/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160729.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, July 29, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 151 Headlines ABBSTER ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over FSLA Violations ABUNDANT LIFE: Bid to Certify in "Malamphy" Suit Granted in Part ALAMOWING DEVELOPMENT: "Elliott" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay ALLERGAN PLC: AHOLD USA Claims Antitrust Law Breach Over Asacol AMERISOURCEBERGEN: 3rd Cir. Vacates Attorneys' Fees Award AML CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Violation of FLSA, Col. Wage Act AOSS MEDICAL: PRS Seeks Certification of TCPA and ICFA Classes APPLE AMERICAN: "Fego" Sues Over Discrimination APPLE INC: Must Face "Opperman" Data-Mining Suit, Judge Says AR RESOURCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kassin" Suit Claims ARCTIC GLACIER: "Levin" Sues Over Ice Machine Rentals ARISE VIRTUAL: Certification of CSP Class Sought in "Carter" Suit AMSTERDAM PRINTING: Court Denies Class Certification as Premature BANK OF AMERICA: Painters and Allied Trades Council Files Suit BCM SECURITY: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA BIG 5: Faces "Houston" Lawsuit Under California Labor Code BNP NY: Faces "Dutan" Suit in N.Y. Alleging Violation of FLSA BOYD GAMING: Settlement in "Gamble" Suit Has Preliminary Approval BUMBLE BEE: Colluded On Not Selling Fad-Free Tuna, Suits Say CALVARY ASSET: NJ Appeals Court Reinstates CIF Suit CAMDEN IRON: "Domask" Sues Over Disability Discrimination CANADA BONDED: Illegally Collects Debt, "Greenwald" Suit Claims CAREY LIMOUSINE: "Yim" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay CAREY WATERMARK: Former Employee Filed Class Actions in Calif. CATALINA REYNA: Faces "Ballesteros" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation CEPHEID INC: Faces "Higginbotham" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CERES INC: Faces "Varela" Suit Over Share Sale to Land O'Lakes CHASE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Cohen" Suit Over Automated Calls CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: "Jerry Venable" Suit Removed to W.D. Ok. CHEVRON USA: Court Denies Motion to Remand, Bid for Legal Fees CONOPCO INC: Court Preliminarily Approves "Morales" Settlement CONTRA COSTA: Court Preliminarily Approves Deal in Retirees' Suit CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: October 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set DELAWARE: Court Denies Noble's Motion to File Amended Suit DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES: "Leonard" Suit Goes to Arbitration DRAFTKINGS: Loses Bid to Move Gambling Case to Federal Court E&S RING: Faces "Kleronomos" Lawsuit Under Calif. Labor Code ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "East" Suit in Eastern District Louisiana ELECTROLUX HOME: Court Strikes Class Allegations in "Waters" Suit ELIZABETH ARDEN: Faces "Ross" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Revlon EXAMWORKS GROUP: Daytona Beach Police Filed Class Action FIRST CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection FITBIT INC: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Sleep Tracker Suit FORESIGHT ENERGY: Must Defend Against "Carver" WARN Act Suit GOLDEN STATE: "Magana" Suit Claims Violation of Cal. Labor Laws GOOGLE INC: Aug. 28 Online Ads Case Management Conference Set GREAT SENECA: Texas Fraudulent Sues for Consumers in Texas GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Souran Seeks to Certify Delivery Drivers' Class HANNIBAL, MO: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Red Lights HOMELAND SECURITY: TSA Workers' Suit Has Class Certification ILLINOIS WORK INJURY: Certification of 3 Classes Sought INSMED INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey INSTANT TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Robles" Suit in Massachusetts INTERSTATE-RIM: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages JB HUNT: "Lipford" Sues Over Discrimination JOHNSON CONTROLS: Court Denies Motion to Remand "Hostetler" Suit KROGER CO: Removed "Coffelt" Class Suit to C.D. California LAND RESTORATION: Faces Tex. Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA LYFT INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Teague" Action Claims MAGNUSSENS FREMONT: "Valdez" Suit Claims Consumers Act Violation MARGARET BRADFORD: "Briggs" Sues Over House Defects MARTIN AVENUE: Class Cert. Hearing in Podiatry Suit on Aug. 23 MASSAGE GREEN: Class Claims Tossed, Suit Goes to Arbitration MATAGRANO INC: "Alapati" Suit Alleges Violation of Cal. Wage Laws MDL 2624: Krause Seeks Certification of Classes in Adware Case MEDIFIT CORPORATE: Final Hearing on "Flores" Suit Deal on Nov. 9 MICHAELS STORES: Rowe Seeks to Certify Retail Store Workers Class MIDLAND FUNDING: 6th Cir. Affirms Approval of Revised Deal MONEY STORE: Class Decertification After Jury Verdict Proper MORGAN KEEGAN: Court Grants Motion to Compel Payment MOTION PICTURE: Sued Over Ratings on Films with Tobacco Imagery NASDAQ OMX: Court Sends Fees Dispute Between Insurers to Trial NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Snead Must Amend Class Cert. Bid by Sept. 13 NUTRIMOST LLC: Werfel Suit Moved to Southern District New York NUVASIVE INC: Bid to Dismiss "Mauss" Suit Granted in Part OBESITY RESEARCH: Appeals Court Reinstates "Duran" Claims OKLAHOMA: Leatherwood Moves Certification of Prisoners Class OMNI INSURANCE: Bid to Dismiss Colter Suit Premature, Court Says ONCALL LLC: Faces "Orue" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation OZ MINERALS: Court Approves Zinifex Class Action Settlement PAD AND PUBLICATION: Cert. Hearing in Podiatry Suit on Aug. 23 PAPA JOHN'S: Settles Class Action Over Delivery Fees Sales Tax PAUL MICHAEL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection PEARLS GROUPS: Court Approves Sale of Gold Coast Resort PETER THOMAS: Falsely Marketed Personal Care Products, Suit Says PHILADELPHIA HOUSING: Settlement in "Howard" Case Granted in Part PRIVATEBANCORP INC: "Parshall" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Faces "Griffin" Suit Over Sale to CIBC PYRAMID CONSULTING: Class Certification Sought in "Getchman" Suit QUAKER OATS: "Jaffee" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois RASH CURTIS: Conover May File First Amended Complaint RDX INC: "Roach" Suit Alleges Non-compliance of Cal. Wage Laws REACHLOCAL: Shareholders Sue Directors Over Gannett Deal ROCKWATER ENERGY: Court Denies Motion for Leave to Amend SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Johnson-Morris" SCOTTRADE INC: Court Dismisses Duqum Consolidated Class Complaint SENIOR LIVING: White Seeks to Certify Hourly-Paid Laborers Class SKULLCANDY INC: Faces "Paprakis" Suit Over Sale to Incipio SNAPCHAT: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Law Violation STARZ: Faces "Freedman" Suit Over Sale to Lions Gate SUNDIAL BRANDS: Faces "Padilla" Suit Over Hair, Scalp Products SUTTER HEALTH: Antitrust Class Action Can Proceed, Court Rules SYNGENTA AG: Court Declines to Adopt MDL Coordination Order SYSCO CORPORATION: "Martin" Suit Removed to E.D. California T-MOBILE USA: Class Cert. Bid Okayed; Settlement Denied for Now TACO BELL: $1.2MM in Attorney Fees Awarded in Employee Suit THINGS REMEMBERED: 9th Cir. Directs Briefing in Kaur Appeal TOWNSHIP BAGEL: "Kirsch" Sues Over Age Discrimination TOYOTA: Faces Detroit Suit Over Defective Prius Motor TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Hearing in "Huffman" Class Suit on Aug. 31 TUFF SHED: "Topping" Suit Removed to Southern