courts generally make you send a letter no matter how expensive it is. But there's no minimum threshold that's set in stone about how many class members you have to have addresses for, or if you don't have addresses, or in addition to addresses, how many class members you think you're going to reach through email or advertising." It would be impossible to reach every class member, he said, and at some point the courts decide that enough members will be reached. "Substantially over half seems to satisfy the courts," he said. "If an expert thinks 70 percent of the class will see the notice, then that tends to satisfy the courts. It's a question of cost versus effectiveness. The courts try to balance those things. That's what the best notice practicable means. It doesn't mean we put an ad in every magazine, just what's reasonable. There's a lot of discretion in the courts." MICHAELS STORES: Anderson Claims Time-Barred, 9th Cir. Says ----------------------------------------------------------- A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed the memorandum disposition previously filed on May 19, 2016, and ruled that L. Anderson's claims are time barred pursuant to the statute of limitation regardless of tolling in the case captioned, L. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MICHAELS STORES INC, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, No. 14- 56726 (9th Cir.) The court held that equitable tolling and equitable estoppel also do not help Anderson. She forfeited both contentions by not arguing them fully before the district court. The case only addresses Anderson's claims, apart from the 24 other claimants, because only her claims are appealed before the court. A copy of the Ninth Circuit's reversed ruling dated July 15, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/cvMW9efrom Leagle.com. MIDWEST POULTRY: Judge Okays $8.4MM Egg Antitrust Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a combined $8.4 million settlement between five defendants and direct purchasers and suppliers in national egg antitrust litigation has been approved by a federal judge. While the litigation is ongoing against other defendants, U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania OK'd the accord between the direct purchasers -- consisting of grocery stores, restaurants and commercial food manufacturers -- and egg producers. Defendant Midwest Poultry Services agreed to pay $2.5 million; National Food Corp. agreed to pay $1 million; United Egg Producers and United States Egg Marketers agreed to jointly pay $500,000; NuCal Foods agreed to pay $1.425 million; and Hillendale farms agreed to pay $3 million, according to Judge Pratter's opinion. In addition to the payments and agreeing to cooperate in the ongoing litigation, the five defendants will be released from any and all claims from the direct purchasers. The direct purchasers' attorney, Mindee Reuben, declined to comment. Jane Levine, who represented United Egg Producers and United States Egg Marketers, praised Judge Pratter for her thoroughness in overseeing the settlement. The class, which Judge Pratter certified in September, claimed the nation's major egg producers were involved in a conspiracy to control and limit the supply of eggs in an effort to increase prices, allegedly through short-term production restriction, such as slaughtering hens early, a pretextual animal welfare program and a "calculated" series of exports of eggs at below-market prices. Earlier in the case, Judge Pratter had denied certification to the indirect purchaser plaintiffs -- those who purchased eggs produced by the defendants but sold elsewhere -- because their proposed class members were not easily categorized, had not enough in common and were not manageable. As for the direct purchasers, Judge Pratter held in a September ruling that the plaintiffs had demonstrated there was commonality between the different proposed class members. "The court concludes that common issues predominate with respect to whether the alleged conspiracy had an impact on the members of the shell eggs subclass," Judge Pratter had said. "Plaintiffs can use common evidence to demonstrate that (a) defendants made efforts to reduce the supply of eggs and thereby raise the price of eggs; (b) the egg market was structured so that the alleged conspiracy to restrict the supply of eggs, if successful, would have caused all or virtually all direct purchaser plaintiffs to pay higher prices than they would have absent the conspiracy; and (c) the conspiracy was successful in raising prices." Those factors showed the plaintiffs were affected by the defendants' alleged anti-competitive behavior, Judge Pratter said. The plaintiffs also argued the lack of substitutes for eggs and the high demand played a part in the defendants' alleged conspiracy, Judge Pratter said. "Because of the lack of close substitutes for eggs, class members could not have systematically avoided the effects of a lower supply of eggs by obtaining a substitute for eggs, but would instead have had to pay the increased prices of eggs," Judge Pratter said. MISTRAS GROUP: Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to Aug. 18 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EDGAR VICERAL and DAVID KRUEGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MISTRAS GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 3:15- cv-02198-EMC (N.D. Calif.), District Judge Edward M. Chen granted parties' stipulation to reset the hearing date of the extended Plaintiffs' Motion For Preliminary Approval of A Collective and Class Action Settlement to August 18, 2016. The Parties' stipulation and agreement to continue the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Motion for Preliminary Approval of a Class and Collective Action Settlement from July 5, 2016 to July 22, 2016 prompts the resetting of its hearing date to August 18 from August 4, 2016. A copy of the Court's order dated July 7, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/EnT2qyfrom Leagle.com. Mistras Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph Alan Schwachter -- jschwachter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Angela Joy Rafoth -- arafoth@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Richard Keith Chapman -- kchapman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC. MONSTER ENERGY: Court Partly Reverses Marketing Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 8 partly reversed a lower-court order dismissing the case, allowing plaintiffs to proceed with claims that certain statements on Monster Energy drinks' labels - for instance, that the beverages contained the "ideal combo of the right ingredients" -- violated California consumer-protection laws. MYLAN PHARMA: Lawyers Quizzed by Appellate Panel in Provigil Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for Law.com, reports that attorneys in reverse payment antitrust litigation over the sleep disorder drug Provigil faced questions from a federal appellate panel on July 12 on how small a class action can be. In arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, lawyers for Mylan Pharmaceuticals and Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals took issue with a 2015 order from U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that certified a direct purchaser class of drug wholesalers. A $512 million settlement was reached in the case in April between the plaintiffs and Cephalon Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. Generic drugmakers Mylan and Ranbaxy were not part of that settlement, however, and remain in the litigation. The case challenges reverse-payment settlements, paid out in 2005 and 2006 by Cephalon to each of the generic manufacturers in exchange for the companies delaying release of a generic version of Provigil, a medication used to treat sleep disorders. Judge Goldberg found the agreements to be anticompetitive. On July 12, Third Circuit Judges Kent A. Jordan, Marjorie Rendell and D. Brooks Smith hammered the question of whether a class action of only 22 plaintiffs could be considered a class action. J. Douglas Baldridge, counsel for Ranbaxy, estimated that the case was the smallest Hatch-Waxman action he could recall. Mr. Baldridge argued that a joinder of the plaintiffs, rather than a full-fledged class action, would have sufficed. But practical distinctions between the two litigation tools were murky, Mr. Baldridge admitted. "It's hard to draw clear lines," he told the court. Judge Rendell asked Mr. Baldridge how the plaintiffs could be joined, since they span 13 states and Puerto Rico. When Mr. Baldridge said he didn't know, Judge Rendell queried whether the court could not overturn Judge Goldberg's ruling on that basis. Judge Goldberg's decision to certify was based more on a desire to move the case along to trial, Mr. Baldridge argued, than whether a class action was the most practical way to handle the case. Mylan's counsel, Rowan Wilson, focused on defendants' contention that Judge Goldberg contravened the U.S. Supreme Court case of Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, in which the high court held that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members." The argument returned to numerosity when plaintiffs attorney Bruce E. Gerstein took the podium. Mr. Gerstein defended Judge Goldberg's ruling, arguing that judicial efficiency is an important aspect of class certification. Judge Jordan said that judicial efficiency alone was not enough. For example, he said, "We have 10 people here, what a pain in the neck, let's have a class action. There has to be more than that." He also noted that 96 percent of the damages claimed in the case are from three absent class members, McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health Inc. and AmerisourceBergen Corp. Judge Jordan also suggested that coordinating individual suits as multidistrict litigation might be appropriate. Mr. Gerstein allowed that an MDL is helpful in terms of discovery but insisted that the Provigil litigation has already advanced past that point. Judge Rendell asked why a joinder would be impracticable. Mr. Gerstein replied that reversing Judge Goldberg would prejudice the parties by delaying the litigation and splitting up the cases into multiple trials. "It'll be a mess," Judge Rendell acknowledged. NAPLES TRANSPORTATION: "Pfeuti" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hermann Pfeuti and Alfred Erzak in the class action lawsuit styled HERMANN PFEUTI and ALFRED ERZAK, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NAPLES TRANSPORTATION & TOURS, LLC, RANDALL R. SMITH and TAMIR RANKOW, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00364-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla.), ask the Court to conditionally certifying a class: "of current and former non-exempt Chauffeurs who worked for Defendants at NT&T between May 16, 2013 and the present." The Plaintiffs further request an order: 1. directing Defendants to produce, in an electronic readable format, to undersigned counsel within 14 days of the order granting this motion, a list containing the names, the last known addresses, phone numbers and e-mail addresses of putative class members who worked for Defendants between May 16, 2013 and the present; 2. authorizing their counsel to send notice, in the form to all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by Defendants' counsel by first-class mail and e-mail; 3. providing all individuals whose names appear on the list produced by Defendants' counsel with 60 days from the date the notices are initially mailed to file a consent to become opt-in Plaintiff; and 4. any other relief that is just and appropriate. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lsAlfPXQ The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A. 4423 Del Prado Blvd. S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Telephone: (239) 549 6689 E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com NEW BRUNSWICK: Court Hears Retired Civil Servants' Pension Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Jacques Poitras, writing for CBC News, reports that the New Brunswick government is in court fighting to stop 13,000 retired civil servants from banding together in a single lawsuit over the province's new shared-risk pension system. Toronto lawyer Ari Kaplan is asking Justice Judy Clendening to let him represent the retirees as a group, which he says will allow the case to move ahead more efficiently. The retirees allege the shift to the shared-risk system by the previous Progressive Conservative government violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it put at risk the money they had paid into the provincial pension fund over the years. 'These were not gifts' "These were not gifts," Mr. Kaplan argued on July 12. "This was their own money." Mr. Kaplan told Ms. Clendening that it makes sense to allow a group lawsuit because it will be more efficient and "this case affects people." "It affects two per cent of the people in your province," he said. "This is a defined group of people, and the people we're looking to represent are vulnerable. They are elderly, and they are dying." The shared-risk system doesn't guarantee a set amount of pension benefits the way the previous system did. That means the province doesn't have to make up the difference in years when the pension fund's investments lose money in the market. The retirees argue that exposes their money to greater risk, though the province's model shows losses would only happen during a catastrophic financial collapse. The system also allows the pension fund to "catch up" and erase those losses during years of of market growth. Negotiations failed The retirees threatened a lawsuit when the reforms were passed, but the new Liberal government elected in 2014 offered to negotiate with them instead. But the Liberals refused to undo the reforms and instead offered a compromise in April 2015: a guarantee that retirees would get 75 per cent of cost-of-living increases every year for five years, and no reduction of benefits by more than 10 per cent for the next 20 years. The retirees rejected that offer and filed their lawsuit last August, but the court must first approve that 13,000 people can sue the province as a group. Steven Hutchison, a private litigator, represents the province. The Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada are also suing over how the shared-risk system affects some current provincial employees. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: "Lohr" Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled Tamara Lohr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nissan North America, Inc. and Nissan Motor Co Ltd, Case No. 16-00002-12467-4-SEA, was removed from the Superior Court of Washington, County of King to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv- 01023-RSM to the proceeding. The case asserts product-liability claims. The Defendants design, develop, manufacture, and market Nissan and Infiniti vehicles in the United States The Plaintiff is represented by: A. Janay Ferguson, Esq. Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Ste 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 319-5450 E-mail: jferguson@terrellmarshall.com bterrell@terrellmarshall.com The Defendant is represented by: Heather A. Hedeen, Esq. SHOOK HARDY & BACON 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6800 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 344-7606 E-mail: hhedeen@shb.com NUCAL FOODS: Direct Purchasers' Settlement Wins Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, IN RE: PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No. 08-md-2002 (E.D. Pa.), District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter granted Final Approval of the Class Action Settlements between the direct purchaser plaintiffs and defendants NuCal Foods, Incorporated, Hillandale Farms of Pennsylvania, Incorporated, and Hillandale-Gettysburg, L.P. The court held that the Settlement Class satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Rules 23(a) and (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Settlement Agreements are sufficiently fair, reasonable and adequate. Notice of the Settlement Agreements to the Settlement Class has been given in an adequate and sufficient manner. For settlement purposes, Members of the Settlement Class include all persons and entities that purchased Shell Eggs and Egg Products in the United States directly from any Producer, including any Defendant, during the Class Period from January 1, 2000 through the date on which the Court enters an order preliminarily approving the Agreement and certifying a Class for Settlement purposes. Settlement Class is divided into two Sub-classes as follows: Shell Egg Subclass refers to all individuals and entities that purchased Shell Eggs in the United States directly from any Producer, including any Defendant, during the Class Period from January 1, 2000 through the date on which the Court enters an order preliminarily approving the Agreement and certifying a Class for Settlement purposes; and, Egg Products Subclass refers to all individuals and entities that purchased Egg Products produced from Shell Eggs in the United States directly from any Producer, including any Defendant, during the Class Period from January 1, 2000 through the date on which the Court enters an order preliminarily approving the Agreement and certifying a Class for Settlement purposes. The court added that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania shall retain jurisdiction over the implementation, enforcement, and performance of the Settlement Agreements, and shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any suit, action, motion, proceeding, or dispute arising out of or relating to the Settlement Agreements or the applicability of the Settlement Agreements that cannot be resolved by negotiation and agreement by Plaintiffs and NuCal, Hillandale PA, or Hillandale-Gettysburg. A copy of the court's order dated June 30, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/SilCELfrom Leagle.com. In re PROCESSED EGG PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, represented by JAN P. LEVINE -- levinej@pepperlaw.com --PEPPER HAMILTON LLP. SANDRA A. JESKIE, Special Master, represented by SANDRA A. JESKIE -- Jeskie@duanemorris.com -- DUANE, MORRIS LLP. OCWEN LOAN: Farrin Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------- Mr. Henry L. Farrin in the class action lawsuit styled HENRY L. FARRIN, JR, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00145-JL (D.N.H., July 2, 2016), asks the Court to certify a class. He has filed a memorandum in support of the motion. The proposed amended class definition consists: "Any person in the state of New Hampshire who obtained a discharge of their debt to through a bankruptcy proceeding and after the discharge, the Defendant pulled or obtained a consumer report about that person within the 5 year period preceding the filing of this complaint." The class excludes any person who falls within the definition if the person is (i) an employee or independent contractor of the Defendant; (ii) a relative of an employee or independent. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, when it pulled credit reports and FICO scores on Mr. Farrin and putative class members, despite the fact that Ocwen had no statutory "permissible purpose" to do so. Specifically, Ocwen obtained credit information and credit scores for him and others from a consumer reporting agency after any credit obligation was discharged through bankruptcy proceedings. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W8PXcMv0 The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger B. Phillips, Esq. PHILLIPS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 104 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 225 2767 - and - Peter A. Holland, Esq. THE HOLLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. P.O. Box 6268 Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 410 280 6133 Facsimile: 410 280 8650 E-mail: peter@hollandlawfirm.com - and - Scott C. Borison, Esq. LEGG LAW FIRM, LLP 1900 S. Norfolk Rd. Suite 350 San Mateo CA 94403 Telephone: (301) 620 1016 Facsimile: (301) 620 1018 E-mail: Borison@legglaw.com The Defendant is represented by: John-Mark Turner, Esq. SHEEHAN PHINNEY BASS + GREEN, P.A. 1000 Elm Street, P.O. Box 3701 Manchester, NH 03101 Telephone: (603) 627 8150 E-mail: jturner@sheehan.com - and - John C. Lynch, Esq. Alan D. Wingfield, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Telephone: (757) 687 7765 Facsimile: (757) 687 1504 E-mail: john.lynch@troutmansanders.com alan.wingfield@troutmansanders.com OHIO ADULT PAROLE: "Sabo" Suit Bid for Class Cert. Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- Larry Sabo and all other similarly situated Ohio Parole Eligible inmates in the class action lawsuit styled Larry Sabo et al., the Petioner, v. Warden Tibbals et. al., and Sara Andrews, Deputy Director Ohio Adult Parole Authority 770 West Broad St., Columbus Ohio 43222, Defendant-Respondents et. al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00536- ALM-NMK (S.D. Ohio), ask the Court to grant them class certification. The class is defined as: "Approximately 3,200 plus prison inmates in Ohio which are serving indefinite terms under the old sentencing laws/parole laws and whose convictions were either entered by Plea/Plea Bargain Agreement (Contracts) or conviction at trial." The Petitioners further request appointment Counsel in the action. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Cp0poEIz OREGON: Timber Industry Pays Linn County's Legal Fees ----------------------------------------------------- Cassandra Profita, writing for OPB, reports that court documents show the timber industry is footing the bill for Linn County's $1.4 billion lawsuit over logging in Oregon state forests. The county is suing the state on the grounds it has failed to maximize revenue from state-owned forestland. The lawsuit claims the state is contractually required to allow more logging on state forestland to ensure funding for counties that deeded the land over to the state more than 70 years ago. In a class action suit, Linn County is seeking $1.4 billion in damages for 15 counties and dozens of local taxing districts that the county argues should have gotten more revenue from timber harvest on more than 700,000 acres of state forestland. Court filings show the Oregon Forest Industries Council, Hampton Tree Farm, Stimson Lumber Company and the Sustainable Forest Fund have paid nearly $100,000 to cover Linn County's legal fees in the case and that the group agreed to pay up to $125,000. Several environmental groups including the Wild Salmon Center have intervened in the case and filed a motion for the court to dismiss it. They argue the state is required to balance timber harvest with other forest values such as fish and wildlife habitat, clean water and recreation. Bob Van Dyk, a policy director for the Wild Salmon Center, said the fact that timber companies are paying the county's legal fees suggests they're using the county to push their own agenda. "This latest disclosure shows this case is really about timber companies trying to force the state to clear-cut public forests to supply private timber mills," he said. "Basically, the timber companies decided they weren't getting their way so they're paying the bills for a county to try to force more harvest out on the forest." John DiLorenzo, an attorney for Linn County on the case, said funds from the timber industry are "a drop in the bucket" compared to the county's overall legal costs. In a class action suit, he said, it's normal for outside parties to help finance litigation. He said in this case the timber companies have an interest in the public services provided by the counties where they operate mills. "The timber companies happen to have operations where the county governments are hardly able to function anymore," he said. "They don't have any money. A lot of those mills are in areas that are suffering because they have no police protection, no sheriff's department, nothing. Our claim for damages, assuming we prevail, would basically give those local governments a lot more money so they could provide services to the communities where these timber companies have operations." Mr. DiLorenzo said the lawsuit isn't asking the state to change its forest management policy to allow more logging. Rather, it's calling for the state to pay the counties and taxing districts to make up for a breach of contract, according to Mr. DiLorenzo. The Linn County Board of Commissioners have argued timber revenue from state forest lands supports a wide array of public services including education and public safety. In a statement earlier this year, the board said the state breached its contract with the counties in 1998 when it adopted a new rule that de-emphasized timber revenue in favor of other objectives such as salmon and wildlife habitat protection. That reduced the revenue counties get from timber harvest by $35 million a year, they said. "This breach of contract has had devastating effects on local communities that have seen both poverty and unemployment rates skyrocket in the last two decades as a result of the current practices," they said. The case had its first hearing in Oregon Circuit Court on July 11. The next court date is Aug. 18. PANALPINA WORLD: November 4 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------- AirCargo Asia-Pacific reports that US law firms have released claim details for individuals or companies letting them know they may be entitled to cash payments from freight forwarder class action settlements. A full list of all defendants is available at the settlement website: www.FreightForwardCase.com The case involves a lawsuit claiming that certain freight forwarding companies secretly agreed to prices for their freight forwarding services worldwide, including on routes in the US and between the US and China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, India, Germany, the UK and other parts of Europe. The settling defendants deny wrongdoing. A Class Member is included in one or more of the settlements if they: (1) Directly purchased freight forwarding services; (2) from any of the defendants, their subsidiaries, or affiliates; (3) from 01 January 2001 through 04 January 2011 ; (4) in the US, or outside the US for shipments within, to, or from the US. Purchasers need to submit a Claim Form, on line or by mail, by 03 April 2017 to get a payment from the settlements. If purchasers have already submitted a Claim Form for the first or second round of settlements, they do not need to file a new claim. They will automatically be paid from this round of settlements. Purchasers who do nothing will not get a payment and give up the right to sue. Purchasers who want to keep the right to sue DHL or Hellmann must exclude themselves by September 20, 2016. Purchasers who stay in the settlements can object to them by September 20, 2016. The Court will hold a hearing November 4, 2016, to consider whether to approve: (1) the settlements, (2) a request for attorneys' fees up to 33 per cent of the Settlement Fund, plus interest, and reimbursement for litigation expenses; and (3) a request for Class Representative service awards of no more than US$75,000 each. More information regarding the Settlements and Class Member rights is at www.FreightForwardCase.com The case is Precision Associates, Inc. v Panalpina World Transport, No. 1:08-cv-00042-BMC-PK PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS: Bid on Class Certification Premature, Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, FAMILY MEDICINE PHARMACY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. PERFUMANIA HOLDINGS, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-0563- WS-C (S.D. Ala.), Chief District Judge William H. Steele denied Plaintiff's Preliminary Motion for Class Certification and Motion to Consider Class Certification Upon Completion of Reasonable Discovery for failing to satisfy the burden of establishing the prerequisites of Rule 23, Fed.R.Civ.P.. The Court emphasized that the party seeking class certification has the burden of proof, rather than merely a burden of pleading. This further means that plaintiff must affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with Rule 23 by proving that the requirements are in fact satisfied. Plantiff Family Medicine essentially conceded the insufficiency of its proof by filing a follow-up Motion on March 30, 2016 requesting the Court to consider its preliminary Motion for Class Certification upon completion of reasonable discovery. Thus, the court held Plaintiff's Rule 23 Motion as premature, unnecessary, and it imposes significant costs on court personnel and the litigants. The court authorized Family Medicine to renew its Rule 23 Motion at an appropriate time upon an appropriate factual and legal showing. A copy of the decision dated July 5, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/WnJullfrom Leagle.com Quality King Fragrance, Inc., Defendant, represented by Clyde Whitaker Steineker, Andre K. Cizmarik -- AKCizmarik@mintz.com -- Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popep, P.C., Anthony Joseph Viola -- AJViola@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohen Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC & Kevin M. McGinty -- KMcGinty@mintz.com -- Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popep, P.C.. Quality Fragrance Group, Defendant, represented by Fred M. Haston, III -- thaston@bradleyarant.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP & Clyde Whitaker Steineker. PRECISION CASTPARTS: Southeast Portland Residents File Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Aimee Green, writing for The Oregonian, reports that four Southeast Portland residents who say their homes have been smothered with heavy metals and other pollution by a nearby Precision Castparts manufacturing plant are asking a judge to order the parts maker to stop polluting. In a suit, the residents also are asking a Multnomah County Circuit judge to force Precision Castparts to clean up millions of pounds of nickel, chromium, arsenic and other toxic pollutants that they say have settled upon their neighborhoods and increased their chances of cancer and other health problems -- and even put children at risk of lower IQs. The suit seeks class-action status, for as many as 5,000 neighbors within a "plume of contamination" northeast of the plant at 4600 S.E. Harney Dr., the suit states. The suit also asks that Precision Castparts pay for their blood or urine to be tested for excessive pollutants. The lawsuit says the residents' home values have declined, but it doesn't seek a dollar amount in damages. The suit was filed by Kelley Foster, Juan Prat-Sanchez, Kirk Gayton and Debra Taevs -- all whom live within one block to one mile from the factory. The suit is similar to a lawsuit filed in May by another pair of residents, Brian and Rodica Resendez, who live less than two- thirds of a mile from the factory. The suit also is similar to one filed by residents of another neighborhood -- near the Bullseye Glass manufacturer north of them in Southeast Portland. That lawsuit, filed in March, asked Bullseye Glass to stop emitting three heavy metals into their neighborhood and pay to clean up their properties. That dispute is still pending. A Precision spokesperson declined to comment on either lawsuit filed against it, citing the pending litigation. The company also has yet to respond to either suit in court papers. The Fortune 500 company was founded in Oregon in 1953, and makes parts for the aerospace and defense machinery, as well as for industrial gas turbines. Precision Castparts is among only three Oregon companies -- which includes Nike and Lithia Motors -- on the Fortune 500 list. Although the suit said the pollution has been going on for years, the problem came to light after the U.S. Forest Service began collecting moss samples in the Portland area to study them for pollution, the suit states. State environmental regulators made the results public in February, to the astonishment of residents. "The revelations about South Portland's pollution from (Precision Castparts) has repeatedly been front page news in Portland and around the nation since that time," the suit states. The suit states that because plaintiffs have come into contact with the pollutants by breathing them in but also by touching their surroundings, they have stopped walking their neighborhoods or gardening like they once did, and now travel outside the area to recreate. The lawsuit was filed by Seattle attorney Daniel Mensher, Santa Barbara, California, attorney Matthew Preusch and Portland attorney Karl Anuta. PRIME WHEEL: Faces "Lemus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Cristobal Lemus, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. Prime Wheel Corporation and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC625648 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Prime Wheel Corporation manufactures and distributes aftermarket and original equipment aluminum wheels. The Plaintiff is represented by: Farzad Rastegar, Esq. RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC 22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200 Torrance, CA 90505 Telephone: (310) 961-9600 Facsimile: (310) 961-9094 E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com QUICKSIUS LLC: Bid to Stay Proceedings in "Dougherty" Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, AMANDA DOUGHERTY, Plaintiff, v. QUICKSIUS, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-6432 (E.D. Pa.), District Judge Joel H. Slomsky denied Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court's decision was made in consideration of the First Amended Class Action Complaint, Defendant's Motion to Stay Proceedings or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss Count II of Plaintiff's Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Plaintiff's Response in Opposition, Defendant's Reply, and the arguments made at a hearing on the Motion on May 3, 2016. The Defendant is ordered to file an answer to the Amended Class Action Complaint within 14 days from the entry of the Order dated July 14, 2016. A copy of this court's July 14, 2016 decision is available at http://goo.gl/rKCxLmfrom Leagle.com. QUICKSIUS, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by SPENCER R. SHORT -- sshort@stradley.com -- STRADLEY RONON, pro hac vice & WILLIAM T. MANDIA -- wmandia@stradley.com -- STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG. REALTY REFERRAL: Faces "Pileggi" Class Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Realty Referral Services, Inc. and SRMOF II 2012-1 Trust, U.S. Bank Trust National Association, not in its individual capacity but solely as trustee and Green River Capital, Inc. The case is captioned Patricia A. Pileggi, H/W, as administrator for estate of George J. Pileggi, And All Persons Similarly Situated v. Realty Referral Services, Inc. and SRMOF II 2012-1 Trust, U.S. Bank Trust National Association, not in its individual capacity but solely as trustee and Green River Capital, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-03631-JD (E.D. Penn., June 30, 2016). The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart A. Eisenberg, Esq. MCCULLOUGH EISENBERG LLC 65 W Street Rd Suite A204 Warminster, PA 18974-3229 Telephone: (215) 957-6411 Facsimile: (215) 957-9140 E-mail: mlawoffice@aol.com RED ROBIN: Faces "Rogers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Rogers, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. Red Robin International, Inc. and Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., Case No. 511180/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate restaurants in Nashua, New Hampshire; Carle Place, New York; Paramus, New Jersey; and Bronx, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 - and - Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 25th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 REINALT-THOMAS CORP: Settlement in "McDaniel" Has Final Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JERAME McDANIEL, Plaintiff, v. THE REINALT-THOMAS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, No. CV 12-01466 TJH (PJWx), (C.D. Cal.), District Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. granted final approval of the Parties' Class Action Settlement and for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Award. For purposes of class settlement, all current and former employees of Defendants who worked in the position of Tire or Service Technician in a store in California from July 2, 2008, through May 31, 2014 are classified as Class Members. Class Counsels are awarded $500,000.00 for attorneys' fees, 25% of the $2,000,000.00 Maximum Settlement Amount, and awards costs of $20,112.25 is to be allocated as follows: $19,266.39 to Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, and $845.86 to The Edgar Law Firm. The approved enhancement awards for the Class Representative, Jerame McDaniel, is $4,000.00. $20,000.00 of the Maximum Settlement Amount shall be allocated to the Plaintiff's PAGA claim. $15,000.00 of that allocation shall be paid to the California Labor Workforce and Development Agency ("LWDA"), and the remaining $5,000.00 shall be disbursed to the class as part of the Net Settlement Fund. Payment of $56,775 to Heffler Claims Group, the Settlement Administrator, is approved. The court added that further orders and proceedings in the case are stayed and the court retains the jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement. A copy of the court's order dated June 30, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/COSNOnfrom Leagle.com. The Reinalt-Thomas Corporation, et al., Defendants, represented by Carolina Bravo-Karimi -- cbravo-karimi@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Lois M Kosch -- lkosch@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Meryl C Maneker -- mmaneker@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Robin A Wofford -- rwofford@wilsonturnerkosmo.com -- Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP. SAINT JOHN, NB: Hearing Set in Sexual Abuse Suit vs. Police ----------------------------------------------------------- CTV Atlantic reports that a hearing that will decide whether a class-action lawsuit will be filed against the City of Saint John and its police force was before the court on July 11. The lawsuit is being brought forward by the alleged victims of Kenneth Estabrooks, who was a former member of the Saint John Police Force and was convicted of molesting four young people between 1957 and 1982. "It's the opportunity for both sides to present their evidence, so the court can determine whether or not these claims can be heard as a group, can be heard as a class action," said lawyer John McKiggan. When the allegations of abuse first surfaced, Mr. Estabrooks resigned from the police department but was quietly moved to City Works. There are suggestions that Mr. Estabrooks may have abused more than 250 children dating back to the 1950s. He died in 2005. "There's potentially more than 100 victims of abuse out there," said Mr. McKiggan. "These are vulnerable people. They were children when this happened and now they have, as a result of the abuse, become even more vulnerable." Bobby Hayes is one of those alleged victims and is the representative plaintiff for the proposed class-action lawsuit. "The damages continue to go with the people that are living and carrying this burden until someone is held accountable," said Mr. Hayes. Three days have been set aside for the hearing. But Mr. McKiggan expected things woupd wrap by the end of the day on July 12. "It's unlikely we'll receive a decision off the bench," he said. "Typically the courts will take time to review all the evidence and provide a written decision." Mr. McKiggan is confident the lawsuit will be certified, which Mr. Hayes says could bring some relief to him and other alleged victims. SAINT JOHN, NB: Judge Reserves Judgment on Abuse Suit vs. Police ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Jones, writing for CBC News, reports that a proposed lawsuit against the City of Saint John for its role in failing to detect that a former employee was a serial child sexual predator while on the job is awaiting a ruling whether it can proceed as a class action. Justice William Grant reserved judgment on July 12 following two days of arguments about whether victims of the late Ken Estabrooks, a former Saint John police officer and municipal works employee, have enough in common to pursue a single case against the city as a group. Toronto class action lawyer Kirk Baert, acting on behalf of victims, told Grant there is no practical way for the lawsuit to proceed unless it is first certified as a class action. "There is no other feasible method that would provide access to justice and deterrence," said Mr. Baert. Works 30 years for city Mr. Estabrooks was employed by the city between 1953 and 1983. He worked first as a police officer until 1975 when he was transferred out of the force to work at a city garage. Years after his retirement. Mr. Estabrooks was investigated and charged for decades of sexual abuse against five boys and one girl, including while he was on the job as a police officer. In 1998 he was convicted on four of those charges but a subsequent investigation launched by the city suggested he may have had more than 150 victims. Mr. Estabrooks died in 2005 but a group led by Robert Hayes began developing a lawsuit against the city in 2013. Robert Hayes affidavit Mr. Hayes says he was first sexually assaulted by Mr. Estabrooks in 1970 as a 10-year-old and many times after that during the following three or four years. Mr. Hayes says Mr. Estabrooks would take him to an isolated part of Saint John's Tin Can Beach for the assaults and claims he witnessed it happening to others. "During the same time frame I witnessed Mr. Estabrooks raping seven or eight other children on Tin Can Beach," Mr. Hayes states in an affidavit filed in the case. "He was a big man. Because he was a policeman he carried a gun. All of the kids I knew in the south end were afraid of Estabrooks." Mr. Hayes said he was sexually assaulted again by Mr. Estabrooks as a young man when the two were both employed by the city works department. City's inaction at issue A key allegation against the city is that it took no action against Mr. Estabrooks even after he admitted assaulting two boys who complained to police in 1975. No charges were laid but that's the year Mr. Estabrooks was transferred out of the police department. "This is the classic what did they know and when did they know it," Mr. Baert told Grant about the victims' case. "The allegation is that there is a serial predator allowed to operate for decades because of the negligence and bungling of the defendant." Although the lawsuit originally named the Saint John Police Department and the Saint John Police Commission as co-defendants, those two were dropped on July 12 and the case is being pursued exclusively against the city. The police commission was not created until after Mr. Estabrooks left the force while the police department is not considered to be an independent legal entity. City says all victims differ Michael Brenton, who is acting for the city and its insurer, argued that there are too many differences among Mr. Estabrooks's victims for them to sue as a single group. Each victim faced a unique situation and suffered individual damages that cannot be combined into one action, he told Grant. "When did it happen? Where did it happen? How long did it happen? Was he a police officer? Was he a city works employee," said Mr. Brenton. "There's going to have to be expert evidence for everyone of these plaintiffs, for each one of them." Mr. Brenton said it may even turn out that some victims in the group suffered little and could wrongly be compensated unless cases are heard individually. "Some of these people might not even have a compensable claim," said Mr. Brenton. "You can't get compensation for hurt feelings." SAKUMA BROTHERS: Settlement in "Demetrio" Suit Has Final Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANA LOPEZ DEMETRIO and FRANCISCO EUGENIO PAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SAKUMA BROTHERS FARMS, INC., Defendant, No. 2:13- cv-01918-MJP (W.D. Wash.), District Judge Marsha J. Pechman granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement. The fairness hearing on final approval of the settlement was held before the Court on July 8, 2016. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has certified the following Settlement Class: "All migrant and seasonal employees of Sakuma who performed piece-rate fruit harvest work for Sakuma in Washington in 2014 or 2015." The terms of the Settlement Agreement provides that Defendant shall issue payment to each of the Qualified Class Members who performed piecework for Defendant in 2014 in an amount equal to: (1) his or her unpaid rest break wages for the 2014 season, calculated at the worker's regular hourly rate (determined based on the average hourly rate each week from piecework) or minimum wage, whichever is higher, plus (2) prejudgment interest on the full amount of rest break wages owing to each Qualified Class Member who performed piecework in 2014 at 12% per year (from the time wages were due after each pay period until the date of this Order). In the event that any Qualified Class Members fail to cash any award checks within one year of distribution, Sakuma shall disburse such funds to the non-profit organization Catholic Community Services in Skagit County, with a request that any such funds be earmarked for farm worker assistance. The work of Catholic Community Services in Skagit County benefits low-income immigrant workers who may require legal assistance, and their work therefore serves the objectives of the underlying statutes and the interests of the silent class members. The Court awards $235,000 in attorneys' fees, $4,951.89 in litigation expenses, and $11,747.47 in settlement notice and administration fees and costs to Class Counsel The Court retains jurisdiction over the claims against Defendant for purposes of addressing: (1) any disputes arising from the Settlement Agreement; (2) settlement administration matters; and (3) such post-judgment matters as may be appropriate under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the court's Final Approval Order dated July 8, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/oAC20efrom Leagle.com. Sakuma Brothers Farms Inc, Defendant, represented by Adam S. Belzberg -- adam.belzberg@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES. SIRIUS XM: Class Action Trial Scheduled for November 2016 --------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Susman Godfrey L.L.P. and Gradstein & Marzano, P.C. regarding the Lawsuit between Flo & Eddie, Inc. and Sirius XM Radio, Inc. If You Are Owners Of Sound Recordings Fixed Prior To February 15, 1972 Which Have Been Performed, Distributed, Reproduced, Or Otherwise Exploited By Sirius XM In California Without A License Or Authorization From August 21, 2009 To August 24, 2016, A Class Action May Affect Your Rights. What is this case about? On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff Flo & Eddie, Inc. ("Flo & Eddie") filed a lawsuit against Defendant Sirius XM Radio, Inc. on behalf of itself and a putative class of owners of sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972 ("pre-1972 recordings"), alleging that Sirius XM, without a license or authorization, was performing, distributing, and reproducing, those pre-1972 recordings in California as part of its satellite and internet radio services (the "Lawsuit"). The lawsuit is known as Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Case No. CV13-05693, and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Trial is set for November 2016. Am I in the Class? You qualify as a member of the Class if you are an owner of pre- 1972 recordings which have been performed, distributed, reproduced, or otherwise exploited by Sirius XM in California without a license or authorization to do so from August 21, 2009 to August 24, 2016. As a class member, your legal rights are affected, and you have a choice to make. Has the Court made any determinations in this Lawsuit? The Court has already found Sirius XM liable for its public performance of pre-1972 recordings in California in favor of Flo & Eddie. Sirius XM continues to assert the availability of certain defenses and the unavailability of certain damages theories. What are my Options? You have to decide now whether to stay in the Class or ask to be excluded. If you do nothing, you are staying in the Class. As a member of the Class, you will keep the possibility of getting money or benefits that may come from a trial or a settlement. But, you will give up any rights to sue Sirius XM separately over the legal claims asserted in this Lawsuit. You will be legally bound by the judgment in this Lawsuit, whether favorable or not. If you ask to be excluded, and money or benefits are later awarded to the Class as a result of this Lawsuit, you won't share in those. But, you keep any rights to sue Sirius XM separately about the same legal claims in this Lawsuit. If you retain an individual attorney, you may need to pay for that attorney. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must send a written request that includes an Exclusion Request Form that is received no later than August 30, 2016. For more information on how to exclude yourself, and to obtain the Exclusion Request Form, visit www.pre1972soundrecordings.com. Where can I get Additional Information? This is only a summary. For more information about the Lawsuit, visit www.pre1972soundrecordings.com PLEASE DO NOT CALL OR WRITE TO THE COURT FOR INFORMATION OR ADVICE. SONOMA, CA: Court Wants Joint Status Report in Retirees' Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, SONOMA COUNTY ASS'N OF RETIRED EMPLOYEES, Plaintiff, v. SONOMA COUNTY, Defendant, No. C 09-4432-CW (N.D. Calif.), District Judge Claudia Wilken directed parties to submit a joint status report or a motion for preliminary approval within one week from the Order of the Court dated July 8, 2016. A copy of the Court's Order is available at http://goo.gl/STHj78from Leagle.com The Court scheduled a Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement hearing for August 2, and the parties indicated that they planned to file their motion for preliminary approval by June 28. By then, the Court has not received further updates from the parties. Sonoma County, Defendant, represented by Raymond Francis Lynch -- rlynch@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy LLP, Batya Floryn Forsyth -- bforsyth@hansonbridgett.com -- Attorney at Law, Matthew Joseph Peck, Hanson Bridgett LLP, Robert Blum -- Rblum@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy LLP & Stephen B. Peck, Esq. -- speck@hansonbridgett.com -- Hanson Bridgett LLP. SPALDING NEVERFLAT: Faces Class Action Over False Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Nancy Crist, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class action lawsuit alleging the Spalding Neverflat basketball does not perform as advertised is cited by a national civil justice reform organization as an example of the abuse it is fighting to change. Jaish Markos of Dutchess County filed a suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Russell Brands LLC, maker of the Spalding Neverflat basketball. The complaint alleges the company made false claims about its product in marketing and labeling that claimed the basketball will stay inflated for 12 months. Mr. Markos claims his Neverflat basketball did not stay inflated for the guaranteed amount of time. The American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) believes many class action suits are concocted by aggressive lawyers who target specific industries with deep pockets. "That's how you get a class action suit against Subway alleging its foot-long sandwich isn't quite (12 inches)," Darren McKinney, ATRA spokesman, told Legal Newsline. There are many judges in America "all too willing" to hear class action cases like the Subway lawsuit rather than dismiss them, Mr. McKinney said. "There are some no-nonsense judges who will grant summary judgment for defendants in such meritless lawsuits, but they tend to be in the minority," Mr. McKinney said. "But many judges come from the ranks of plaintiff attorneys, and they never met a lawsuit they didn't like." Mr. McKinney believes today's consumer protection laws invite so- called "no-injury" class actions. "It's a rare judge that will say 'get it out of here' when an unfounded lawsuit comes to their courtroom," he claims. Once a class action suit is filed, a judge must rule that the class is certifiable in order for the case to proceed as a class action. Most defendants will settle out of court, with no admission of guilt, because the settlement costs less than a trial. "Sellers of goods and services pass on all litigation costs to their customers, so these so-called consumer protection lawsuits really end up hurting most consumers while trial lawyers get rich," Mr. McKinney said. SPOTIFY: NMPA Members Join Royalties Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Ed Christman, writing for Billboard, reports that the $30 million settlement negotiated between Spotify and the National Music Publishers' Assn. (NMPA) over unpaid publishing royalties, a dispute which instigated two class action lawsuits against the company (since combined) has landed participation from NMPA members who comprise 96% of the trade group's market share. The window for music publishers to decide whether they wanted to partake in the deal or join the class action lawsuit against Spotify, or for publishers to initiate their own legal proceedings, closed June 30. David Lowery Legal Team Files Motion Addressing Spotify's Forthcoming Publishing Settlement "The vast majority of our members have opted into our settlement," NMPA president and CEO David Israelite tells Billboard, saying the agreement has "one of our highest opt-in rates ever." The NMPA has successfully sued or settled with various entities to the tune of $546 million through its history, the organization revealed at its annual meeting held in June. Spotify will issue a list of sound recordings that it couldn't match and thus owes mechanical royalties for, which they have estimated to be $25 million. Publishers will be allowed to analyze that list to claim songs and plays from it ahead of receiving their allotted share of the settlement. If any funds are left over after that process they will be liquidated and distributed by publisher's market share, as calculated by Spotify. Meanwhile, a $5 million bonus pool will be distributed by U.S. market share, as calculated by NMPA. The NMPA is in the process of hiring an administrator to oversee the payout process and to help clear conflicting claims. Israelite reports that the NMPA is entertaining bids from four rights administration entities. Critics of the settlement between the NMPA and Spotify charge that the three majors all took part in the settlement because it minimizes Spotify's financial obligations to most publishers. If NMPA publishers had gone the class action route or if they had initiated their own legal payments, then a substantial Spotify payout could hurt the company financially, and likewise impair the value of equity stakes in the company that are potentially, and probably, worth hundreds of millions. Israelite says that participants in the settlement "have a real desire to see streaming work," because it is the future of the business. They didn't want to penalize Spotify financially and possibly derail the service on its way to helping to grow the streaming business -- and along with it the wider recording industry, which is increasingly reliant on streaming revenues. Israelite contends that Spotify is paying a significant penalty and, more importantly, will be "taking on the duties to clean up" processing publisher reports and payouts. While there is a 96 percent participation rate among NMPA members, bitterness remains directed toward Spotify and other streaming services. Some publishers and songwriters claim that these services started their businesses irresponsibly, failing to ensure they had systems in place for properly licensing from and paying out to music publishers. Some of the songwriters and publishers affiliated with the class action lawsuit claim Spotify and other services knowingly infringed on their copyrights in order to get their businesses off the ground. Moreover, they charge that Spotify and some other services are poised to raise billions of dollars through initial public offerings, largely on the backs of publishers. Those publishers foresee penalties of up to $150,000 per infringement, or settlements that will yield a much larger penalty than the $5 million claimed in the NMPA deal with Spotify. ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Settles Durata Class Action for $39 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Reilly, writing for St. Paul Business Journal, reports that St. Jude Medical Inc. has reached a settlement with shareholders who claimed the Minnesota med-tech company misled them over potential risks with cables used in its implantable devices. Reuters has a report on the deal reached, in which Little Canada- based St. Jude will pay $39.25 million to the class-action plaintiffs. The settlement resolves claims that St. Jude improperly downplayed potential complications of its Durata lead. The Durata was intended to replace the Riata, which St. Jude recalled over safety issues, and was coated with a material called Optim. But a 2012 FDA report questioned whether St. Jude properly tested the Durata. St. Jude shares dived after the report was released, wiping out $1.3 billion in market value. St. Jude earlier this year agreed to be bought by Illinois-based Abbott Laboratories. STERICYCLE INC: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") on July 12 disclosed that on July 11, 2016, it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its clients St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund ("St. Lucie") and Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund ("Boynton Beach") against Stericycle, Inc. ("Stericycle"), its directors, certain of its senior executives, and underwriters of its public securities offering (collectively, "Defendants"). The action, which is captioned St. Lucie County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund, et al. v. Stericycle, Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-7145 (N.D. Ill.) asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), 15 U.S.C. Secs. 77k, 77l and 77o, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a), and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Stericycle common stock and/or depository shares between February 7, 2013 and April 28, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Stericycle and certain Defendants violated provisions of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading press releases, financial statements, filings with the SEC, and statements during investor conference calls. Stericycle is an international waste management and disposal company that specializes in the collection and disposal of regulated and specialized waste. Throughout the Class Period, Stericycle engaged in a systematic scheme whereby it routinely and systematically raised the rates it charged its smaller customers in violation of the contracts it had with those customers. By doing so, Stericycle artificially inflated its revenues and growth. Defendants did not disclose this practice and, as a result, Stericycle routinely misrepresented its performance and earnings. On October 22, 2015, Stericycle disclosed disappointing growth rates and revenues during the third quarter of 2015 and lowered its guidance going forward. These disclosures caused Stericycle's stock to decline by over 19%. On April 28, 2016, Stericycle disclosed that its results for the first quarter of 2016 were below its guidance and analysts' expectations, and lowered its 2016 guidance going forward. These disclosures caused Stericycle's stock to decline by over 21.5%. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion with the Court no later than September 12, 2016, which is the first business day on which the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois is open that is 60 days after the July 12, 2016 publication of this notice. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class. St. Lucie and Boynton Beach are represented by BLB&G, a firm of over 100 attorneys with offices in New York, California, Louisiana, and Illinois. If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Avi Josefson of BLB&G at 212-554-1493, or via e-mail at avi@blbglaw.com Foundedin 1983, BLB&G -- http://www.blbglaw.com-- specializes in securities fraud, corporate governance, shareholders' rights, employment discrimination, and civil rights litigation, among other practice areas, BLB&G prosecutes class and private actions on behalf of institutional and individual clients worldwide. SUNTRUST: Ga. High Court Revives Overdraft Fee Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that the Georgia Supreme Court has revived a class action lawsuit challenging SunTrust Bank's debit card overdraft fees, siding with consumers over the bank's claims that allowing the suit would undermine the validity of contracts in the state. Writing for the unanimous court in a closely-watched case, former Chief Justice Robert Benham ruled that the bank's customer arbitration agreement isn't enough to defeat the class action, which could be worth tens of millions of dollars. The opinion -- released with a batch of others on July 8 as the court neared its two-term deadline for decisions -- reverses the Georgia Court of Appeals and the trial judge, and returns the lawsuit to the lower court for a fresh look at class certification. The lawsuit challenges the bank's overdraft fees as excessive, alleging that SunTrust charged $36 when customers overdrew their account, even by small amounts. The suit claims the fees amount to interest rates as high as 1,000 percent and violate the state's banking and finance laws. Named plaintiff Jeff Bickerstaff Jr. filed the lawsuit in July 2010, alleging that SunTrust's overdraft fees for small amounts of money violated Georgia's usury laws. Mr. Bickerstaff alleged that approximately 400,000 Georgians had been overcharged in the same way and were "well suited for class treatment." A Fulton County judge declined to certify the class, a decision upheld in March 2015 by the Georgia Court of Appeals. Last year, Bickerstaff died, setting off an unsuccessful bid from SunTrust to have the Supreme Court case thrown out. The case has drawn attention from legal scholars, arguing in support of the class, as well as banking and business interests on the other side. In briefs and during oral arguments in January, attorneys told the justices their ruling could either kill class action or contract law in the state. Michael Terry, an appellate lawyer with litigation boutique Bondurant Mixson & Elmore who argued for the plaintiffs, praised Justice Benham's opinion on July 11. "We appreciate the Supreme Court's careful and scholarly decision and are pleased the class is this one step closer to resolution of their claims," Mr. Terry said. SunTrust's lead lawyer, William Withrow Jr. -- william.withrow@troutmansanders.com -- of Troutman Sanders, could not be reached on July 11. In the Supreme Court opinion, Justice Benham wrote that a federal court's ruling in an unrelated action -- finding SunTrust's customer arbitration clause "unconsionable" -- affected the 2010 overdraft fee class action. Following that other ruling, SunTrust amended its agreement to permit customers to reject arbitration with written notification. In the overdraft fee action, SunTrust argued that Mr. Bickerstaff failed to provide the required opt-out notice. But Mr. Terry, Mr. Bickerstaff's lawyer, argued that Bickerstaff's lawsuit was sufficient to serve as an opt-out notice. Justice Benham agreed. The high court also sided with plaintiffs on the question of whether other banking customers could join the class action, ruling that the 2010 lawsuit delayed the deadline for their opting out of arbitration. "The determinative issue is whether the filing of Bickerstaff's complaint, thereby signaling his rejection of the arbitration agreement, tolled the time in which the putative class members were required to notify SunTrust of their intent to reject arbitration," Justice Benham wrote. "The answer is yes." The case is Bickerstaff v. SunTrust Bank, No. S15G1295. SUTTER HEALTH: 9th Cir. Sends "Sidibe" Suit Back to Trial Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings the Plaintiffs third amended antitrust class action complaint under the Sherman Act, in the case, DJENEBA SIDIBE; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SUTTER HEALTH, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-16234 (9th Cir.). The panel consists of Circuit Judges Barry G. Silverman and Jacqueline Nguyen, and the Hon. Michael M. Anello, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. The Court pointed out that the district court, employing its judicial experience and common sense, was not bound to conclude that plaintiffs' geographic market allegations were untenable on their face. The Court cannot say that Plaintiffs' geographic market allegations were inherently implausible. The third amended complaint sufficiently alleged facts implicating the defendants. The validity of the relevant market is typically a factual element rather than a legal element, and inquiry into the commercial realities faced by consumers is more appropriately addressed at summary judgment or trial. A copy of the Court's reversed decision dated July 15, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/3WLbJjfrom Leagle.com. SWIFT: Employee Drivers' Class Action Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that an Arizona court ruling says a lawsuit accusing a Phoenix-based nationwide trucking company of breaking faith with employee drivers over mileage-based pay can proceed as a class-action case. The state Court of Appeals' ruling on July 12 overturns a trial judge's 2015 ruling rescinding a previous approval of class-action status in the decade-old case pending in Maricopa County Superior Court. Class-action status for the suit filed by one trucker driver would allow it to proceed on behalf of 80,000 employee drivers nationwide. Swift wanted to have drivers' claims considered individually, but the Court of Appeals said class-action status is warranted because the company allegedly didn't tell drivers that it chose a payment method that wasn't as accurate as other methods. A Swift spokesman did not immediately return a call for comment. TALMER BANK: Livonia Pension System Sues Over Merger ---------------------------------------------------- JC Reindl, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a $1.1- billion deal to merge Troy-based Talmer Bank into Midland-based Chemical Bank and create the largest bank headquartered in Michigan was set to be decided by shareholders, some of whom claim the deal would shortchange Talmer's shareholders and enrich bank insiders. Executives of Talmer and Chemical banks call the pending deal a "merger of equals" and a win-win for shareholders at both banks. They say it would create a preeminent Michigan bank with greater geographic reach, efficiency, and over time, a higher stock value. The resulting new Chemical Bank would be 45% owned by today's Talmer shareholders and be headquartered in Midland. The Talmer Bank name would fade away. Some Talmer shareholders have filed lawsuits aimed at stopping the deal, contending it undervalues Talmer to the detriment of regular shareholders yet still showers millions on some bank executives and board members. At the deal's center is a transaction in which Chemical would buy Talmer for the equivalent of $1.1 billion in stock and cash, valued at $15.64 per share. Talmer shareholders would get 0.4725 share of Chemical stock and $1.61 in cash for each Talmer share they own. The next step in the deal process is when Talmer shareholders have a special meeting scheduled for July 14 at the Somerset Inn in Troy to finish voting to approve or reject the Talmer-Chemical merger proposal. Chemical shareholders have a similar meeting July 19 at the Midland Country Club. If shareholders vote to approve the deal, it could be finalized in August pending regulatory approval. All 81 Talmer Bank branches that stay open would become Chemical Bank branches by mid- November. Chemical currently has 175 branches One of the lead shareholder lawsuits against the merger deal was filed in June by the City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System and seeks class-action status. Most of the other lawsuits have since been consolidated or dropped. The pension system claims that the deal is bad for Talmer shareholders and resulted from a "hopelessly flawed process" that was engineered by bank insiders to ensure a sale of Talmer to Chemical -- and no one else -- with terms that are preferential to bank insiders and not general shareholders. Talmer executives strongly dispute the lawsuit's allegations and say the deal is good for all shareholders. In an interview, Talmer Chairman and CEO David Provost said he is puzzled by many of the claims in the Livonia pension system's lawsuit, not least their motivation for going to court. "The insiders of Talmer are on the same side as the shareholders," he said. "It is very perplexing to me why our own neighbor would take legal action," Mr. Provost said, adding that he thinks most other shareholders are happy with the deal. "I could understand if it was a scoundrel from outside the state trying to do something -- but our own neighbor." Messages left by the Free Press for the retirement system were not returned and the system's lawyer in the case, David Shea of Southfield-based Shea Aiello, declined comment for this article. Talmer is the title sponsor of the annual Detroit Free Press marathon. The bank recently signed a new three-year contract that will keep the Talmer