Dist. California TYSON FOODS: Court Partially Grants Motion for Reconsideration UNITED STATES: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Atkins" UNITED STATES: Lockheed Workers Mull Suit Over Pensions Cut US PENITENTIARY: 3rd Cir. Reinstates "Richardson" Class Suit VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: "Lelaj" Sues Over Denied Incentives VIGO COUNTY, IN: Court Dismisses "Grayless" Complaint VIRGINIA: Court Rules in "Correll" Suit Over Voting Rights VISA INC: 3 Canadian Wal-Mart Stores Stops Accepting Cards WORLD WRESTLING: Sued for Hiding Head Trauma Risks YAKIMA REGIONAL: Violated Consumer Protect Act, Court Rules YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Seeks to Overturn Verdict YUM! BRANDS: Appellate Briefing Underway in Taco Bell Case * SA Gold Miners File Petitions Against Silicosis Judgment Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Expert Report in "Arbogast" OK'd ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Partially Affirms "Boyd" Summary Ruling ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Eaton Corp. Coverage Suit Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maine High Ct. Affirms Summary Judgments ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mag. Judge Recommends Denial of Bid to Junk Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Venue of "Griffin" Suit Transferred to Calif. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Murphy" to State Court Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Mold Verdict vs. Crane Co. Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Paul's Suit vs. R&Q Reinsurance Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Upholds Prison Term for M. Sawyer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Recommends Remand of "Wines" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Master Granted Limited Discovery in "Rhodes" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Corp. Junked as Defendant in "Donlon" ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Continues to Defend Claims at June 24 ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Has 1 Case Set fro Trial This Year ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Adopts Remand Recommendation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Federal Court Remands Asbestos Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer's Bid for Summary Ruling Junked ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Jury Reaches Defense Verdict in Talc Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fake Contractor Exposes Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Essex School Fined GBP46K for Asbestos Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Body Powder Suits Proposed for MDL Consolidation ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Superfund Site Gets Dedicated Fire Team ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns Raised ASBESTOS UPDATE: College Reprimanded Over Asbestos Removal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Death Sees GBP228K Payout ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Charged Only 2 Asbestos Importers in 8 Yrs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boswells School Ordered to Pay GBP46K ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shelby County Workers Claim Exposure to Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Stripped from Tenants' Homes ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bases Deny Disposing Asbestos in Cyprus ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allens Pay Out Over Asbestos-related Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Business Group Joins Union in Asbestos Alarm ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ausgrid, Union Spar Over Asbestos Claim ASBESTOS UPDATE: Postal Service Exposes Workers to Asbestos ********* ABBSTER ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over FSLA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------ Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Buffalo Wild Wings after former employees allege it violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. Abbster Enterprises LLC operates the franchised Buffalo Wild Wings in Martinsburg. Michael Rodgers and Lauren Collins were employees of Abbster and claim it failed to pay them and other similarly situated severs and bartenders all earned minimum wages, according to a complaint filed July 7 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. Abbster has a policy or practice of paying servers and bartenders at its BWW restaurant sub-minimum hourly wages under the tip- credit provisions of the FLSA and violated the FLSA by failing to inform its servers and bartenders of the tip-credit provisions, according to the suit. The plaintiffs claim the defendant violated the FLSA by its policy or practice of requiring servers and bartenders to perform non- tipped work that, even if it were related to their tipped occupation, exceeded 20 percent of their time worked in one or more individual work weeks. The defendant also violated the FLSA by requiring servers and bartenders to return a portion of their tips to the restaurant, including to cover the cost of customer walkouts and cash drawer shortages, according to the suit. The plaintiffs claim Abbster was aware or should have been aware that federal law requires it to pay severs and bartenders full minimum wages and violated the FLSA by not following federal law. Rodgers and Collins are seeking judgment in the amount of the owed minimum wages for all time worked by them and similarly-situated servers and bartenders; and liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of unpaid minimum wages. They are being represented by David M. Hammer of Hammer Ferretti Schiavoni. The case is assigned to District Judge Gina Groh. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia case number: 3:16-cv-00106 ABUNDANT LIFE: Bid to Certify in "Malamphy" Suit Granted in Part ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Elizabeth A. Kovachevich entered an order in the lawsuit styled MARCIE MALAMPHY, and others similarly situated v. ABUNDANT LIFE HOME HEALTH AGENCY, INC. and NELY NIDA VILLAVENCIO, an individual, Case No. 8:16-cv-00327-EAK-TGW (M.D. Fla.), granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and facilitation of Court-authorized notice. Ms. Malamphy commenced the lawsuit on February 11, 2016, alleging that she and other hourly-paid nurses, who currently work, or have worked for the Defendant, were deprived of proper overtime wages. Judge Kovachevich ordered that: (1) within 30 days from entry of the Order, the Defendant will produce the full names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members employed by the Defendant in the past three years; (2) within 15 days from entry of the Order, the Plaintiff's counsel is directed to revise the proposed notice consistent with the Order, and to submit the revised notice to the Defendant for review and approval; (3) with 15 days from receipt of the revised notice, the parties will meet and confer regarding any objections to the form thereof, and assuming the notice is acceptable to both parties, the Plaintiff may distribute the notice and consent to join forms via first-class mail to putative class members employed by the Defendant within the past three years; (4) to the extent the parties are unable to agree regarding the form of the proposed notice, the Defendant may file a written objection with the Court within seven days following the expiration of the 15 day review period; and (5) the Motion is denied as to any posting of the notice at Defendant's facilities. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jitCPBkM ALAMOWING DEVELOPMENT: "Elliott" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Catherine Elliott, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Alamowing Development, LLC, B III Wing, LLC, RioWing Development, LLC, Alamowing DeZavala, LLC, Alamowing College Station, LLC, Alamowing Seaworld, LLC, Alamowing Tyler, LLC, Alamowing Austin I, LLC, Alamowing Austin II, LLC, Alamowing Culebra, LLC, Alamowing SE Military, LLC, Alamowing Longview, LLC, Alamowing Walzem, LLC, Alamowing Pat Booker, LLC, Alamowing Waco, LLC, Alamowing Austin III, LLC, Alamowing Killeen, LLC, Alamowing Legacy, LLC, Alamowing Cedar Park, LLC, Alamowing El Paso, LLC, Alamowing Zarzamora, LLC, Alamowing El Paso, II, LLC, RioWing McAllen, LLC, RioWing Brownsville, LLC, RioWing Harlingen, LLC, RioWing Corpus Christi, LLC, RioWing Laredo, LLC, RioWing Weslaco, LLC and RioWing McAllen II, LLC, Alamowing Alamogordo, LLC, Alamowing Albuquerque, LLC, Alamowing Albuquerque II, LLC, Alamowing Albuquerque III, LLC, Alamowing Albuquerque IV, LLC, Alamowing Farmington, LLC, Alamowing Hobbs, LLC, Alamowing Las Cruces I, Alamowing Santa Fe, LLC, Alamowing Atascocita, LLC, Southseas Wings Discovery Bay, LLC, Southseas Wings Laulani Village, LLC, Southseas Wings Pearl Highlands, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00705 (W.D. Tex., July 12, 2016), seeks minimum wages owed for all time worked with liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred and such other and further relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants owned and operated approximately 39 franchised Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants in Texas, New Mexico, and Hawaii. Plaintiff worked at the restaurant located at 7900 South Broadway Avenue, Tyler, TX 75703, as a server and claims to have received below the mandated minimum wage rates. Plaintiff is represented by: Glenn D. Levy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY 906 West Basse Road | Suite 100 San Antonio, TX 78212 Telephone: (210) 822-5666 Facsimile: (210) 822-5650 Email: Glenn@GlennLevyLaw.com - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com ALLERGAN PLC: AHOLD USA Claims Antitrust Law Breach Over Asacol --------------------------------------------------------------- AHOLD USA, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. ALLERGAN, PLC (f/k/a ACTAVIS, PLC); ALLERGAN, INC.; ALLERGAN USA, INC.; ALLERGAN SALES, LLC; WARNER CHILCOTT, LIMITED; WARNER CHILCOTT (US), LLC; WARNER CHILCOTT SALES (US), LLC; ZYDUS PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC.; CADILA HEALTHCARE LIMITED, Case 1:16-cv- 11498 (D. Mass., July 19, 2016), is a civil antitrust action challenging defendants' alleged unlawful impairment of competition for the prescription drug Asacol, an ulcerative colitis drug, Asacol HD, and Delzicol. Until June 15, 2015, Allergan was known as Actavis plc. Allergan markets branded and generic pharmaceuticals throughout the United States and has commercial operations in the United States and around the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. David S. Nalven, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Phone: (617) 482-3700 Fax: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com davidn@hbsslaw.com - and - John D. Radice, Esq. RADICE LAW FIRM 34 Sunset Blvd. Long Beach, NJ 08008 Phone: (646) 386-7688 Fax: (609) 385-0745 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com AMERISOURCEBERGEN: 3rd Cir. Vacates Attorneys' Fees Award --------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Luis Felipe Restrepo of the Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, vacated the portion of the district court's Memorandum and Order awarding plaintiff $550,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses in the case captioned, ELI MOR, derivatively on behalf of AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION and individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated shareholders of AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, v. STEVEN COLLIS, RICHARD GOCHNAUER, RICHARD GOZON, EDWARD HAGENLOCKER, KATHLEEN HYLE, MICHAEL LONG, HENRY MCGEE, CHARLES COTROS, JANE HENNEY, and AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION. Eli Mor, Appellant, Case No. 15- 2831 (3rd Cir.). On February 15, 2013, Eli Mor filed a Complaint in the District Court derivatively on behalf of AmerisourceBergen Corporation and individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated shareholders of ABC, naming as defendants nine members of the Company's Board of Directors (Board) and ABC, as nominal defendant. The Complaint alleged the Board exceeded its authority under the Company's shareholder-approved Equity Incentive Plan (Plan) resulting in a breach of fiduciary duties, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. Mor's claims stemmed from his allegations that in 2012 the Board granted 758,810 stock awards to defendant Steven Collis, the Company's President, Chief Executive Officer and a Director, thereby exceeding the alleged 300,000-share limit permitted to be granted to any individual participant in one calendar year under the Plan. The parties to the action entered into and filed the Stipulation of Settlement on August 15, 2013. The Stipulation states that on February 19, 2009, ABC's stockholders approved the Company's Management Incentive Plan which provides for a 300,000-share limit on grants of awards to eligible individuals in any calendar year commencing on or after January 1, 2009. On October 28, 2014, the District Court approved the parties' negotiated settlement of this shareholder derivative class action, reserving the issue of the amount of attorneys' fees to be awarded to plaintiff, Eli Mor. On July 1, 2015, the District Court filed its Memorandum and Order addressing plaintiff's and ICLUB's requests for attorneys' fees. The Court denied non-party ICLUB Investment Partnership (ICLUB)'s request for fees and awarded plaintiff attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of $550,000. The Court found that the litigation resulted in, among other things, the creation of a common fund equaling $5.048 million. On appeal, Mor argues that the District Court's award in the action impermissibly deviates from governing law, whether federal law or Delaware law is applied. He argued that District Court misapprehended the facts relevant to his application for attorneys' fees and that the Court abused its discretion by conducting a flawed and arbitrary percentage-of-recovery analysis. In his Opinion and Order dated July 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/CBc7Vt from Leagle.com, Judge Restrepo held that the District Court's award of attorneys' fees and expenses was at least partially based on factual assertions which were not supported by the record, and the District Court failed to provide an adequate explanation in support of its award so that the Court have a sufficient basis to review for abuse of discretion. The case is remanded to the District Court for an award of fees and expenses. AML CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Violation of FLSA, Col. Wage Act ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID JACKSON; KENNETH THOMAS; JAVIER MORA-MONCADA; GILDARDO MORA- MONCADA, and JESUS OROZCO, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AML CONSTRUCTION & DESIGN GROUP, ALEXANDER CASH, ALEXANDER KENNEDY, CUSTOM SOLUTIONS BY ALVARADO CONSTRUCTION, LLC AND MIKE ALVARADO, Case 1:16-cv-01847 (D. Col., July 19, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Colorado Wage Act. AML Construction and Design Group provides service for new construction or refinished needs. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ralph G. Torres, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF RALPH G. TORRES 1801 Broadway, Suite 1400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: 303-297-8427 Fax: 303-292-0522 E-mail: RGTorres99@aol.com AOSS MEDICAL: PRS Seeks Certification of TCPA and ICFA Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order determining that the action entitled PRS, LLC, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v. AOSS MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-07498 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against AOSS Medical Supply, Inc. The Plaintiff defines the classes as: For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant AOSS Medical Supply, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice. For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant AOSS Medical Supply, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a complaint opt out notice. For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV, alleging nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant AOSS Medical Supply, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice. PRS further asks the Court that it be appointed as class representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z8FiMV3C The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Dulijaza Clark, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com ccombs@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com jclark@edcombs.com APPLE AMERICAN: "Fego" Sues Over Discrimination ----------------------------------------------- Tyler Fego, Plaintiffs, v. Apple American Group, LLC d/b/a Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. L-2554-16 (N.J. Sup., July 8, 2016), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, equitable back and front pay, equitable reinstatement and any other relief under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Plaintiff was terminated after testing positive for marijuana, despite his prescription for medical marijuana for treatment of Crohn's Disease. Apple American Group, LLC operates Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar with principle place of business in the State of New Jersey at 3800 Black Horse Pike, Turnersville, New Jersey 08012. Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Tel: (856) 727-9700 Website: www.CostelloMains.com APPLE INC: Must Face "Opperman" Data-Mining Suit, Judge Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a nationwide class of Apple device users can seek damages over claims that Apple let a social networking app download users' personal data without consent, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled July 15. The decision comes four years after lead plaintiff Mark Opperman sued Apple and the social networking app Path Inc. in one of four consolidated class actions filed in California and Texas. Opperman claims Apple distributed "invasive versions" of the Path app, which downloaded details from each user's contact list without their knowledge or consent. Path stored the data, which included email addresses and birthdays, and mined it to create social graphing maps, the plaintiffs claim. The class lobbed similar claims at other app developers -- including Yelp, Twitter, Instagram and "Angry Birds" maker Rovio -- but the ruling issued on July 15 only applies to claims against Apple and Path. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar certified a class of 480,000 Apple device users whose contact data was downloaded by Path between Nov. 9, 2011, and Feb. 7, 2012. Tigar refused to certify a larger class of users who downloaded the app, finding only members of the "intrusion upload subclass" who actually logged into the app and had their data accessed were injured. The judge also rejected the defendants' claims that choice-of-law questions made class certification impractical. He found Apple and Path failed to show that applying California law would hinder the interests of other states where plaintiffs reside. However, the judge did side with Apple and Path in finding that the plaintiffs failed to offer a viable method for calculating the inherent value of privacy on a classwide basis. The plaintiffs' economics expert, Dr. Hank Fishkind, proposed creating a survey that would ask respondents to choose between getting a free app that would access their data without consent or paying a certain fee for an app that would not download their contacts without permission. "It may be that the average damages that Dr. Fishkind's model would predict will be very close to the damages actually suffered by every class member, but there is no way of knowing this," Tigar wrote. "It is equally or more likely that his model would overcompensate some class members while undercompensating others." Tigar found the class could not pursue monetary damages for invasion of privacy or unjust enrichment, but that it could seek nominal and punitive damages. The fact that each class member can recover only a modest amount in damages makes pursuing the litigation as a class, rather than individually, "clearly superior to the alternatives," the judge concluded. Path's attorney, Jedediah Wakefield -- jwakefield@fenwick.com -- of Fenwick & West, declined to comment on the ruling. Class attorney David Given -- dmg@phillaw.com -- of Phillips Erlewine Given & Carlin did not return a phone call seeking comment July 18, afternoon. Path was sold to Kakao, a South Korean technology firm, in May 2015, after the social networking app failed to go mainstream in the United States and capped out at 23 million registered users. The plaintiffs must submit all remaining motions for class certification against the 16 remaining app developer defendants, including LinkedIn and Foursquare Labs, by Aug. 23. The case captioned, MARC OPPERMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PATH, INC., et al., Defendants., Case No. 13-cv-00453-JST (N.D. Cal.). AR RESOURCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Kassin" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Rafael Kassin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AR Resource, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:16- cv-04171-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., July 11, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. AR Resource, Inc. is a full service accounts receivable management and collection company. 