name on the marathon this fall before switching to the Chemical Bank name in 2017. Questions about deal Some Talmer shareholders have been raising questions about the merger deal since it was announced Jan. 26. An analyst with Deutsche Bank, a Talmer shareholder at the time, said during the announcement's conference call that Deutsche was disappointed because it appeared that Talmer's board and executives did not look around to seek better offers. And Talmer appeared to be selling itself for a distressed price, despite reporting good earnings, he said. "Your fiduciary duty is to the existing shareholders, not to the future company and combined entity," the Deutsche analyst, Rich Glass, said in the call. "I haven't heard any explanation why the institutional shareholders and all the shareholders on the Talmer side shouldn't vote this deal down." Then as now, Talmer executives have responded to complaints about the price by saying the deal represents a merger -- not an acquisition, which typically involves buyers paying more for companies than they're actually worth. "In a merger of equals there is very seldom a premium," Mr. Provost told the Free Press. "If we were to buy them we might have to pay a premium. And if they were to buy us, they might have to pay us a premium. But when you do a merger of equals, both companies win." Still, Mr. Provost acknowledged that the current Chemical Bank would be the dominant party in the deal, owning 55% of the new Chemical Bank if the merger goes through. "You can never get it exactly 50/50," he said. Lawsuits galore Merger and acquisition deals commonly attract shareholder lawsuits like the Livonia pension system's claim. Plaintiff attorneys across the U.S. filed shareholder lawsuits for more than 90% of all proposed M&A deals valued at more than $100 million since 2011, with an average of about four lawsuits per deal, according to a report published last year by Cornerstone Research. Multiple law firms issue news releases seeking potential plaintiffs within days of nearly any deal's announcement. The same Cornerstone report found that the lawsuits were resolved before deal closing 75% of the time, with the vast majority settled. Nearly 80% of the settlements in 2014 required the companies to disclose additional information; just six settlements that year required payments to shareholders. Only one case went to trial, resulting in a $76-million damages award. Eric Zacks, an assistant professor at Wayne State University Law School, said the Livonia pension system's lawsuit is typical because it emphasizes an allegedly flawed process that produced a purportedly bad deal. It's generally not enough to simply claim that a deal should have made shareholders richer, he said. "If they can get them on a flawed process . . . that's when boards can find themselves in trouble," Mr. Zacks said. "So if you are getting a sweetheart deal as an insider that no one else is getting, then that can be problematic." The pension system does claim a flawed process in its lawsuit, and alleges the poisoned process was based on a desire by Talmer's executives and board members to strike a deal that could cash out their illiquid Talmer shares. It says Talmer hired a conflicted financial adviser for the deal, New York-based Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, which was to pitch Talmer as a merger candidate to Chemical, even though the firm was an adviser to Chemical on another deal. And the suit doubles down on the earlier Deutsche Bank analyst's contention that Talmer's board didn't properly shop for a better deal than what Chemical offered. It notes how the value of the transaction for Talmer shareholders -- $15.64 per share -- was below what Talmer's stock closed the day before the deal's Jan. 26 announcement ($16) and had traded for in December ($18+). The stock closed July 11 at $19.34. The Talmer-Chemical merger -- once completed -- would give cash- out stock options of $5.6 million for Provost and $4.2 million for Talmer's board Chairman Gary Torgow, as well as $1.1 million each for the bank's chief financial officer and president, according to the deal's prospectus. The documents also note that Provost and Mr. Torgow have voluntarily waived their rights to each receive $1.2 million in cash under the deal, known as change-in-control payments, which they would otherwise get based on their Talmer employment contracts. "We were so committed to this deal that we gave up the change of control that we were entitled to, for the benefit of the deal," Provost said. "We actually thought that show of support for the deal would stop some of these frivolous lawsuits." Asked about claims that Talmer failed to shop itself for better offers, Provost said that "after looking at all alternatives, our board thought a negotiated settlement would give us the best results." The Talmer CEO also said the bank sees no conflicts of interest regarding the New York-based financial adviser that had done work for both Talmer and Chemical. He said there are only a few firms that do such work in the banking industry, and it is hard to completely avoid one of them. The Livonia pension system's lawsuit also names Chemical Bank as well as all 12 members of Talmer's board of directors, including former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. A spokesperson for Granholm said she has no comment and Chemical Bank did not return a message for this report. If shareholders approve the merger deal, the board of the new Chemical Bank holding company would have 12 directors: seven from the current Chemical, five from Talmer. Mr. Torgow would be the board's chairman and Provost its vice chairman. Messrs. Provost and Torgow also would each get new two-year employment contracts with $1-million annual salaries, $600 monthly car allowances and memberships to country clubs of their choice. The merger itself is estimated to produce $52 million in annual cost-savings opportunities for the new bank. More than half of that savings would come from back-office operations, such as combining computer systems and hiring just one auditor instead of two. Five to seven bank branches would close -- current Talmer as well as Chemical branches -- generally in areas where the banks have redundancies or overlapping markets. Mr. Provost was confident that Talmer shareholders will vote for the deal. The early tallies from proxy voting indicated approval, he said. TEXAS: Loses Bid to Boot Special Masters in Foster Care Reform -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re: GREG ABBOTT, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Texas; CHRIS TRAYLOR, in his official capacity as Executive Commissioner of the Health and Human Services Commission of the State of Texas formerly known as Kyle Janek; JOHN J. SPECIA, JR., in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services of the State of Texas, Petitioners, No. 16-40482 (5th Cir.), a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, affirmed the district court's rulings to deny the State's motion to revoke the appointment of the special masters and to decline the State's motion to certify an order for interlocutory appeal. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(a)(1)(C) permits a court to appoint a master to address pretrial and post-trial matters that cannot be effectively and timely addressed by an available district judge or magistrate judge of the district. An aggrieved party, in the case, may seek review of an order of reference by an interlocutory appeal or a writ of mandamus. The court found that the Appellants, in filing a writ of mandamus, have failed to demonstrate that they have a clear and indisputable entitlement to relief of the proceedings. A copy of the Ninth Circuit's decision dated July 7, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/Yg0ICUfrom Leagle.com. * * * Craig Malisow, writing for Houston Press, reports that the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied state officials' motion to quash the appointment of special masters who are overseeing measures to overhaul the state's beleaguered foster care system. Governor Greg Abbott and officials from the Department of Family and Protective Services filed the appeal earlier this year, after U.S. District Court Judge Janis Jack issued a blistering finding that 12,000 foster children's constitutional rights had been violated. Judge Jack ordered the appointment of two special masters to oversee changes mandated by Jack, including the setting of practical case loads for workers on the front line. The ruling was the result of a landmark class-action suit filed in 2011 by the New York-based advocacy group Children's Rights. The Fifth Circuit's ruling came more than three months after the special masters had already been appointed. They are Kevin Ryan, a child welfare advocate who was involved in foster care reforms in three other states; and Duke University law professor Francis McGovern, who is the president of the Academy of Court- Appointed Masters. Paul Yetter, the Houston attorney who led the litigation on behalf of Chidren's Rights, told the Houston Press he expects the masters to issue their recommendations by September. "This is a huge step forward for our state's children," Mr. Yetter said. "The [Fifth Circuit] has cleared the way for Judge Jack to come up with the right remedies and start the state down the road of true reform." Mr. Yetter said that "DFPS has been commendably cooperative," saying they want to see real change. "On the other hand, the state's lawyers have been relentless in opposing any sort of remedies," Mr. Yetter added. Mr. Abbott's argument that appointing two special masters at the state's expense was cost-prohibitive was just the latest in the state's five-year battle to maintain the status quo in the foster care system, where Judge Jack found that "rape, abuse, psychotropic medication, and instability are the norm." TROTT & TROTT: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Certification of Class --------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Earl D. Wilson in the class action lawsuit styled EARL D. WILSON, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. TROTT & TROTT, P.C., aka TROTT LAW, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-10335-DML-APP (E.D. Mich.), asks the Court to certify a class: "all Michigan Mortgagors and Consumers whose names and defaulted mortgage debt and private information along with the fact Trott was collecting on that debt was communicated and publicized in public places and communicated to third parties in violation of the FDCPA." The Plaintiff filed this class action complaint against the Defendant for publicizing private, mortgage debt information to the general public in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1WxSPgJS The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Parker, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN P. PARKER 222 S Shepherd St. PO Box 81 Ironton, MO 63650-1326 Telephone: (573) 546 2333 UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Over Logan Airport Fee Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------ Bob McGovern, writing for Boston Herald, reports that a potential class action lawsuit that accused ride-sharing giant Uber of charging riders an unfair fee for airport trips has been tossed by a federal judge who said passengers signed away their right to sue. "The process through which the plaintiffs established their accounts put them on reasonable notice that their affirmative act of signing up also bound them to Uber's Agreement," U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Woodlock wrote in his decision. "Whether or not plaintiffs had actual notice of the terms of the Agreement, all that matters is that plaintiffs had reasonable notice of the terms." The suit, which was filed in Suffolk Superior Court in 2014 but was later moved to federal court, accuses Uber of applying an $8.75 "Massport surcharge" to all airport rides -- a "fictitious" fee, according to attorneys representing the passengers. Judge Woodlock ruled that the controversy has to be heard in front of an arbitrator because the riders accepted Uber's terms of use, which compels arbitration and says that riders waive "the right to a trial by jury or to participate as a plaintiff or class user in any purported class action" case. "We have to discuss with our clients to determine whether they think an appeal is called for here," said John Roddy, who represents the potential class of passengers. "We think this is the kind of issue that should be dealt with by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, but it's up to our clients." Uber said the decision "affirmed the validity and enforceability of Uber's Terms of Service, including the arbitration provision." Online agreements that deny users the right to sue and compel arbitration have stirred up controversy, and Judge Woodlock acknowledged that they are the "subject of current scholarly disapproval and skeptical investigative journalism." UNION BANK: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ross" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosalind Ross, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Union Bank, N.A., and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC625438 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay wages to their California nonexempt employees for time spent responding to alarm calls off-the-c1ock; their failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements; and their failure to pay all wages due to their California nonexempt employees upon separation of employment. Union Bank, N.A. is a National Bank Association doing business in California by operating numerous locations throughout the state. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Malik, Esq. MICHAEL MALIK, ESQ, APC 1180 South Beverly Drive., Suite 90035 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 203-0016 Facsimile: (310) 499-5210 E-mail: mm@maliklawfirm.com UNITED STATES: Former Prosecutor Sues Obama for Inciting Race War ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tori Richards, writing for Daily Caller, reports that a former federal prosecutor has sued President Obama, the founders of Black Lives Matter, Al Sharpton, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and former US Attorney General Eric Holder for inciting a race war that led to the fatal Dallas police shootings. The federal class action lawsuit, filed on July 9 in Dallas, accuses the defendants of aiding and abetting murder, terrorist promotion of gang activity and civil rights violations of law enforcement officers. It seeks damages of more than $2 billion. "These (defendants) have incited violence and in fact have a direct link to what happened in Dallas," said Larry Klayman, who worked in the Department of Justice during the Reagan administration and later founded the conservative advocacy groups Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch. "I hope that law enforcement in Dallas and around the nation will join our class action, it's a peaceful legal means to fight this. We've had it. People are finally starting to speak out." The case has been assigned to Judge Sam A. Lindsay, a Clinton appointee who is also African American. None of the defendants responded for comment except for DOJ spokesperson Nicole Navas, who said, "The Justice Department declines to comment on the pending litigation. Thank you." "The defendants . . . have publicly incited people to violence with the fiction that police officers and other law enforcement are intentionally and systematically targeting and hunting blacks and other minorities to kill them for no reason other than racism or sport," the complaint said. Defendants have called for a civil war targeting police officers of all races "for immediate violence and severe bodily injury or death in response to that non-existent and fictitious threat . . . Defendants are encouraging disaffected blacks and black Muslims to ignore, disrespect and assault law enforcement officials, and commit violence and lethal force," the complaint said. On July 7, former US Army reservist Micah Johnson shot a dozen Dallas police officers, killing five, during a rally to protest the police killings of two black men the previous week. "The suspect said he was upset about Black Lives Matter," Dallas police Chief David Brown later told reporters. "He said he was upset about the recent shootings . . . he wanted to kill white people, especially white officers." But while the defendants -- spearheaded by President Obama -- blame police and non-minorities for fanning tensions that lead to violence, statistics show that murder rate has steadily been increasing across America during President Obama's tenure, the complaint said. Much of this crime involves black-on-black violence in communities that are primarily black. The 52-page complaint chronicles detailed accusations against each defendant including: President Obama and Mr. Holder met many times with Mr. Sharpton, president of the National Action Network, and leaders of Black Lives Matter over plans to change government policies regarding police officers. President Obama made the statement, "There's a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos of being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately" and the pair "incited and inflamed violent crowds into committing arson, looting, destruction of property and assaults on police officers based on the idea that the nation's police officers are intentionally and systematically targeting, hunting and killing blacks" without admitting that most police are responding to incidents from 911 calls, regardless of race. Mr. Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam. He called for active duty black military members to come home and lead a national insurrection against society. In 2014, he spoke to a crowd of 2,000 calling for revenge in Ferguson, Missouri for the police shooting of Michael Brown. A year later he told a Florida church to "stalk them and kill them" pertaining to Jews and Caucasians as a "400-year-old enemy." Black Lives Matter leaders Rashad Turner, Opal Tometi, Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza and DeRay McKesson inflamed racial tensions after Ferguson to the point that Texas sheriff's deputy Darren Goforth was murdered at a gas station by a black man in 2015. Several days later, BLM led a march in St. Paul, chanting "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon." The defendants have appeared on radio asking for followers to "turn the tide and kill white people and cops to send a message." In the past few years, numerous police officers have been injured or killed by minorities who spurred on by the defendants' rhetoric, the complaint argued. Since the Dallas killings, other officers have suffered injuries such as broken teeth and a broken vertebrae while working protests that have sprung up nationwide. DeRay McKesson told USA Today that criticism of BLM is dishonest and a way for non-minorities to avoid a discussion over police brutality and racism. "We should not have to protest," he said. "We're in the street because police have killed people. We would love to go home, but we can't go home. We are unwilling to go home." Mr. McKesson was arrested with 100 others during a march in Baton Rouge for blocking public thoroughfares. While on a European trip, President Obama urged the public to avoid judging the BLM movement by the actions of a few. "There are always folks who will say things that are stupid," he said. "I don't think you can hold well-meaning activists . . . responsible for everything uttered at a protest site." UNIVERSAL PICTURES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Charlie Fitzgerald, III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Universal Pictures, Inc., Case No. 6:16-cv- 01193-CEM-DAB (M.D. Fla., June 30, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called party. Universal Pictures, Inc. provides motion picture production, distribution, and applied services through its sound stages, back- lot locations, and broadcast studios. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND LAW, PLLC 62 W. Colonial St., Suite 209 Orlando, FL 32814 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: ed@ednormand.com VHU EXPRESS: Benjamin's Bid for Conditional Cert. Partly Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Edwin G. Torres in the class action lawsuit captioned ELEUTERIO A. BENJAMIN, LUIS ALONSO, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. VHU EXPRESS, INC., LISA D. BYTHEWOOD, and CRAIG BYTHEWOOD, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20642-JLK (S.D. Fla.), entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion to dispense with Settlement Conference; 2. denying without prejudice Plaintiffs' motion for additional sanctions; and 3. granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification as follows: "All persons who are currently, or who were, employed from February 23, 2015 to the present in the position of driver, delivery driver, local delivery driver, or other similarly titled position, either directly by Defendants or through any of their subsidiaries or affiliated companies, in Florida." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N6kVwIzM VIGILANT CANINE: Bid for Default Judgment in "McGuire" Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ALASTAIR McGUIRE, et al., Plaintiff, v. VIGILANT CANINE SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 2:16- cv-0206 TLN CKD PS (E.D. Calif.), Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney denied without prejudice Plaintiff's application for entry of default judgment by the Clerk of Court. The Court held that motion for entry of default judgment must be accompanied by memorandum of points and authorities, supporting evidence, and proof of service demonstrating that the moving papers have been served on defendants both at the California address of the defendant business as well as at the address where service of summons was effectuated. Upon review, the court found that the executed return of summons does not demonstrate personal service on the registered agent for service of process for the defendant limited liability partnership at the address listed on the California Secretary of State website. A copy of the Court's decision dated July 5, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/2rzfAofrom Leagle.com. VISIONWORKS INC: Bid to Seal Docs in "Graiser" Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ELLIOTT GRAISER, Plaintiff, v. VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-CV-2306 (N.D. Ohio), District Judge James S. Gwin denied Defendant's motion to maintain its filing under seal concerning its "Buy One Get One Free" glasses which allegedly violates the Ohio's Consumer Sale Practice Act. The Court emphasized that the party filing documents under seal must show that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury. Defendant has not identified the standards in justifying the non- disclosure of filed document as it did not allege that the sales data is entitled to protection as a trade secret, which would be enough to overcome the presumption of access. A copy of the Court's decision dated July 5, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/hFHyJyfrom Leagle.com. Visionworks of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H. Wallace -- dwallace@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister, Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr. -- mzbiegien@taftlaw.com -- Taft, Stettinius & Hollister & Ronald D. Holman, II -- rholman@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister. VOLKSWAGEN AG: Employees Attempted to Cover Up Emissions Cheating ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Klepper, writing for The Associated Press, reports that New York, Massachusetts and Maryland are suing Volkswagen and its affiliates Audi and Porsche over diesel emissions cheating, accusing the German automakers of defrauding customers, misleading regulators and then seeking to cover up the deception. The lawsuits, announced on July 19, allege that numerous employees and executives at Volkswagen knew that diesel vehicles had been equipped with software allowing them to cheat emissions testing, and that after regulators began investigating several employees tried to cover it up by eliminating data about the software. "The allegations against Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche reveal a culture of deeply-rooted corporate arrogance, combined with a conscious disregard for the rule of law or the protection of public health and the environment," said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. "These suits should serve as a siren in every corporate board room, that if any company engages in this type of calculated and systematic illegality, we will bring the full force of the law -- and seek the stiffest possible sanctions -- to protect our citizens." In a statement, Volkswagen said it is already in talks with authorities regarding "a comprehensive national resolution of all remaining environmental issues arising from the diesel matter." The company also noted that it has agreed to buy back or modify affected vehicles, create a $2.7 billion environmental trust and invest $2 billion on infrastructure for zero-emission vehicles. "The allegations in complaints filed by certain states [Tues]day are essentially not new and we have been addressing them in our discussions with U.S. federal and state authorities," the company said. "It is regrettable that some states have decided to sue for environmental claims now, notwithstanding their prior support of this ongoing federal-state collaborative process." The legal action seeks "substantial penalties" that would be based on a calculation of the duration of the alleged violations. While news of the rigged emissions tests first erupted a year ago, the new legal action makes several new allegations -- most notably about the involvement of Volkswagen engineers and executives. The suit alleges that Volkswagen submitted false emissions data to regulators and sought to eliminate evidence when an investigation began. "This 'clean diesel' was nothing more than a dirty cover up," said Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey. ". . . Volkswagen acted as if it was above the law." Volkswagen also issued "sham" recall notices to some car owners and dealers in an effort to "turn down" the software, according to the New York lawsuit. Instead, some owners were told the recalls were needed for upgrades and "optimize" emissions. At one point, when California regulators announced plans for emissions tests that threatened to expose the devices, the company's top engineer emailed colleagues seeking help, according to the lawsuit, writing. "Come up with the story please!" Additionally, just before the scandal broke, in August 2015, eight employees in the engineering department "promptly deleted or removed incriminating data about the devices from the company's record" after being advised of the likelihood of legal action by a senior company attorney, according to the lawsuit. The suit also claims that former Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn and a top executive at Audi knew of the devices by spring 2014. The two leaders, the suit alleges, "had ample notice of the existence of unlawful illegal devices and did nothing to prevent both Audi and Volkswagen from repeatedly deceiving regulators, and the American public, for another 17 months." Mr. Schneiderman and Ms. Healey detailed the case at a July 20 news conference in New York City. The two Democrats are the top law enforcement officials in their respective states, and each state will file its own lawsuit. Last month, the German automaker agreed to spend up to $15.3 billion to settle consumer and government lawsuits over the emissions cheating, first disclosed in 2015. Mr. Schneiderman and Ms. Healey say that settlement did not resolve claims regarding violating state environmental laws and did not cover all the affected vehicles. Maryland officials announced their lawsuit separately. "Their disregard for the health of our citizens and their disregard for our environment must be punished," Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said in a statement. Some 25,000 affected vehicles were sold in New York state and 15,000 in Massachusetts, according to the lawsuits. As of October, about 13,000 such vehicles were registered in Maryland, officials said. An estimated 600,000 were sold across the country. The prosecutors say consumers who purchased one of the vehicles believed they were buying a "green diesel" car, even though the vehicles illegally emitted pollutants linked to respiratory disease, elevated ozone levels and smog. WESTLAKE Services: Settlement in "Duchene" Suit Approved -------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Mark R. Hornak approves the Settlement Agreement in the class action lawsuit styled Pierce Duchene, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Westlake Services, LLC d/b/a Westlake Financial Services, the Defendant, Case No. 2:13-cv-01577-MRH (W.D. Pa.), including the plans for implementation and distribution of the settlement relief. For purposes of the Settlement and Final Approval Order and Judgment, the Court certifies the following Settlement Class: "All persons to whom Westlake, its agents and/or its independent contractors between January 11, 2012, and November 7, 2013 placed a telephone call using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to the person's cellular telephone in connection with the confirmation of a loan applicant's references." The Court finds that the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class Members, within the authority of the parties and the result of extensive arm's-length negotiations. The Court grants Class Counsel's request for an award of reasonable Attorney's Fees and Costs in the amount of $3,333,333.33 and Class Counsel's application for an Incentive Award for Pierce Duchene in the amount of $10,000.00. These amounts are to be paid out of the Settlement Fund, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Thdy83XY * Israel Court Set to Decide on Gas Monopoly Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Ya'acov Zalel, writing for Natural Gas Europe, reports that an Israeli District Court will decide in the next few days whether to approve a class action against the Israeli gas monopoly. The class action was submitted by two advocates, Gillad Barnea and Yitzhak Yaari, who are demanding that the gas monopoly repays NIS2.5bn ($640mn) for every year of gas supply to electricity customers because of exorbitant pricing of natural gas. The class action was submitted in 2014. The plaintiffs argued that the partners exploited their monopolistic position to sell gas at two or three times the fair price and in doing so have broken the anti-trust law. Solicitors to the energy companies said that if the class action will be approved it would violate the natural gas framework, the document regulating the terms on which producers may do business. In the last few weeks, the Attorney General has become involved in the litigation, siding with the gas monopoly and the government. It is not clear why the government's legal adviser has chosen to enter the fray just now, two years after the class action was submitted. According to the official, "a sharp decrease in gas price as is demanded in the class action might cause a heavy damage to the development capability of the new gas reservoirs and would eliminate new competitors from entering [the Israeli gas sector) and in doing so pulling the rug from under the framework." * Lawsuits Over 401(k) Plans on the Rise ---------------------------------------- According to Yahoo! Finance's Manikandan Raman, reports that lawsuits against 401(k) plans going bad are on the rise, and they aren't just filed against big retirement plans any more. These lawsuits are centered on the bad investments, high costs and "revenue sharing," according to a report on Bloomberg. Law firm Nichols Kaster calls the 401(k) "one of the most expensive plans in America" in its proposed class action suit against Fujitsu Technology and Business of America Inc. over a $1.3 billion retirement plan. One Of The Newest Cases In a lawsuit filed in a San Jose federal court, the attorneys alleged a large amount of fiduciary breaches connected to "excessive fees, record keeping, and the components of the company's target-date funds." Bloomberg said the law firm compared Fujitsu plan fees with roughly 650 other plans of comparable asset size. "Among 401(k)'s with that much money, the average plan has annual costs that amount to 0.33 percent of assets, according to the complaint; it estimates that Fujitsu's costs were 0.88 and 0.90 percent for 2013 and 2014," Bloomberg read. The law firm said this "would have led to at least $7 million in excess fees that could have been socked away in employee nest eggs, the complaint stated." Furthermore, the report said, "Fujitsu America, which provides technology and business support to affiliated companies, has yet to answer the complaint or make an appearance in the case, and a company spokesman declined to comment." 'Just The Beginning' Bloomberg, citing Wagner Law Group, said lawsuits like this one "are just the beginning" and come on the back of high-profile suits filed and won by Jerome Schlichter, of the St. Louis law firm Schlichter Bogard & Denton. "It started with Schlichter doing cases against very large corporations in America," Wagner told Bloomberg. "And now it's going to start to be a free-for-all." "With more attorneys seeing an opportunity, smaller plans are starting to feel the heat. After launching four 401(k) lawsuits alleging breach of fiduciary duty late last year, Minneapolis- based Nichols Kaster has filed four more in 2016, most recently against Fujitsu and American Century's $600 million plan," Bloomberg said. Meanwhile, the report said 2016 has already seen a 401(k) plan be hit with a lawsuit, despite holding less than $10 million in assets, "a development that garnered the attention of many players in the small plan universe." Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Pipefitter Sues 20+ Companies ----------------------------------------------------- Bobbie D. Hayes and Sandra Jean Hayes sued more than 20 companies in a state court in Delaware alleging that Mr. Hayes was wrongfully exposed to asbestos fibers during his employment with the following former employers: a. Standard Auto Parts, in Barnsdall, OK, as a Stocker, Laborer, and Rivet Liner, from approximately 1964 to 1965; b. Barnsdall Lumber Company, in Barnsdall, OK, as a Delivery Man, Maintenance Man, and Laborer, from approximately 1965 to 1968; c. Texaco Service Stateion, in Tulsa, OK, as a Maintenance Man, Laborer, and Gas Clerk, from approximately 1968 to 1969; d. Dickson Goodman Lumber Company in Oklahoma, as a Laborer, and running the plaint warehouse, from approximately 1969 to 1970; e. Baker Petrolite, in Barnsdall, OK, as a Pipefitter, Welder, Insulator, Electrician, Laborer, and Yardman, from approximately 1970 to 1980; f. Phillips 66, in Barnsdall, OK, as a Mechanical Drafter, from approximately 1980 to 1986; g. S.T.C. Service technology Corp., in Barnsdall, OK, as a Mechanical Drafter, from approximately 1986 to 1996; and h. Hayes Field Service, in Barnsdall, OK, as a Mechanical Drafter, from approximately 1996 to present. The lawsuit further alleges that as a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, Mr. Hayes suffers from an asbestos-related disease, including, but not limited to, mesothelioma. The Plaintiffs ask the court to enter judgment against the Defendants and to award: compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but believed to exceed $100,000; and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the Defendants for their misconduct and to deter similarly situated parties from committing like acts of misconduct in the future. The case is BOBBIE D. HAYES, and SANDRA JEAN HAYES, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, individually and as wholly-owned subsidiary of AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to BUFFALO PUMPS; AURORA PUMP COMPANY; AUTOZONE, INC.; BLACKMER PUMP COMPANY; BORGWARNER MORSE TEC LLC; BW/IP INC., as successor to BYRON JACKSON PUMPS; CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC.; CRANE CO.; CROSBY VALVE LLC; FEDERAL-MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST, as a successor to FELT PRODUCTS MFG. CO.; FORD MOTOR COMPANY; GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, trading as NAPA AUTO PARTS; GOULDS PUMPS, INCORPORATED; GRINNELL LLC; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., as successor in interest to THE BENDIX CORPORATION; IMO INDUSTRIES, INC.; ITT CORPORATION; MCCORD CORPORATION; NELES-JAMESBURY, INC.; PFIZER, INC.; PNEUMO ABEX LLC, individually and as successor in interest to PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION; THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY; THE PEP BOYS -- MANNY, MOE & JACK; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; VIKING PUMP, INC., Defendants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: A. Dale Bowers, Esq. Kenneth L. Wan, Esq. William J. P. Mulgrew, III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF A. DALE BOWERS, P.A. 203 North Maryland Avenue Wilmington, DE 19804 Tel: (302) 691-3786 Fax: (302) 691-3790 Email: dale@bowerslegal.com Of counsel for the Plaintiffs: Neidra Wilson, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 200 Lake Drive East, Suite 205 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Tel: (856) 755-1115 Fax: (856) 755-1995 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas Couple Sues USX Corp. Over Mesothelioma -------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Crandall, who was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in April 2016, sued USX Corporation and several other companies, alleging that at various periods of time during his employment, he was exposed to and did inhale asbestos dust and asbestos fibers. According to the lawsuit, which was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, the defendants were engaged in the business of mining and/or milling and/or manufacturing and/or fabricating and/or supplying and/or selling and/or specifying and/or installing asbestos-containing prodcts to which he was exposed. Mr. Crandall, together with his wife, who are both residents of Texas, assert damages for, among other things, past and future hospital and medical expenses incidental to the plaintiff's illness and for loss of earnings and future earning power. The case is LOUIS CRANDALL and ROSE MAREE STROUD CRANDALL HIS WIFE, Plaintiff(s), v. USX CORPORATION; BEAZER EAST, INC. F/K/A KOPPERS COMPANY, INC.; CBS CORPORATION, f/k/a Viacom, Inc. (successor-by-merger to CBS Corporation, successor-by-merger to Westinghouse Electric Corporation); CRANE CO.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., successor-in-interest to Allied-Signal, Inc., successor by merger to Allied Corporation, f/k/a Allied Chemical Corporation, and Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation; ATLAS INDUSTRIES, INC.; And POWER PIPING COMPANY, Defendants. Counsel of Record for Plaintiff: Kathryn A. Pryor, Esq. Chad R. Cotten, Esq. BARON & BUDD P.C. 3201 Oak Lawn Ave, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Tel: 214-521-3605 Fax: 214-520-1181 Email: kpryor@baronbudd.com ccotten@baronbudd.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Plumber Sues Dozens Over Lung Cancer ------------------------------------------------------------ David Garcia, and Charla Garcia, his wife, sued several companies alleging that Mr. Garcia, during the course of his employment, was wrongfully exposed to and inhaled asbestos-containing materials resulting to him suffering from an asbestos-related disease, including, but not limited to, lung cancer. Mr. Garcia said he was employed by the following: a. Green Stump Plumbing, in Phoenix, AZ, and Glendale, AZ, as a Plumber and Pipefitter, from approximately 1970 to 1980; b. Bechtel, in Tonopah, AZ, as a Pipefitter, from approximately 1980 to 1986; and c. K & S Plumbing, in Phoenix, AZ, and Glendale, AZ, as a Plumber and Pipefitter, from approximately 1986 to 1995. The Plaintiffs asked the Court to enter judgment against the Defendants and to award: compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but believed to exceed $100,000; and punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish the Defendants for their misconduct and to deter similarly situated parties from committing like acts of misconduct in the future. The case is DAVID GARCIA, and CHARLA GARCIA, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH CORPORATION; AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, individually and as wholly-owned subsidiary of AMPCO-PITTSBURGH CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to BUFFALO PUMPS; AURORA PUMP COMPANY; BW/IP INC., as successor to BYRON JACKSON PUMPS; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a VIACOM, INC., successor by merger to CBS CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, as successor in interest to THE BRYANT ELECTRIC COMPANY; CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; CRANE CO.; FLOWSERVE U.S., INC., individually and solely as successor to DURCO, DURIRON, ANCHOR DARLING, SUPERIOR GROUP, EDWARD VOGT, VOGT VALVES, NORDSTROM VALVES, EDWARD VALVE, INC., and ROCKWELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC; GOULDS PUMPS, INCORPORATED; GRINNELL LLC; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., f/k/a ALLIED SIGNAL, INC., as successor in interest to THE BENDIX CORPORATION; IMO INDUSTRIES, INC.; ITT CORPORATION; KAISER GYPSUM COMPANY, INC.; KOHLER COMPANY; PEERLESS INDUSTRIES, INC.; PNEUMO ABEX LLC, individually and as successor in interest to PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION; THE FAIRBANKS COMPANY; THE MARLEY-WYLAIN COMPANY, d/b/a WEIL-MCLAIN, individually and as successor in interest to THE WEIL-MCLAIN COMPANY; WARREN PUMPS LLC, Defendants, C.A. No. ______ (Del. Sup.). The Plaintiffs' counsel: A. Dale Bowers, Esq. Kenneth L. Wan, Esq. William J. P. Mulgrew, III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF A. DALE BOWERS, P.A. 203 North Maryland Avenue Wilmington, DE 19804 Tel: (302) 691-3786 Fax: (302) 691-3790 Email: dale@bowerslegal.com Of counsel: Michael Fanelli, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 558-5500 Fax: (212) 344-5461 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Inmate Allowed to Amend Pro Se Complaint --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Stefan R. Underhill of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, issued an initial review order on June 29, 2016, directing Edward Vines, currently incarcerated at the Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut, to file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Vines filed a case pro se under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that the defendants violated his First, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Vines names fifteen defendants: Correctional Officers Briatico, Owen, Lapointe, Williams, Selgado, and Castle; Counselor Supervisors Bouffard and Long; Captains Garcia and Colon; Deputy Warden Powers; Wardens Brighthaupt and Maldinado; Kevin D. Roy; and Commissioner Scott Semple. Vines alleged that exposure to asbestos, mold, gnats, contaminated water, lead paint and inadequate ventilation and heating has caused him to suffer dizzy spells, respiratory problems, neural problems, frequent nose bleeds, chronic dry eyes and optical problems, nausea, and migraine pain. The case is EDWARD VINES, Plaintiff, v. BRIATICO, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-893 (SRU)(D. Conn.). A full-text copy of Judge Underhill's Decision is available at https://is.gd/EEBy1u from Leagle.com. Edward Vines, Plaintiff, Pro Se. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Vacates Money Judgment vs. Crane Co. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department, in a July 8, 2016 decision unanimously vacated on the law without costs the judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Jeremiah J. Moriarty, III, J.), entered June 10, 2015. The judgment awarded plaintiff money damages against defendant Crane Co. The Court also modified the order entered July 10, 2014, on the law by granting the postverdict motion in part, setting aside the verdict in part, and granting a new trial on the claim that defendant Crane Co. acted with reckless disregard for the safety of the plaintiff's decedent Lee Holdsworth, and as modified, the order is affirmed. Crane Co. appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding that it is 35% liable for the damages arising from injuries sustained by Lee Holdsworth as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products used as component parts with the valves that defendant produced. Because the jury determined that the defendant acted with reckless disregard for the safety of the plaintiff's decedent, the defendant is jointly and severally liable for 100% of the damages. The Court agrees with the defendant that Supreme Court erred in denying its request to charge the jury on the plaintiff's claim that it acted with reckless disregard for the safety of the plaintiff's decedent in accordance with the language set forth in Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig. (Maltese) (89 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957). Indeed, although the court used the charge set forth in the Pattern Jury Instructions, i.e., PJI 2:275.2, that charge does not accurately reflect the standard set by the Court of Appeals in Maltese because the charge in the Pattern Jury Instructions in effect reduced plaintiff's burden of proof on her claim that defendant acted with reckless disregard for the safety of plaintiff's decedent, the Court held. The Court therefore vacated the judgment, and modified the order denying the defendant's postverdict motion by granting that part of the motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict on plaintiff's claim that defendant acted with reckless disregard for the safety of plaintiff's decedent and granting a new trial on that issue. The case is IN THE MATTER OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ASBESTOS LITIGATION. BETH ANN PIENTA, AS SUCCESSOR EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LEE HOLDSWORTH, DECEASED, AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CAROL A. HOLDSWORTH, DECEASED, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. A.W. CHESTERTON COMPANY, ET AL., Defendants, AND CRANE CO., Defendant- Appellant. (Appeal No. 4.), 456 CA 15-01240 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at https://is.gd/xroThD from Leagle.com. In the same case, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department, in separate July 8, 2016 decisions, unanimously dismissed without costs Appeal No. 1, Appeal No. 2, and Appeal No. 3 filed by Crane Co. A full-text copy of the Decision relating to Appeal No. 1 is available at https://is.gd/TBnzcB from Leagle.com. A full-text copy of the Decision relating to Appeal No. 2 is available at https://is.gd/fGpIga from Leagle.com. A full-text copy of the Decision relating to Appeal No. 3 is available at https://is.gd/Lep3W6 from Leagle.com. K & L GATES LLP, NEW YORK CITY (MICHAEL J. ROSS, Esq. -- michael.ross@klgates.com -- OF THE PENNSYLVANIA BAR, ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE, OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. LIPSITZ & PONTERIO, LLC, BUFFALO (DENNIS P. HARLOW OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Time in 5 NY Suits Enlarged to 2017 ----------------------------------------------------------- The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, in separate decisions dated July 7, 2016, enlarged the time to perfect appeal to the March 2017 Term in the following cases: * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. TOTO, v. A.C. AND S., INC. -- CRANE CO. (ARMSTRONG CONTRACTING & SUPPLY), Motion No. M-2889 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at https://is.gd/O5pgF0 from Leagle.com. * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION NASH, v. A.C. AND S., INC. -- CRANE CO. -- ESTATE OF NASH, Motion No. M-2888 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at https://is.gd/Bvbaiw from Leagle.com. * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. LUCADAMO, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO. -- CRANE CO., Motion No. M-2890 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at https://is.gd/cVGqIQ from Leagle.com. * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. TORBITT, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO. -- CRANE CO., Motion No. M-2887 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at https://is.gd/3iPskJ from Leagle.com. * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. CRESCENZI, v. AZROCK INDUSTRIES -- CRANE CO., Motion No. M-2891 (N.Y. App. Div.). A full-text copy of the Decision is available at https://is.gd/SXzb4y from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sunday House Demolition Cited for Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- Derreck Cosson, writing for The Pulse, reported that the company which demolished Pensacola's historic John Sunday House has been cited by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for possible violations in the way asbestos has been handled. Maverick Demolition razed the 115-year-old house, located in The Tanyard, a historically African-American neighborhood located just west of downtown Pensacola. While the house was in a protected review district, developer Charles Liberis managed to bypass the city's historic preservation process through a legal maneuver. FDEP officials sent a "warning letter" to Maverick after conducting an inspection of the site and finding possible violations. The Sunday House demolition was not exempt from federal and state rules which dictate how asbestos is handled, FDEP officials said, including rules which require contractors to file advance notice of demolitions involving asbestos. No such advance notice was filed by Maverick before beginning the demolition on Saturday. "Debris from the demolition was still at the site and left dry and exposed to the outside elements without adequate emission control," wrote FDEP inspectors. County records show asbestos was present in both the Sunday House and an adjoining carriage house located at 25 South Reus Street, which was demolished at the same time. Clearly labeled packages of Eternit asbestos cement singles were photographed amongst the debris; those photos were later provided to FDEP investigators. Pensacola resident Teresa Hill, who filed the complaint with FDEP which led to the inspection, said that she's concerned about the potential health effects of the fine white dust that was released during the house's demolition. "The dust clouds during demolition were quite shocking," said Hill. "I'm concerned because this was done on one of the busiest shopping days at the organic store fifty yards away, with a northerly wind, exposing hundreds of shoppers." Prolonged inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause serious and fatal illnesses, including lung cancer, mesothelioma, and asbestosis. Once common, the use of asbestos in building materials and other products has been sharply limited since the 1970s. Depending on the result of FDEP's investigation, Maverick could face thousands of dollars in fines for both the asbestos issues and their failure to file advance notice of the demolition. "At this point, our first priority is to ensure that the debris at the site is properly handled from this point on," said Brandy M. Smith, external affairs manager for FDEP's Northwest District. "Our compliance staff has been in communication with Maverick and [they] have been told that a licensed asbestos consultant has been hired to conduct a survey of the site and advise Maverick as to proper handling of the debris. Once the department has all the facts we will determine what if any enforcement actions are necessary." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Citizens Concerned Over Stedham School Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- Midhurst and Petworth Observer reported that campaigners are concerned that asbestos is still lying in rubble after former classrooms on the St Cuthman's site were knocked down four years ago. And they are frustrated that the former classrooms, which still have not been cleared away, are now needed and would have been a better site. Leading campaigner Stephen McGairl claimed the demolition and other issues highlighted Durand as 'a bad manager of the site'. They included: "external lighting, asbestos lying around for five years, building demolished in 2011 which they now need." "The asbestos is frankly a scandal. They have children on the site," he told a public meeting in Stedham. Kate Hearle said : "It is unacceptable to leave the site in that state for this length of time. "There is a lot of asbestos waste in there." The situation was, she said being investigated by the health and safety executive. "If I was a parent and I found out a whole bunch of people knew there had been asbestos there for several years, I would be really, really upset." The meeting was told the asbestos was 'relatively safe' at present, but it could become dangerous when it was moved. The Durand Academy has moved to give an assurance to neighbours of the former St Cuthman's School at Stedham and parents of the children there. A spokesman for the academy told the Observer: "Asbestos can be found in any building built before the year 2000, and the Department for Education estimates that the majority of schools in England contain some asbestos. "If it is undamaged and managed safely, the presence of asbestos in school buildings does not pose a significant risk. She continued: "The asbestos at St Cuthman's is located in derelict buildings which are fenced off. "Neither children nor staff use these buildings. "At Durand, the wellbeing and welfare of our pupils is our highest priority and we have carried out additional checks, over and above our statutory duty to assess any potential risk. "We can assure parents and the community that there is no evidence of asbestos being a threat to either pupils or staff." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos at Sunnyside Delays Roof Project ---------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Berkowitz, writing for Shelton Herald, reported that Sunnyside Elementary School parents are upset to hear their children's school will have to wait even longer for a permanent roof repair. The school's roof, estimated to be 20 years old, was scheduled to be repaired when the after the 2015-16 school year, but that plan changed when asbestos was discovered in one of the areas in need of fixing. Board of Ed Chairman Mark Holden said the asbestos isn't to be considered a danger to anyone in the building as long as it remains "encapsulated." Sunnyside PTO member Anne Gaydos said there initially was concerns of students having to relocate, but Holden said that will not be necessary. She said the PTO is also frustrated they were told the reason the project wasn't completed initially was because they didn't have a building coordinator, but one was hired and still no progress has been made. Shelton Superintendent of Schools Dr. Chris Clouet said his staff as well as architects are working to come up with the best option for the roof project, while considering everyone's safety, going forward. "The project was approved by the state, the city's money was allocated by the Board of Aldermen, project was put out to bid," Dr. Clouet said. "The bidder was accepted and then they said they would like to run some tests for asbestos in the roof decking before beginning the repairs." Clouet clarified that when most people hear roof they visualize what they see from the street covering a home. He said larger buildings and schools use a more complex roof system made up of multiple layers. According to Clouet, one of the layers includes a substance used back in the 1950s which contained 3 to 10% of asbestos. The discovery of it put the plans of working on the school's roof to a halt. Gaydos said she noticed was no work was being done on the school's roof while she was with her daughter at the city's free playground program, which is held at all of the local elementary schools (Sunnyside, Booth Hill, Elizabeth Shelton and Mohegan). Gaydos added that she hadn't heard of any complications with the project until she spoke with Holden. "I was surprised and the PTO President (Kristine Ray) was unaware of the setback until I told her," said Gaydos. Ray was unavailable for comment, but Gaydos said the consensus of the school's PTO was extreme frustration. "It's mid-July and school starts Sept. 6 so it doesn't look like much is going to happen this summer," said Gaydos. Mayor Mark Lauretti said that's not entirely true and there's still a chance work could be done on the roof before the end of summer. "The project has unofficially been delayed but we are still weighing all of our options," Lauretti said. "The whole building will not get done but a portion may get done." Lauretti said the main concern is trying to make sure the building is watertight on a temporary basis, even if that means another temporary patch job. Sunnyside PTO is set to meet with Clouet Aug. 1 and will have a better idea of options after that. He said he is expecting additional costs, but he isn't entirely sure because there is still an ongoing discussion with vendors deciding on the best method to safely deal with the asbestos. "We may not need additional patching and the patching from previous year could be last us another year. It's a possibility," Clouet said. Holden said the asbestos isn't to be considered a danger to anyone in the building as long as it remains "encapsulated." Gaydos said there initially was concerns of students having to relocate, but Holden said that will not be necessary. "People tend to get concerned when they hear 'asbestos,' but at this point it is 'encapsulated' and is not a problem. The trick is making sure that when the work is being done it doesn't become a problem," said Holden. "The problem with that is that it does need a new roof. The issue still needs to be addressed but no one knows what the final outcome will be." More than $700,000 allocated to the project will not be spent until it is finished, according to Holden. "I expect the work will still be done, but it may not happen this summer. One of the concerns is having them work while students are in the building, which is not a viable option," said Holden. He added that another option for the city is to have the work done after students are dismissed each day and on weekends, but it would be costly for the city. "That would drive the price of completing the project up tremendously," said Holden. "Everything I know says there would be no students in the building during asbestos remediation." Another temporary patch job is not what the Board of Ed had in mind as a solution, but Holden said its options are limited and focused on people's safety as well as getting the job done correctly. "That would be rather frustrating, but at the same time we have to go with the best option considering the circumstances at the time. I'm kind of surprised there hadn't been asbestos factored in way back when on this roof because you would expect on a school this age that asbestos would be present," said Holden. "Why that wasn't always a part of this plan is still a mystery to me. The Board of Ed really isn't a part of capital projects like this and the city doesn't want us to be." Holden said he is unsure of the last time the school was checked for asbestos, but said air quality checks are done regularly. He added that although the news on the school's roof project isn't what most would've hoped, new library furniture is to be installed before the school year. Gaydos said fortunately the prior temporary patch job held up during last year's mild winter, but she is skeptical they will be lucky two years in a row. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thatcher Mill Fire Causes Asbestos Concerns ------------------------------------------------------------ Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that the decades old Standard Coosa Thatcher Mills building burned to the ground causing concern because it contained asbestos. Fire officials were the ones to share the asbestos news with the public. The owner, City Property Company's President Tim Boyle, said he was aware the building contained asbestos. "We've done studies and that's common for industrial buildings to have environmental issues," stated Boyle. The fire has raised concerns among the surrounding community as well as asbestos experts. "Asbestos particles can stay in the air literally for hours, but even if they settle out, if there's a wind or a clean-up activity as they get put back up in the air, they can drift and contaminate a neighborhood," said asbestos expert Dr. Arthur Frank. "It can get into the water, and if that water is used as somebody's drinking supply, it could get into people's drinking water," added Dr. Frank. "Even though air pollution investigators responded to the fire scene, the air quality outside the plant is not being monitored," said a Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau spokesperson. "We look for buildings that are in depressed areas that could benefit [and] that the area and the buildings could benefit from redevelopment," said Boyle. The former plant was vacant for several years until City Property planned to renovate the mill into 160 loft-style affordable housing apartments. The buildings that burned down in the fire were fortunately not the ones to be remodeled. In fact, asbestos was long considered a miracle material for its excellent fire- and heat-resistant properties. This naturally occurring mineral actually dates back to ancient Greece. It was used as a building material as far back as the Roman Empire. Eventually it was used as a fabric component in clothing and other textiles. Handling asbestos must be done with great care due to the toxic properties and its classification as a known carcinogen. When in good condition, there's usually no hazard. But when it becomes worn or damaged, it's a great risk to the health and safety of humans. For example, a fire could release the asbestos fibers into the air and anyone in the area could inhale them. Years later, this asbestos exposure could lead to mesothelioma cancer and other diseases. Boyle recently discovered the mill would be receiving a $200,000 loan for hazardous supplemental funding. He plans to use the funds to clean up the fire and still continue construction in January 2017. The mill fire has remained under investigation for now. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calgarians w/ Asbestos Cancer Need More Choices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Nerman, writing for CBC News, reported that a Calgary woman says doctors in the city treating patients with asbestos cancers should be offering more treatment options, even if those options are risky. Carrie Cassidy says her father Lyle was given "no hope" when he was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer that develops in the lining of the chest and lungs and has been connected to repetitive exposure to asbestos. Asbestos deaths in Alberta higher than reported, says Calgary prof National inventory of federal buildings containing asbestos While there is no cure for the disease, Alberta Health Services does have guidelines for treatment, which include surgery and recruitment into clinical trials. But when the Cassidy family asked Lyle's oncologist about those options, they were dismissed. "Really, anything we asked about -- he said that it wasn't proven," Carrie Cassidy told the Calgary Eyeopener on Monday. "He was told to go home and enjoy what time he had left." Doctors gave him less than 2 years to live In January 2013, Lye Cassidy's doctors gave him six to 18 months to live and told him surgery would be "invasive and wouldn't prolong his life," his daughter said. "I don't like to put down our healthcare system, but they really didn't give us any other hope ... Or tell us to get a second opinion." Not convinced that palliative care was her father's only option, Carrie Cassidy dived into researching the disease and found out about a clinical trial in Toronto. It turned out that Lyle Cassidy was an ideal candidate for SMART, Surgery for Mesothelioma After Radiation Therapy, headed by Dr. Marc de Perrot at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. In March, 2016 Lyle Cassidy was well enough to go on vacation to Palm Springs with his wife Gayle. Calgary doctors had told him he probably wouldn't live past the summer of 2015. 7 months in hospital The treatment Lyle Cassidy received in Toronto was no walk in the park. In fact Calgary respirologist Dr. Alain Tremblay said most doctors don't recommend it because it's "extremely invasive" and so "horrendous." First, Lyle Cassidy had his lungs zapped with radiation, then had the surgery -- which involved removing the lining of his lungs and cutting into his heart and diaphragm. "We knew him going out there was a huge risk," said Carrie Cassidy. "Like we knew he might not make it through the surgery. But his thoughts were 'I would rather go trying to fight this than letting it just take me.'" Lyle Cassidy had plenty of complications after the surgery, including a hole in his heart, and was in hospital for seven months. Prolonged life Even though Lyle Cassidy's surgery proved very risky, his daughter says her dad has no regrets. "Probably through those seven months he thought -- 'What did it do?' But now he would tell you 'Thank God we went to Toronto,' because you know, he wouldn't be here," said Cassidy, who is now the secretary of the Canadian Mesothelioma Foundation. She believes if her family hadn't taken the initiative to sign up for the clinical trial, her dad would have missed many important family events such as the birth of his twin granddaughters. And while he still needs to be on oxygen, Lyle Cassidy is working at the Feeder Association of Alberta and going to the gym twice a week. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Newmarket Man Dies from Asbestos-related Illness ----------------------------------------------------------------- Newmarket Journal reported that a Newmarket pensioner died as a result of a condition often associated with exposure to asbestos, an inquest has heard. Ronald Winger, 83, was diagnosed with mesothelioma in February and as his condition deteriorated he was admitted to St Nicholas Hospice, Bury St Edmunds in April. The inquest at Bury St Edmunds heard that Mr Winger died later the same month on April 23. Assistant Suffolk Coroner Dr Daniel Sharpstone said tests confirmed that death had been due to mesothelioma and recorded that as his inquest conclusion. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hearing Follows Claims of Asbestos at UofL ----------------------------------------------------------- WHAS11.com reported that the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control Board will hold a hearing after claims of asbestos at the University of Louisville. It part of an Agreed Board Order with the university which they say may have violated the adoption of Federal Emission Standard for Asbestos at the Natural Sciences Building on Eastern Parkway. The hearing is scheduled to take place on July 20 at 10 a.m. in the board room located at 701 W. Ormsby Avenue. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Delays Children's Museum Opening ---------------------------------------------------------- Andrea Hill, writing for Saskatoon Starphoenix, reported that the opening of the new Children's Discovery Museum will be delayed roughly five months because of large amounts of asbestos discovered in the former Mendel Art Gallery building where the museum will eventually reside. A review done by the city in late 2015 found there were asbestos- containing materials throughout the building. According to a report heading to city council's finance committee on Monday, specialized crews are expected to take five months to remove the asbestos at a cost of $700,000. Because of the "high-risk" nature of removing asbestos, no other work can be done until the toxic material is eradicated, the report notes. The Children's Discovery Museum had initially planned to start renovations on the Mendel next summer with an opening date in mid- 2018. Now it likely won't see work start until late 2017 with an opening in late 2018. Brenda Wallace, director of environmental and corporate initiatives for the City of Saskatoon, said it was "a genuine surprise" to hear there was so much asbestos in the Mendel building. "It was even the wallboard and ceiling board, in many more places than they expected," she said. Dave Hunchak, president of the Children's Discovery Museum board of directors, said he's unfazed by the delay brought about by the necessary asbestos work. "It gives us more time to fundraise and that's not a bad thing," he said. To date, the museum has raised $5.1 million toward its $10-million goal. "We were hoping to be ahead of that by this point, but we're still very happy where we're at," Hunchak said, adding he's confident the museum will hit the $10-million mark before it opens its doors more than two years from now. The Mendel is owned by the city and the city is responsible for picking up the tab to renovate it. In addition to removing asbestos from the building, the city is also paying to add sprinklers, upgrade water pipes, replace the boiler, replace the fire alarm system and make the building more accessible by having elevators go to the lower level lobby where there's a public washroom. The total renovation bill sits at $2.2 million. Wallace said the city will find out in November if any of that cost will be covered by a federal grant. When it finally opens, the new children's museum will replace the current facility in Market Mall. The new building, 10 times larger than the old one, will cost roughly $1.2 million a year to operate annually. The museum's board says these costs will be covered by admissions revenue, donations and government grants. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qld Parliament Asbestos Removal Cost $300K ----------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reported that removal in Queensland's parliamentary annexe has cost the state $300,000, a budget estimates hearing has been told. Renovations on the seventh level of the 40-year-old building have been delayed due to unexpected heavy rain that has stalled progress because its bedding cannot dry out. Clerk of the Parliament Neil Laurie told an estimates hearing there were unforeseen issues with asbestos within the building's 24-tonne pool, squash court and plant boxes. "Quite frankly, there was just asbestos everywhere we went and turned over things," he said. Construction has had to be halted because it was excessively noisy, while the building of a new government tower across the road has also interfered with the work. "A contributing cause has been actually the establishment of 1 William Street because it's put a shadow over us and we're not getting much sunlight on level seven," Mr Laurie said. But the $300,000 cost of removing asbestos was similar to an amount spent in the NSW parliament, he added. Speaker Peter Wellington said there would always be a requirement for further work. "We will work within the budget that we have as best we can," he said. Opposition Leader Tim Nicholls, the former LNP treasurer, acknowledged treasurers were "notoriously tight with these things". ASBESTOS UPDATE: Italian Court Convicts Former Olivetti Execs ------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reported that a court in the northern Italian city of Ivrea has convicted former Olivetti executive Carlo De Benedetti and 12 others of manslaughter and other offenses over workers' deaths or illnesses blamed on asbestos exposure. The industrialist received a 5-year-2-month prison term Monday. He will not be jailed while his appeals are heard. The website of La Repubblica newspaper, part of an editorial group headed by De Benedetti, carried his contention that when he ran the Italian computer and office machines maker, Olivetti properly protected workers' health and safety. De Benedetti headed Olivetti from 1978-1996. He says that from the mid-1970s, Olivetti didn't purchase talc contaminated by asbestos fibers. Prosecutor Laura Longo said the deaths "could have and should have been avoided." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Number of Asbestos Claims Dropped in 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------- Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that a report issued by a product liabilities consulting firm suggests the number of asbestos lawsuits in 2015 is down slightly from 2014. But the same report notes that the number of defendants has increased. Asbestos lawsuits have been filed by people who became ill after their exposure to the carcinogen, alleging people were not properly warned about the risk of serious, fatal illnesses associated with asbestos exposure. According to the KCIC report Asbestos Litigation: 2015 Year in Review, there were 4,820 total asbestos claims in 2014. That number dropped to 4,465 in 2015. But despite the drop in overall claims, the number of defendants increased. That's because asbestos lawsuits tend to name multiple defendants -- in some cases, even hundreds of defendants. KCIC notes that the average number of defendants in an asbestos lawsuit increased from 64 in 2014 to 69 in 2015. One lawsuit went so far as to name 361 defendants. In contrast, only 12 lawsuits named a single defendant. Almost half the lawsuits filed named between 51 and 150 defendants. The report notes that the Madison County, IL, has the most filings, with 1,123 asbestos lawsuits filed in 2015. That's well ahead of Baltimore City, MD, which came in second with 506 lawsuits. Most lawsuits that were filed concerned mesothelioma, followed by lung cancer. When it comes to defendants, KCIC notes that the same defendants tend to top the list of complaints. The top defendant company by number of claims filed against them was named on 89 percent of the lawsuits filed in 2015 and one of the top 10 companies was named in 99 percent of the lawsuits. Asbestos has been linked to the development of mesothelioma, asbestosis, and lung cancer. Lawsuits have been filed against many companies alleging employees, consumers, and the general public were not properly warned about the risks associated with asbestos exposure. Because asbestos exposure can take decades to develop into mesothelioma, and because plaintiffs may have been exposed to asbestos in numerous settings, determining liability can be difficult. One lawsuit was recently filed in St. Clair County against a variety of defendants alleging battery, manufacturing defect, and fraudulent misrepresentation. That lawsuit, according to the Madison-St. Clair Record (7/7/16), alleges Fred Roth, a former U.S. Marine, was exposed to asbestos fibers from products he worked with. The lawsuit claims the defendants knew or should have known about the toxic implications of ingesting or inhaling asbestos. The lawsuit is case number 16-L-265. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alberta Asbestos Deaths Higher Than Reported ------------------------------------------------------------- Dan McGarvey, writing for CBC News, reported that professor at the University of Calgary's Cumming School of Medicine believes the number of asbestos-related workplace deaths in Alberta is much higher than formally acknowledged. According to a Worker's Compensation Board report,19 of 24 workplace deaths so far this year were traced back to asbestos exposure. "This report looked at occupational and WCB claims and we know these are typically under-reported," said Alain Tremblay. Tremblay said it's very difficult for workers to prove their cancer or illness is related to asbestos exposure because so many people from that time also smoked. "If you look at cancer rates using government of Canada data, we know that rates of Mesothelioma are a fair bit higher. For example, in Alberta we see about 50 cases of Mesothelioma per year." Rates should decline The vast majority of people exposed to asbestos in Alberta were working in various trades in the 1960s and 1970s, with the disease not showing up until 30 to 50 years after exposure. There is good news, following the removal of asbestos from buildings and the material being phased-out. "We actually think that right now we are at the peak of the cases of Mesothelioma related to asbestos so we hope that in the next 10, 20, 30 years we'll start to see the rates comedown," said Tremblay. Screening The University of Calgary offers Asbestos screening programs for people who are worried they might have been exposed in their lives, involving CT scans. The research study, sponsored by the Alberta Cancer Foundation and the Western Canada Mesothelioma Foundation, is being conducted across Alberta. The screening scans can be performed in Calgary, Edmonton or Fort McMurray. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Removed at Hillcrest Middle School ------------------------------------------------------------ Drew Taylor, writing for The Tuscaloosa News, reported that school officials are maintaining that students and faculty at Hillcrest Middle School should not alarmed about the recently completed removal of asbestos at the school. Jeff Crocker, director of maintenance and facilities for the Tuscaloosa County School System, said that over the summer, the system contracted with Tri-State Abatement to remove asbestos that was primarily found in the gymnasium area of the school. "It was no health hazard," Crocker said. "When we had it monitored, we decided to put it on our summer project list to have it removed." Crocker said some asbestos was found in the area after spring break and the area was immediately tested for air quality. After the amount of asbestos was determined to not be hazardous, the system made plans to have it removed over the summer. That work has now been completed, Crocker said. "We started the day after the students and faculty left," he said. Superintendent Walter Davie said that in older buildings like Hillcrest Middle, there can be asbestos, but that most of it is not harmful to people, as long as it is not exposed. The school was built in the 1968. "It was noted that in the gym area, although it wasn't a problem, had asbestos material," Davie said. "We did air quality testing in there and determined there was no danger to students, employees or anyone. We were told we could wait until the summer." In fact, Davie said people are surrounded by more asbestos than they realize. "A lot of the mastic in the tile you have has 2 percent level of asbestos," he said. "Some states don't even recognize that." In 2005, the board approved tile replacement and asbestos removal at the school. Davie said asbestos normally does not cause any problems until it starts to break. "That's when we check it and address it to have it removed," he said. Just under 600 students attend Hillcrest Middle School. ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Holland Defends Perth Asbestos Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Helen Velissaris, writing for The Australian Associated Press, reported that building giant John Holland has defended the steps it has taken to help workers who were exposed to asbestos at Perth's new children's hospital. Workers were covered in a white substance after drilling into a roof panel. The area was not isolated for 24 hours, with tests later confirming the dust was white asbestos called chrysotile. "Workers were immediately offered the opportunity to have health tests and to have clothing and other items -- including vehicles - - tested," the company said in a media release on Saturday. It says ongoing briefings by their industrial hygienist were provided to the workforce and information sessions were held. One of the workers, Matt, said he had driven home in his car covered in dust that could have spread to a child seat and had hugged his two-year-old daughter when he got home. He said workers were angry that John Holland had still not organised for medical tests or counselling or told them whether their families should also be checked. "We were told we needed to get X-rays and get on a register but nobody has ... confirmed it and the boys were mostly angry because we thought we'd have people down there making sure we're all right," he told ABC Radio on Friday. John Holland said follow-up "one-on-one meetings with each person working within the contaminated area are now being conducted". It confirmed an asbestos exposure register had been established. Four workers asked for their vehicles to be tested but no asbestos was found, John Holland said. John Holland also reiterated that the panels used in the building were supplied by Chinese company Yuanda. It said Yuanda had provided certificates stating the 150 roof panels did not contain asbestos. WA building commissioner Peter Gow announced that he would conduct an independent audit into the hospital project and Yuanda. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Roofing in Namibia Need to Be Removed --------------------------------------------------------------- Moses Amweelo, writing for The Southern Times, reported that asbestos has been classified by the International Labour Organization (ILO) Occupational Cancer Convention No. 139, as a carcinogenic (cancer-causing) material. Asbestos workers have increased chances of getting two principal types of cancer: cancer of the lung tissue itself and mesothelioma, a cancer of the thin membrane that surrounds the lung and other internal organs. These diseases do not develop immediately following exposure to asbestos, but appear only after a number of years. To comply with governmental requirements and minimise employee exposure, controls are necessary wherever there is a potential for exposure to airborne fibres. All work and work areas will be in conformance with the requirements of asbestos regulations made under schedule 1 (2) of Labour Act, 2007 (No. 11 of 2007, ILO Convention No. 162, concerning safety in the use of asbestos, and its accompanying Recommendation 172, Environment Management Act, 2007, and Occupational Cancer Convention, 1974 (No. 139). The asbestos removal guide or work plan must give proper removal, transportation and disposal procedures to be used by the selected contractor for the safe removal of all asbestos containing roofing materials. The contractor shall submit pre-work submittals (one copy) for review, prior to work. The submittals shall contain, but not be limited to, all licences; personnel information; performance; labour; and payment bonds (if required); and environment protection notification. The contractor is directed to fill out and submit the Chief Medical Officer of Occupational Health notification for the owner based on the timetable as set forth by the owner's schedule. The scope of the project shall also include the removal of all observable and identified hazardous materials regardless of quantity. All small movable objects shall be removed from the work areas. Large movable objects left inside each work area shall be covered by a minimum of one layer of 4-mil polyethylene sheeting. Replacement (if necessary) will be conducted by others or as directed by the owner's contract agreement. The asbestos regulation 10 (4) made under schedule 1 (2) of the Labour Act, 2007 states that no person shall smoke, eat or drink in any asbestos area, where the concentration of regulated asbestos fibres in the atmosphere in such area is, or is likely to be, less than the exposure limit for asbestos. No admittance to the premises is permitted unless escorted by an owner's representative or approved asbestos contractor/supervisor. Protective clothing According to asbestos regulation 12 made under schedule 1 (2) of Labour Act, 2007 (Act No. 11 of 2007) an employer shall, in circumstances where it is not reasonably practical to ensure by means of engineering controls that each employee who may be exposed to asbestos is provided with and uses personal protective equipment (PPE) such as: coverall and headgear, safety boots, hard hats, goggles, gloves and respiratory protective equipment which will reduce the concentration of regulated asbestos fibres in the atmosphere inhaled by the employee to a level which is below the prescribed exposure limit. Respirators shall be selected in consultation with the Chief Medical Officer of Occupational Health (Reg.189). The employer shall ensure that no respiratory protective equipment or protective clothing is reissued for use by any other person, unless it has been thoroughly cleaned and disinfected properly serviced in accordance with the directions of the manufacturer or supplier and of these regulations. Emergency planning The contractor shall develop emergency planning procedures prior to demolition and removal of asbestos hazardous materials initiation. This plan shall consist of, but not be limited to, emergency exit plans, notification procedures, fire extinguisher locations and the provision of first aid kits. Regulation 231 (1) states that the employer shall provide and maintain at all times a readily accessible first aid unit or station that contains a fist aid kit made of durable material, marked with a green cross on white background. Both the contractor and the owner shall agree on these procedures. All movable objects shall be removed from the containment area. Cleaning of contaminated items shall be performed if the items are to be salvaged or reused. Otherwise, they shall be properly disposed of as asbestos waste. All non-movable objects that remain in the containment area shall be covered with a minimum of 4-mil plastic sheeting, secured in place. The contractor shall ensure that asbestos waste or dust produced in the workplace during stripping or removing asbestos roof sheeting is cleaned away promptly each day by means of vacuum cleaning equipment to prevent the release of asbestos dust into the atmosphere. The contractor will spray asbestos materials with amended water, using airless spray equipment capable of providing a "mist" application to reduce the release of fibres. The asbestos material will be sprayed with water mist containing a wetting agent to enhance penetration. The wetting agent will be a commercial product produced specifically as an asbestos wetting agent. A fine spry of the amended water will be applied to reduce fibre release preceding the removal of the asbestos material. Hazardous waste and deposits shall be removed at intervals and by methods appropriate to the type of hazards which they constitute. Contaminants collected shall be disposed of without risk to the health of any person or the environment, and according to applicable statutory provisions and regulations, Reg. 183. The waste transporter of hazardous substances shall ensure that the marking, labelling and storage of hazardous substances for safe transport, especially the labelling of the transport vehicle and the storage of the hazardous substances during transport, shall be in accordance with existing legislation, or in accordance with the recommendations on the transport of hazardous substances or dangerous goods made by the United Nations Reg. 177. In a nutshell, the contractor must remove visible accumulations of asbestos material and debris. If the projector monitor finds visible accumulations of dust or bulk asbestos-containing materials in the work-place, the contractor will repeat the cleaning until the work area is in compliance. If present, the janitorial cleaning chemical and chemistry supplies should be removed prior to demolition of the buildings. A certified technician shall then remove the cleaning chemicals and dispose them in terms of regulation 183 made under schedule 1 (2) of Labour Act, 2007 (No. 11 of Labour 2007). The findings and recommendation of this research has important ramifications for the country's health environment; remove asbestos roofs on all public institutions in the spirit of the Harambee Prosperity Plan. Dr Moses Amweelo is the former Minister of Works, Transport and Communication. He is currently a guest lecturer at the University of Namibia's Engineering Campus in Ongwediva. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Judge Recommends Summary Judgment Award ------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Delaware magistrate judge has recommended that summary judgment be awarded to nine defendants named in an asbestos action, opining that the plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently identify products manufactured by the companies and that parties cannot be held liable for products they did not manufacture or sell. In the July 13 report and recommendation, Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware wrote that, in part, that the "lack of specificity in [the plaintiff's] testimony is insufficient to show causation." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Court Refuses to Transfer Suit to Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------ HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a federal court in Indiana has rejected an asbestos plaintiff's efforts to have the claims transferred to Illinois, finding that there was no evidence to establish that the neighboring state was a "clearly more convenient forum." In the July 13 order, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana opined that the plaintiff had presented very little argument to demonstrate that the convenience of the parties and witnesses doesn't favor Indiana. Plaintiff Jason Arsenault, as special administrators for the estate of Clovis Arsenault, contended in the complaint that Clovis suffered asbestos-related injuries. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Destroyed Evidence Factors in Defense Win ---------------------------------------------------------- Greg Land, writing for Daily Report, reported that following a two and a half week trial, a Sebring, Florida jury took about an hour and a half to rule for the defense in an asbestos case involving a man who died of mesothelioma in 2009, more than 40 years after he was purportedly exposed to asbestos in a cement irrigation pipe. Lead defense attorney Albert Parnell said the plaintiffs had offered to settle for $4.5 million prior to trial, and had increased that offer as the trial went on. The 74-year-old Parnell began his law career at what would become Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young in 1968 and has been lead trial counsel in more than 400 asbestos and toxic tort cases in more than 30 states. Parnell said he's being called into court more often for asbestos cases in recent years. "I've got another trial in Athens (Georgia)," said Parnell. "When you've been in this area as long as I have, they usually settle. But lately, because there are fewer defendants, more cases are going to trial." Parnell's team included Hawkins Parnell partner Frances Lopez; Kevin Ashley of Peterson & Myers' Winter Haven, Florida, office; and Jeffrey Skinner of Schiff Hardin's Washington office. The plaintiffs were represented by Nathan Finch and T. David Hoyle of Motley Rice's Charleston, S.C. office. A firm spokeswoman said an appeal was being considered. The case began when Leonard Smith III, who ran a citrus company in Sebring, was diagnosed with peritoneal mesothelioma in 2009. He filed a personal injury action 73 days later, and died the same year at the age of 57. Before he died, Smith provided deposition testimony pointing to his work as a teenager digging up and cutting cement pipe on the family's orchard over a two-week period between 1968 and 1970, Parnell said. In 2010, the personal representatives for Smith's estate filed suit in Florida's Highland County Circuit Court naming 12 defendants accused of providing asbestos or manufacturing products containing it, including CertainTeed, which the plaintiffs claimed manufactured the asbestos cement pipe Smith had worked on as a youth, and which was the sole defendant at trial. Parnell said he assumed the other defendants settled and others may have been misidentified when the suit was filed. "There's no way to determine how Motley Rice made the decision that they were going to focus on my client," he said. During the trial before Judge Peter Estrada, Parnell said one key issue involved Smith's medical history: He had been born with Ewing's sarcoma, a type of bone cancer, and suffered more cancers as a child, which were treated by radiation. "When people think of mesothelioma they think of asbestos," Parnell said, "but therapeutic radiation, especially back then, has been proved to be linked to it." Another issue was the fact that the pipe that Smith claimed he had been exposed to, which had been stored on the orchard property, was destroyed after the property was sold in 2014. "That was a problem for the plaintiffs, and they were admonished for it," Parnell said. The defense argued that CertainTeed only made asbestos cement pipe from 1962 until the 1980s, Parnell said, while the vast majority had been manufactured since 1929 by the Johns-Manville Company. Other cement pipe that had been dug up and reburied elsewhere at the time of Smith's exposure proved to be Johns-Manville pipe, Parnell said. According to a synopsis provided by Parnell's