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 ARCTIC GLACIER: "Levin" Sues Over Ice Machine Rentals ----------------------------------------------------- Carrie Levin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Arctic Glacier USA INC., Arctic Glacier NY Inc. a subsidiary of Arctic Glacier, LLC as assignee of Icesurance, Inc. subsidiary of Arctic Glacier Inc. d/b/a Saxony Ice Co., Defendants, Case No. 653648/2016 (N.Y. Sup., July 12, 2016), seeks damages resulting from unjust enrichment and for breach of the covenant of fair dealing and good faith. Plaintiff alleges that the rental fees for ice machines being leased to them by the Defendant is almost 50% of the actual purchase price of the said machine. Arctic Glacier NY Inc. is a domestic business corporation located in 111 Eighth A venue, New York, NY 10011. Arctic Glacier USA Inc., a Delaware company, located in New York is 111 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY 10011. They are into the business of leasing ice machines and the supply of ice. Plaintiff is represented by: Lowell J. Sidney, Esq. 244 Fifth A venue, Suite Q278 New York, NY 10001 Tel: (212) 315-3523 Defendant is represented by: WEINSTEIN KAPLAN & COHEN PC 1325 Franklin Avenue, Suite 210 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 877-2525 ARISE VIRTUAL: Certification of CSP Class Sought in "Carter" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Carter asks the Court to conditionally certify the action captioned BARRY CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ARISE VIRTUAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-06262 (N.D. Ill.), as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. He also moves the Court for an order allowing notice of the action to be sent to proposed class members informing them of their right to opt-in to the Case. Mr. Carter has brought the Case on behalf of Customer Support Professionals, who have worked for the Defendant over the last three years. Arise is a "virtual call center" that employs thousands of CSPs across the country to perform customer service work for its customers -- such as AT&T, Disney, Apple, Rogers Telecom, and TurboTax -- out of their home offices. He alleges that Arise has misclassified these workers as independent contractors and thereby has avoided complying with the FLSA, in particular by not paying them minimum wage (or any wage) during their training, and requiring them to purchase their own equipment and pay for their own training, thereby, driving their wages even further below the minimum wage. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Q5yDU67u The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Jill Kahn, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAL, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com jkahn@llrlaw.com - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 323-1550 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com AMSTERDAM PRINTING: Court Denies Class Certification as Premature ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge J. Michelle Childs of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina denied Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class in the case captioned, Career Counseling, Inc., d/b/a Snelling Staffing Services, a South Carolina corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Amsterdam Printing & Litho, Inc.; Taylor Corporation, John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV- 05061-JMC (D.S.C.). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants faxed an advertisement to Plaintiff and others on June 22, 2015 and December 14, 2015 in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Plaintiff filed a "Placeholder" Motion to Certify Class on January 4, 2016, expressing that the court should allow the placeholder motion to remain pending in order to avoid the "'unnecessary gamesmanship'" surrounding "pick-off" attempts. Plaintiff requests leave to file supplemental briefing in support of its Motion after it has conducted more discovery. In their Response to Plaintiff's Motion, Defendants claim that Plaintiff has filed the placeholder motion to deny them their right to make an offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants argue that the court should deny Plaintiff's motion as premature because Plaintiff seeks class certification ruling based just on its pleadings and before it has conducted discovery. In her Order and Opinion dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/gKZLhu from Leagle.com, Judge Childs found that Plaintiff's motion as premature without prejudice. Plaintiff is granted leave to re-file its motion for class certification after it has conducted the discovery necessary to bring a fully briefed motion. Career Counseling, Inc. is represented by John Gressette Felder, Jr., Esq., MCGOWAN HOOD AND FELDER; Brian J. Wanca, Esq. -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Ross M. Good, Esq. -- RGood@andersonwanca.com -- and Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq. -- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON AND WANCA Amsterdam Printing & Litho, Inc. and Taylor Corporation are represented by: Jonathan Matthew Harvey, Esq. JONATHAN HARVEY LAW OFFICE 1701 Richland Street Columbia, SC 29201 Tel: (803)779-3363 - and - Kellie J. Mitchell, Esq. William E. Raney, Esq. COPILEVITZ AND CANTER 1501 N. Fant St. Anderson, SC 29621 Tel: (864)225-6228 BANK OF AMERICA: Painters and Allied Trades Council Files Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 35 PENSION FUND, on Behalf of Itself and all Others Similarly Situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, CREDIT AGRICOLE CORPORATE AND INVESTMENT BANK, CREDIT SUISSE AG, DEUTSCHE BANK AG, NOMURA INTERNATIONAL PLC, HIREN GUDKA, AMANDEEP SINGH MANKU, SHAILEN PAU, and BHARDEEP SINGH HEER, Case 1:16-cv-05755 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2016), asserts violations of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and state common law in relation to their transaction of supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency bonds (SSAs). The Defendants are among the largest dealers, or who are among the most prominent traders, of supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency bonds denominated in various currencies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald H. Silk, Esq. Hannah Ross, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 554-1400 Fax: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com hannah@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com - and - Blair A. Nicholas, Esq. Benjamin Galdston, Esq. David Kaplan, Esq. Lucas Gilmore, Esq. Brandon Marsh, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Phone: (858) 720-3183 Fax: (858) 793-0323 E-mail: blairn@blbglaw.com benjaming@blbglaw.com davidk@blbglaw.com lucasg@blbglaw.com brandonm@blbglaw.com - and - Scott Martin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Fax: (212) 202-4322 E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. William P. Butterfield, Esq. Timothy S. Kearns, Esq. Sarah R. LaFreniere, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com wbutterfield@hausfeld.com tkearns@hausfeld.com slafreniere@hausfeld.com - and - Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 633-1908 Fax: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com bsweeney@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com BCM SECURITY: Faces Fla. Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- JAMES L. JONES, MARTY HOGAN, and others similarly situated v. BCM SECURITY SERVICES, INC., a foreign corporation and CURTIS MATTINGLY, individually, Case 6:16-cv-01287-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla., July 19, 2016), seeks overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. BCM SECURITY SERVICES, INC. is in the business of providing security. The Plaintiff is represented by: James N. Turner, Esq. 37 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 500 Orlando, FL 32801 Phone: (888) 877-5103 E-mail: njtlaw@gmail.com BIG 5: Faces "Houston" Lawsuit Under California Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------- JON HOUSTON on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS CORPORATION; BIG 5 CORP; and DOES l-100 Case No. RG 16823835 (Cal. Super., Country of Alameda, July 19, 2016), was brought pursuant to the California Labor Code and California Code of Regulations. BIG 5 SPORTING GOODS CORPORATION owns and operates trucks, industrial trucks, industrial vehicles and/or industrial work sites. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esp. David Mara, Esq. Jill Vcechi, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (619) 234-2833 Fax: (619) 234-4048 BNP NY: Faces "Dutan" Suit in N.Y. Alleging Violation of FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Dutan, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, v. BNP NY Foods, Inc. d/b/a Essen, Chong Won Byun, and John Byun, Case 1:16-cv-05728 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. BNP NY Foods, Inc. is in the shopping and grocery business. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 563-9884 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com BOYD GAMING: Settlement in "Gamble" Suit Has Preliminary Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement in the case captioned, CRAIG GAMBLE, et al. Plaintiffs, v. BOYD GAMING CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 2:13-CV-01009-JCM-PAL, No. 2:13-CV-01043-JCM- PAL., 2:13-CV-01801-JCM-PAL (D. Nev.). Plaintiffs Craig Gamble, Michael Simmons, Maria High, Kathy Belmonte, and Richard Caldwell (Plaintiffs) filed three separate lawsuits against Defendant Boyd Gaming Corporation on May 9, 2013 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01009-JCM-PAL), June 12, 2013 (Case No. 2:13-cv- 01043-JCM-PAL), and October 1, 2013 (Case No. 2:13-cv-01801-JCM- PAL). Plaintiffs alleged claims to recover unpaid wages earned during time rounded-off by Defendant's timekeeping system and time they spent cashing out their banks off-the-clock. Pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the court consolidated the lawsuits making the case, Case No. 2:13-CV-01009-JCM-PAL, the base file. The operative complaint in the consolidated action is Plaintiffs' Master Second Amended Complaint, which asserts claims for unpaid regular wages and overtime wages under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., and applicable Nevada law. The parties engaged in considerable discovery efforts throughout the action, including written discovery and depositions. Plaintiffs allege claims for unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, and liquidated damages. Defendant agreed to pay a maximum settlement amount of $450,000 less attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and service awards. The parties have agreed to allocate 25% or $112,500 of the maximum settlement amount to Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and $130,000 to litigation costs. Thus, $242,500 has been allocated to attorneys' fees and litigation costs and a maximum of $207,500 will be available for distribution to Plaintiffs and Opt-in Plaintiffs. The parties have agreed to a pro rata formula to distribute the remaining settlement proceeds based on the Plaintiffs' expert's calculation of alleged damages. The current Motion is the second unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement filed in the case. In her Order dated July 11, 2016 available at https://is.gd/xFJ5Hn from Leagle.com, Judge Leen found that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable, the form of the proposed Notice of Settlement and Consent to Settlement and Release of Claims is acceptable, and the costs requested to be reasonable and adequately documented. The Court ordered that Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement within 21 days after the Acceptance Period Deadline and all other proceedings in the matter are stayed pending consideration of final approval. Craig Gamble, et al. are represented by Ashley R. Thronson, Esq. -- athronson@fredlaw.com -- FREDRIKSON & BYRON, PA; Brooke A. Bohlke, Esq. -- bbohlke@wshblaw.com -- Michele R. Fisher, Esq. -- fisher@nka.com -- and Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq. -- bailey@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP Gamble et al. are also represented by: David L. Langhaim, Esq. ANTHEM LAW 2879 St. Rose Pkwy., Ste. 200 Henderson, NV 89052 Boyd Gaming Corporation is represented by Derek F. Foran, Esq. -- dforan@mofo.com -- Karen J. Kubin, Esq. -- kkubin@mofo.com -- Linda E. Shostak, Esq. -- lshostak@mofo.com -- Nancy R. Thomas, Esq. -- nthomas@mofo.com -- and Tritia M. Murata, Esq. -- tmurata@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Boyd Gaming is also represented by: Jen J. Sarafina, Esq. Scott M. Abbott, Esq. KAMER ZUCKER & ABBOTT 3000 W Charleston Blvd # 3, Las Vegas, NV 89102 Tel: (702)259-8640 Coast Hotels and Casinos is represented by Karen J. Kubin, Esq. -- kkubin@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP -- Rebekah L. Bailey, Esq. -- bailey@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP They are also represented by: Jen J. Sarafina, Esq. Scott M. Abbott, Esq. KAMER ZUCKER & ABBOTT 3000 W Charleston Blvd # 3 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Tel: (702)259-8640 BUMBLE BEE: Colluded On Not Selling Fad-Free Tuna, Suits Say ------------------------------------------------------------ Tom Seaman, writing for Undercurrent News, reports that the three largest shelf stable seafood brands in the US agreed not to sell tuna products using raw material caught without using fish aggregation devices (FADs), it is alleged in legal documents. Amended complaints filed in late May in the civil lawsuits accusing the tuna brands of price fixing and collusion contain a number of new allegations, including the alleged collusion on not selling FAD-free tuna products. Bumble Bee Foods, Thai Union Group-owned Tri-Union Seafoods, which sells under the Chicken of the Sea brand, and Dongwon Industries- owned Starkist were concerned that a switch "to a more sustainable method of fishing would decrease supply and put pressure on their margins", according to an amended complaint from a group of wholesalers and retailers, dubbed "direct buyers", that are not part of a class action. The civil complaints have been grouped into four tracks, the direct buyers not part of a class action, direct buyers part of a class action, a class action from catering companies' part of and a class action from consumers. All of the four "tracks" make the same allegations on the collusion over not selling FAD-free tuna. All four complaints also allege the conspiracy to fix prices and not sell FAD-free tuna went to the top executive level and also involved the parent companies of Bumble Bee and Starkist, Thai Union and Dongwon. Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea, and Starkist colluded to resist efforts by environmental groups, such as Greenpeace, to make their products "more sustainable and less harmful to oceanic ecosystems", alleged an amended complaint from a group of direct buyers outside the class action, including Giant Eagle and Affiliated Foods. Greenpeace has been pushing for the big tuna brands to use more pole and line tuna, or fish caught with purse seiners not relying on FADs. The brands' agreement "not to compete by producing branded canned tuna labeled 'FAD free' had the effect of ensuring that such canned tuna, which would be more costly to produce and have a lower profit margin, did not cannibalize sales of their products subject to the price-fixing conspiracy", alleged the amended class action complaint from the direct buyers. By this alleged agreement, the brands "ensured that they did not compete on the dimension of advertising the sustainably-caught nature of any of their branded tuna products", it is alleged. Growing FAD-focus In 2011, there was a particular focus on the usage of FADs, floating devices which attract large volumes of tuna, for purse seiners to then harvest, stated the amended class action complaint from the caterers. "By drawing large groups of fish together in one place, FADs facilitate their mass capture. Approximately one third of the global tuna catch is facilitated by FADs," the lawsuit stated. Generally, FAD-caught tuna results in a lower quality product and greater "by-catch". It is, however, more cost effective than pole and line catching, or free-school purse seining, where FADs are not used. In late 2011, executives from the three companies began discussing the issue via email, complaints allege. As early as November of 2011, Chris Lischewski, CEO of Bumble Bee, Shue Wing Chan, then CEO of Tri-Union and In-soo Cho, the former CEO of Starkist, "had collaborated on an article attacking Greenpeace and other environmental groups for criticizing the way tuna is harvested", it is alleged in the class action lawsuit from the direct buyers. They reached an agreement not to sell any branded FAD-free packaged tuna product during a teleconference the week of Feb. 6, 2012, that was confirmed in a Feb. 17, 2012 email, the complaint from the direct buyers outside the class action stated. This agreement was made "despite strong and growing demand by consumers for FAD free products", according to the class action complaint from the direct buyers. Mr. Lischewski declined to comment to Undercurrent News. Chan did not respond to a request for comment and Cho could not be reached for comment. Thai Union and Bumble Bee owner Lion Capital also declined to comment and Dongwon did not respond to a request for comment. In addition to the allegations on the FAD-free tuna, the amended complaints claim the price fixing went up to CEO level, as well as to Thai Union and Dongwon. Del Monte Foods, the parent of Starkist from 2002 to 2006, is also named as a defendant in one of the lawsuits, from a group of direct buyers not part of the class action. Del Monte did not respond to a request for comment. The amended civil lawsuits come as the US Department of Justice (DOJ) continues a criminal probe of the sector. Although a pause on discovery in the civil suits was put in place earlier in the year after a request from the US DOJ, the plaintiffs are still able to accumulate information and expand their complaints, said Christopher Lebsock, of law firm Hausfeld, which is overseeing the class action track for direct buyers, such as Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative. "The pause on discovery is still in place. The additional allegations set forth in the amended complaints are based on the plaintiffs' continuing investigation," Mr. Lebsock told Undercurrent. After the January hearing when a pause was placed on discovery, the civil lawsuits were divided into four tracks, he said. These are "the direct purchasers class; an end buyers class, which are consumers who bought the tuna; the commercial indirect end users class, which are catering companies who bought the tuna to that was used, for example, to make tuna salad purchased at a deli counter; then a direct purchasers "opt out" group who chose not to be part of the direct purchasers' class", said Mr. Lebsock. One law firm has been appointed to manage each track. Alleged coordinated price increases The tuna giants' alleged "scheme" to fix prices amid dropping sales had four main facets, it is alleged in the amended complaints. In addition to the allegations on the FAD-free tuna, the companies are accused of coming to agreements to reduce can sizes across the industry; agreements to issue collusive list prices; and to limit promotional or discount activity. Bumble Bee, Starkist and Chicken of the Sea "carried out these aspects of their conspiracy through secret e-mails and telephone calls, as wells as through conversations and meetings facilitated by various industry groups", the class action complaint from direct buyers alleged. Discussions among the companies led to periodic coordinated price increases at similar times and similar amounts during period from 2003-2012, it is alleged in the complaint for direct buyers outside of a class action. The other complaints, the class actions for the direct buyers, catering companies and end consumers, alleged this took place from around Aug. 1, 2008, however. The most recent example given in the complaint for direct buyers outside the class action is that, between late December 2011 and Jan. 18, 2012, "extensive telephone communications occurred between senior executives and sales personnel" of Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea, and Starkist that resulted in an agreement to raise list prices across their lines of tuna products. "Advanced copies of price announcements were circulated among defendants' executives," it is alleged. "Pursuant to the agreement", Starkist announced a list price increase on Jan. 13, 2012, effective March 26, 2012; Bumble Bee announced a virtually identical list price increase on Jan. 17, 2012, effective April 1, 2012; and Chicken of the Sea announced a virtually identical list price increase on Jan. 18, 2012, effective April 1, 2012, it is alleged. "Depending on the product, the price increases led to virtually identical list prices or price increases by a virtually identical amount." 'Collusive' monitoring of promotions Following the decision to impose a coordinated price increase, the cartel members engaged in monitoring of discounts, it is alleged in the amended class action complaint from the end tuna consumers. In "bilateral communications", the tuna giants' the sales and management personnel "announced to each other their awareness of particularly aggressive discounts from list price", beginning not later than May 2012, it is alleged. In turn, "the personnel of the brand subject to the discount or promotion provided assurances that the discount or promotion was not intended to spark price competition between the cartel members but reflected particular circumstances and would not set a precedent", it is alleged in the complaint. CALVARY ASSET: NJ Appeals Court Reinstates CIF Suit --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, CAPITAL INVESTMENT FUNDING, LLC, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. CALVARY ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC; ROBERT SYPHER, an individual; ELLIOT SALZMAN, an individual; and 457 CARLTON ROAD, LLC, Defendants, and ARTHUR FIELD, an individual, Defendant- Respondent, Case No. A-2710-14T1 (N.J. Super. App. Div.), Judges Richard S. Hoffman, George S. Leone and Mary Gibbons Whipple of the New Jersey Superior Court reversed the trial court's order dismissing CIF's claims against Arthur Field, vacate the order disqualifying Westrick and Tressler LLP, and remand to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Westrick is a "necessary witness" pursuant to RPC 3.7. The case arose from a purchase of real property located at 457 Carlton Road in Wyckoff (Wyckoff Property). In early 2002, the Wyckoff Property was owned by a company called SRG 457, LLC (SRG). On March 22, 2002, SRG executed a $600,000 note to Lancaster Resources, Inc. (LRI), secured by a mortgage on the Wyckoff Property. In 2006, SRG defaulted on the mortgage loan, and LRI instituted foreclosure proceedings. On September 17, 2007, the Chancery Division entered a final judgment of foreclosure, declaring SRG and its principal liable to LRI for $1,095,320.55, plus interest, costs, and attorney's fees. On June 6, 2008, LRI assigned its rights in the mortgage to Plaintiff Capital Investment Funding, LLC -- a South Carolina limited liability company engaged in the business of selling unsecured promissory notes. CIF acquired title to the Wyckoff Property as owner