firm, the plaintiffs' experts included Dr. Laura Welch, Dr. Steven Compton and Frederick Raffa; defense experts included Dr. Denis Miller, Allan Feingold and Kyle Dotson. During closing statements, Parnell said the plaintiffs' lawyers asked for Smith's proven expenses of about $2 million, plus unspecified pain and suffering damages. On July 7 the jury returned a defense verdict. Parnell said he did not speak to any of the jurors afterward. He congratulated Finch and Hoyle on their handling of a challenging case. "They tried a wonderful case, and I have great respect for them," he said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Angry Over WA Asbestos Scandal ------------------------------------------------------- Greg Roberts, writing for The Australian Associated Press, reported that a worker exposed to asbestos at Perth's new children's hospital says building giant John Holland has provided no medical help as the government announced an independent investigation into the scandal. Workers were covered in white dust that was released after a roof panel was drilled into. The area was not isolated for 24 hours, with tests later confirming the dust was white asbestos called chrysotile. It is not the most hazardous asbestos but is banned in Australia and when inhaled can cause deadly diseases such as lung cancer, mesothelioma or asbestosis. One of the workers, Matt, said he and other workers were angry that John Holland had still not organised for medical tests or counselling or told them whether their families should also be checked. He said he had driven home in his car covered in dust that could have spread to a child seat and had hugged his two-year-old daughter when he got home. "We were told we needed to get x-rays and get on a register but nobody has ... confirmed it and the boys were mostly angry because we thought we'd have people down there making sure we're alright," he told ABC radio. "We just go ahead and work with these materials assuming they are not dangerous because we assume we're being protected by the powers above not to let them in the country in the first place." JH project director Lindsay Albonica said that the safety of workers was the company's first priority. JH has defended its role in the scandal, saying Chinese company Yuanda, which supplied the roof panels, had provided certificates stating the 150 roof panels did not contain asbestos. WA Building Commissioner Peter Gow announced that he would conduct an independent audit into the hospital project and Yuanda. It is the second time in a week that Yuanda has been caught providing products containing asbestos in Australia, after the lethal material was found in gaskets at a Brisbane office tower. There are now worries about dozens of major projects and more small ones around Australia that Yuanda has supplied to over the years, including Perth's unfinished new stadium. "I am working with my colleagues at Worksafe and other authorities to examine what building materials were brought in by the subcontractor Yuanda, where they've been used and to make sure wherever they have been used that those buildings too are safe and suitable to use," Mr Gow told reporters. "At this point I don't think anyone could say they are free (from asbestos) until we've had a good look and carried out investigations to make sure sites are safe." ASBESTOS UPDATE: South Korea Strengthens Asbestos Regulations ------------------------------------------------------------- Jillian Duff, writing for Mesothelioma.com, reported that South Korea has revised its Asbestos Safety Management Act (ASMA), which will take effect on August 15, to update and strengthen its regulations for renovations and demolitions of buildings that contain asbestos. The government did this in an effort to minimize health risks from exposure to the dangerous chemical. Currently, a safety supervisor is chosen by the landlord to go through six hours of education, keep track of the status of asbestos in the building, and ensure proper safety measures are taken to seal, remove, and dispose of asbestos. With the new regulations, any owner of a building with asbestos must have at least one safety supervisor at any construction site. Any site that's 2,000 or more square meters is required to have more than one expert. In comparison, the U.S. continues to lag in passing asbestos mandates. A number of regulations and laws at both the federal and state levels are in place -- such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) set of standards known as the Asbestos National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). However, asbestos is still not completely banned here in the States. American state laws also govern the manufacture, use, and distribution of asbestos, or the ability of victims to file claims against asbestos companies and trust funds. While these laws vary from state to state, most of them follow NESHAP guidelines as a minimum level of protection for renovations and demolitions. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), worn out asbestos can cause lung cancer and mesothelioma. Due to the mineral's friable nature, disturbing asbestos during renovations and demolitions creates an even greater threat, especially if the asbestos fibers become airborne. "Exposure to fine particles of worn-out asbestos materials or during reconstruction can lead to health risks such as respiratory or lung disease. That is why it is very important to make sure dismantling or removal of asbestos is done in sealed areas," said Lee Seung-bok, Professor of Architectural Engineering at Yonsei University in Seoul, South Korea. In 2009, 482 residents of Hongseong County in South Chungcheong Province developed asbestos-related sicknesses, causing Korea to completely ban the manufacturing, import, and use of construction materials containing over 0.1% asbestos. Many asbestos mines were located in that area. Although the ASMA began in 2011, many buildings still contain asbestos across Korea because asbestos was widely used prior to the 1970s for slate roofs, interior materials, soundproof walls, and insulators. In Seoul, 3,456 buildings contain asbestos. 78% of its school buildings, 50 of its public facilities (subway stations, libraries, hospitals, supermarkets, hotels, and department stores), and 35% of its senior centers and day care centers were made with asbestos materials. "Like other developed countries which have used a large amount of asbestos in the past, using asbestos has not been a big deal," said Seung-bok. "Although there has been no rapid increase in asbestos-related illnesses here so far, such illnesses are expected to increase due to a large amount of asbestos used in the past four decades and the long latency period," said Choi Ye-yong, Head of the Asian Citizen's Center for Environment and Health. At least 2,184 South Korean victims have suffered damages from asbestos exposure since 2011. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Judge Sentences Developer in Asbestos Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Freedman, writing for Great Lakes Echo, reported that a federal judge in Rochester, New York, has fined a developer $15,000 and sentenced him to probation and community service for violating federal asbestos work standards. U.S. District Judge Frank Gerasi imposed the sentence on Anastasios "Taso" Kolokouris of Avon, New York, who pleaded guilty to a Clean Air Act crime. According to the U.S. Attorney's office in Buffalo, the state Labor Department's Asbestos Control Bureau received a complaint in December 2011 that people, including a 16-year-old boy, were working in and around a Dumpster near a loading dock without adequate protective equipment at a warehouse co-owned by Kolokouris. Asbestos exposure can cause asbestosis, mesothelioma and cancers of the lung, esophagus, stomach, colon and other organs, according to medical research. Kolokouris was vice president of John K and Associates, which owned the warehouse. The warehouse, built in 1930, is next to homes and had a school bus stop "directly outside its main gate," the U.S. Attorney's office said in a press statement . Investigators found more than 90 bags of dry, friable -- meaning easily crumbled -- asbestos in the loading dock area, as well as evidence of illegal abatement activities. Samples of the material found there tested positive for high levels of asbestos, the statement said. A state inspector found no asbestos warning signs posted there although they're required. Workers told investigators that they had done odds jobs for Kolokouris at other locations and that he promised to pay them in cash "to remove asbestos from the Dumpster outside the warehouse because the container company would not remove the Dumpster while it was full of asbestos. None of the workers were certified or trained to work with asbestos," the statement said. U.S. Attorney William Hochul said Kolokouris did it "simply to save money." His sentence included 150 hours of community service, "if possible, related to some form of environmental service" the plea agreement said, as well as payment of $250 in wages owed to the workers. Defense lawyer David Rothenberg said his client will also pay restitution. "The amount of restitution has not yet been fixed. However, based on communications with the government, I expect that it will be a modest number," he said. Rothenberg declined to comment on other aspects of the case. Barbara Brown, the public information officer for the U.S. Attorney's office, said she could not comment on whether the actual removal of the asbestos from the warehouse had been done legally by a licensed contractor. As for the four years between the indictment and the guilty plea, Brown said, "The defense filed multiple motions in the case which took some time to litigate." In addition to the state Labor Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, state Department of Environmental Conservation and Rochester city police took part in the investigation. The Clean Air Act violation carries a potential maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Southampton Man Dies of Asbestos, Smoking ---------------------------------------------------------- Southern Daily Echo reported that a Hampshire man died as a result of asbestos exposure and smoking, an inquest heard. David Buggy died at Countess Mountbatten House in West End on April 9 of bronchopneumonia following a battle with lung cancer. Winchester Coroner's Court heard how the 76-year-old from Field Close, Bassett, Southampton, came into contact with asbestos when he worked as an apprentice coppersmith at Thornycroft in Southampton from 1955 to 1960. The inquest heard how Mr Buggy fitted pipes which were lagged with asbestos on ships and he was regularly covered in the deadly substance. The inquest also heard he was also regular smoker for 60 years. Mr Buggy was also exposed to asbestos when he worked at Petters Limited in Hamble from 1962 to 1987 and when he worked at British Rail in Eastleigh from 1988 to 1995. Senior coroner Grahame Short concluded the death was due to asbestos exposure and smoking. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Qld Gov't Call for Release of Asbestos File ------------------------------------------------------------ Nathan Paull, writing for The Australian Associated Press, reported that Queensland's Industrial Relations Minister Grace Grace is demanding the release of a secret asbestos report after the potentially deadly material was recently found at a Brisbane construction site. She has written to Border Protection Minister Peter Dutton, urging him to make public an independent review of Australia's asbestos border control management, which was completed in March but kept confidential. The development comes after asbestos was found in imported products used during the construction of the state government's controversial new executive building in William St. "Matters of critical public health and safety such as this should not be the subject of secret, confidential reports," Ms Grace wrote. "The public has the right to know what measures the federal government intends to take to tighten current controls and ensure the 2003 ban on the importation of this deadly substance is 100 per cent effective." Ms Grace called for the report's immediate release and for all of its recommendations to be adopted. "It is incumbent on the federal government to take an absolute zero tolerance approach to this issue and stop the importation of asbestos once and for all," she said. A spokeswoman for Mr Dutton said he was yet to receive the letter. "The fact that Minister Grace would play politics on such a serious issue is a poor reflection of her," she said. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland is investigating how asbestos-laden gasket material imported from China was able to make its way to the Brisbane work site. A report into the incident is being completed by state bureaucrats. The controversial 46-storey skyscraper, which will replace the tired George St executive building, was commissioned by the former Newman Government. Treasurer Curtis Pitt last year labelled the tower the "biggest financial debacle in Queensland's history". ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Teacher Exposed to Asbestos in Classroom ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ros Wynne Jones, writing for Mirror, reported that as Sue Stephens lay dying from cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, she was also fretting about others. A primary school teacher for 30 years, Sue was exposed to the deadly fibres in the classroom. But her family said it was typical of her compassion that she should think about her pupils first. "Mum taught over 900 children," her daughter Lucie, 40, told me, while her gravely ill mother was sleeping. "Asbestos fibres can be released by something as simple and innocent as pinning up children's work on the walls. "She keeps wondering how she could have better protected the children she loved teaching. "But she couldn't have protected them because she hadn't been told that the asbestos was there." In her final days, Sue's greatest fear was that her own grandchildren -- Arietta, six, May, four, and one-year-old Marnie -- could unknowingly be exposed to asbestos. Shockingly, as many as 21,000 of Britain's schools are believed to still contain the substance, despite the fact the dangers have been understood for 40 years. A year ago, as part of our Asbestos Timebomb campaign, the Mirror revealed that seven million children in England are at risk of asbestos exposure in schools. The Department for Education estimates 75% of schools -- 18,279 -- could contain asbestos. An investigation by teaching union the NUT suggested this number could be as high as 20,959. Between 2003 and 2012 more than 224 teachers in England died of mesothelioma -- cancer of the lining of the lungs caused by exposure to asbestos. Last year, 22 teachers died, giving the UK the highest death rate in the world. Evidence submitted to MPs suggests the death rate for former pupils may be as many as 200 to 300 a year. Sue, 68, asked her family to start a campaign so that every child's potential exposure to asbestos has to be disclosed to families. So far, 5,000 people have signed her petition on the 38 Degrees campaign website. Some of the comments on the petition site are heartbreaking. "I am also suffering from mesothelioma as the result of my work as a teacher," one says. "Like Sue, one of my greatest concerns is for the children we taught . . . I am also in the last stages of my life." Others write of their lost wives, mothers and fathers. "It's too late for mum now, but she wants to save others," Lucie said. "We want schools to give annual reports on asbestos -- as has happened in the US for 30 years -- and we want asbestos out of all schools." Unison and the NUT are also calling for a complete removal. On June 26, a few days after I spoke to Lucie, Sue died. Backed by their lawyer Helen Grady, the family are still awaiting the coroner's report proving her death was from mesothelioma. But they remain determined to carry on her fight. "A Department of Health committee found that a five-year-old is five times more likely than an adult of 30 to develop mesothelioma," Lucie says. The biggest cause of work-related death since 1950, asbestos dust still kills around 5,000 workers each year, mostly people who worked in construction or shipbuilding. Not banned in schools until 1999, it is worst in post-war CLASP (Consortium of Local Authorities Special Programme) buildings, of which there are around 6,000 left. Yet last year an NUT survey found that 44% of current teachers have not been told if their school contains asbestos. A spokesman said the Department for Education is investing œ23billion in school buildings by 2021. "Nothing is more important than the health and safety of children and staff in our schools," he said. "This will help ensure asbestos is managed safely and the amount in school buildings continues to reduce over time. Last year, we published a comprehensive review of asbestos in schools and we are implementing its findings in full." Sue's family say that even with these programmes there are many schools that can't get asbestos removed. And they can't understand why parents and staff don't have the right to know the asbestos levels. "Sue's story is heartbreaking," says Rachel Reeves MP, who chairs the Asbestos in Schools Committee. "But what is really shocking is that 21,000 schools still contain asbestos and pupils, parents and staff don't know about it. The Government has a duty to protect children and teachers." GettyRachel ReevesRachel Reeves chairs the Asbestos in Schools Committee The first sign that Sue was developing the disease was finding a lump in her chest. "We were steeling ourselves for breast cancer," Lucie says. "We didn't expect mesothelioma. We knew nothing about asbestos in schools. Mum bravely got on with chemotherapy and radiotherapy but neither helped." Until recently, Sue was still walking her dog out on Dartmoor and Exmoor, keeping bees, and babysitting her grandchildren. But after Christmas she went downhill rapidly. Lucie says: "It's a cruel disease. But it's also completely preventable. We don't want anyone else to have to go through what mum went through." With seven million pupils at risk, there should be few more urgent matters in the in-tray of the new Secretary of State for Education, Justine Greening. She should meet Sue's family to explain how she intends to keep our teachers, support staff and children safe. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yuanda's Australian Projects Need Probe -------------------------------------------------------- Briana Shepherd, writing for ABC News, reports that the discovery of asbestos in roof panels of WA's children's hospital could have far wider implications for other Australian projects that use the same major Chinese supplier, a senior WA Government official has warned. The WA State Government confirmed white asbestos was detected in one of the 150 roof panels in the atrium on the eighth floor of the soon-to-be-opened $1.2 billion Perth Children's Hospital. The State Treasury's executive director of strategic projects and asset sales Richard Mann said other projects serviced by the company that supplied the panels, Yuanda Australia, would now be under the microscope. "It needs to be understood that this supplier in this case is a very large, international facade specialist, that supplies components to many, many buildings internationally, including Australia," Mr Mann said. "So very surprising that we would have such an occurrence in such a well-established manufacturers building components, but recent media has reported similar problems in other projects in Australia as well. "In this case the only way it could have been picked up was by internally drilling into and sampling an internal panel which had previously been certified as compliant by independent testing. "I suspect that this may well lead to further investigations in other projects across Australia and perhaps even wider." While Mr Mann stressed there was no evidence to suggest asbestos was apparent in any other material supplied by Yuanda Australia for state projects, he said they would need to be investigated. A man in a welding mask surrounded by grey particles from broken roof panels. PHOTO: A worker on the Perth hospital site surrounded by shards of the roof panels. (Supplied) Yuanda Australia has been involved in the State Government's Fiona Stanley Hospital and the Perth Stadium. Yuanda Australia is a subsidiary of Yuanda China Holdings limited, one of the world's largest manufacturers and installers of primary construction-related products. Formed in 1993, it is listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange with a net asset value of $622 million (RMB 3.1b) and has 11 Chinese subsidiary companies and 18 international. The firm lists six Australian construction projects it has built the facades for, including three high-rise towers in Brisbane, the South Australian Health and Medical research centre in Adelaide, a high-rise on George Street in Sydney and a three-tower development at Barangaroo South, currently under construction. It was also involved in construction of the iconic "bird's nest" national stadium in Beijing, which hosted the 2008 Olympic games. Asbestos found on Brisbane project It was revealed an urgent check had been carried out at the new Royal Adelaide Hospital after the discovery of an asbestos-tainted building product in a Brisbane office tower. The tainted gaskets in Brisbane had been supplied to Yuanda Australia, by Yuanda China, however the checks revealed the suspect gaskets had not been used on the Adelaide hospital. A company official at the time said the Brisbane case was isolated and the suspect product was not used elsewhere in Australia. Robert Vojakovic of the Asbestos Diseases Society of Australia said overseas imports had been known to contain asbestos. "There's been common knowledge for the last few years that China was sending stuff to us contaminated with asbestos," he said. "We had a similar situation in Alcoa where we examined the gaskets and we found the content was 35 per cent asbestos." It was also revealed in June SA-based company Australian Portable Camps was being investigated over imports from China that illegally contained the deadly substance. Initial testing missed deadly substance The contaminated panels from Yuanda Australia at the Perth Children's Hospital were approved to be asbestos free, on two separate occasions. The first was by an independent testing company in China. John Holland, the building company heading the hospital project, conducted its own independent test in 2013. Both came back negative for asbestos. Mr Mann said something must have gone wrong in the supply chain. "It's an independent Chinese testing authority, and there's no reason whatsoever -- given it's an internationally established testing authority -- to question the credentials of the testing process," he said. "It was also independently checked and verified by John Holland's technical consultant. "Obviously something has happened in the supply chain, probably in the manufacturing chain that has slipped through that process and we need to find out what that was." Yuanda Australia has been contacted for comment. ********* 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 2016. 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 * * *