of the mortgage. On October 21, 2008, 457 Carlton's financer, Calvary Asset Management, LLC (Calvary), issued a check to CIF for $305,778.63. This check was accepted by Field -- CIF's manager at the time, and a founding member when CIF was created in January 1999 -- on CIF's behalf. In a letter written to CIF's receiver in November 2011, Field admitted to knowing that the check was "no good" when he received it. He made no attempts to recover the amount owed to CIF for the sale of the Wyckoff Property. In 2008, CIF's investors began filing class-action lawsuits against CIF and Field in South Carolina state court. These lawsuits were consolidated and resolved by way of an August 24, 2009 Mediated Global Settlement Agreement and Order Approving Settlement. On May 16, 2012, Westrick filed a complaint in the Law Division on behalf of CIF against 457 Carlton, Calvary, Robert Sypher, and Elliot Salzman (Carlton defendants), along with Field, asserting breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, conversion, breach of fiduciary duties, common-law waste, and civil conspiracy. On December 26, 2012, Field filed a motion to dismiss the claims against him and to disqualify Westrick and his firm, Tressler LLP, from representing CIF. In a February 15, 2013 order, the trial court granted Field's motion. Relying heavily on the previous litigation that had taken place in South Carolina, the court dismissed CIF's claims pursuant to the first-to-file rule, "res judicata and/or collateral estoppel," and forum non conveniens. Additionally, the court disqualified Westrick and Tressler LLP from representing. CIF appeals from a February 15, 2013 Law Division order which dismissed CIF's claims against its former manager, defendant Arthur Field, and disqualified Christopher H. Westrick and the law firm, Tressler LLP, from representing CIF. CIF argues that res judicata and collateral estoppel should not bar the action because, in the South Carolina litigation, there was no previous adjudication on the merits and CIF's claims against Field were not actually litigated. In the Per Curiam dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/WtM2NS from Leagle.com, Judges Hoffman, Leone and Whipple held that the trial court erred by dismissing CIF's claims pursuant to either preclusion doctrine and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying CIF's motion for reconsideration. Furthermore, the court erred by summarily disqualifying Westrick as someone who is "likely to be a necessary witness" without conducting a hearing to determine the extent to which Westrick's testimony would be material in the case. Capital Investment Funding, LLC is represented by: Christopher H. Westrick, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, PC 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Tel:(973)994-1700 CAMDEN IRON: "Domask" Sues Over Disability Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------- William Domask, Plaintiff, v. Camden Iron & Metal, Inc., Eastern Metal Recycling, L.L.C., Mike Gaul and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. L-2556-16 (N.J. Sup. July 8, 2016), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees, equitable back and front pay, reinstatement, equitable instatement or promotion and any other relief under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Plaintiff alleges harassment and discrimination over his leg injury. He worked as a truck driver. Defendants are into the metal recycling and processing business, with Mike Gaul as owner. Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Tel: (856) 727-9700 Website: www.CostelloMains.com CANADA BONDED: Illegally Collects Debt, "Greenwald" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Greenwald, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Canada Bonded Attorney, Inc., American Bonded Attorney, Inc., and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:16-cv-04170- FLW-LHG, seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Defendants are in the business of providing debt collection services for corporate and consumer collections. 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 CAREY LIMOUSINE: "Yim" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay -------------------------------------------------- Sun Hong Yim, Rachid Drhoum, Suk Hwan Kim, Angel Buffa, Naresh Motwani, Lutfu Ozbey, Cesar Vasconez and CVC Limousine Corp., individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Carey Limousine NY, Inc., Carey International, Inc., Gary L. Kessler, Sally A. Snead, and John Does #1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05554 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2016), seeks unpaid wages, breach of contract damages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York State Labor Law. Defendants offer limousine services where Plaintiffs worked as drivers. The Plaintiff is represented by: William C. Rand, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM COUDERT RAND 501 Fifth Ave., 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 286-1425 Fax: (646) 688-3078 CAREY WATERMARK: Former Employee Filed Class Actions in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Carey Watermark Investors 2 Incorporated said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2016, that a former employee on February 5, 2016, filed a class action lawsuit in Santa Clara Superior Court alleging that he and other unionized servers were paid less than the San Jose minimum wage. The property's collective bargaining agreement contains a waiver of the San Jose minimum wage. The individual essentially is alleging that due to a drafting error in the law, the waiver is invalid. Marriott denies that the waiver is invalid and intends to vigorous defend this lawsuit. On July 13, 2016, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Carey Watermark Investors 2 Incorporated ("CWI 2") completed the acquisition of the San Jose Marriott from SP6 San Jose Hotel Lessee, LLC, an unaffiliated third party. The 510-guestroom San Jose Marriott will continue to be managed by Marriott International, Inc. CWI 2's total investment in the property is approximately $167.5 million, including a $154.0 million purchase price and approximately $7.7 million of acquisition-related costs and $5.8 million of planned capital improvements. CATALINA REYNA: Faces "Ballesteros" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARTHA BALLESTEROS, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), v. CATALINA REYNA ROSAS and ALVARO SANABRIA MENESES, Case 1:16-cv-23132-UU (S.D. Fla., July 19, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff MARTHA BALLESTEROS worked for Defendants as a domestic live-out housekeeper. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Phone: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM CEPHEID INC: Faces "Higginbotham" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Stuart Higginbotham, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Cepheid Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-03882 (N.D. Cal., July 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Cepheid Inc. is a molecular diagnostics company that develops, manufactures and markets fully integrated systems for testing in the clinical market, and for application in its original non- clinical market. Stuart Higginbotham is a pro se plaintiff. CERES INC: Faces "Varela" Suit Over Share Sale to Land O'Lakes -------------------------------------------------------------- Knox Varela, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ceres, Inc., Cheryl P. Morley, Pascal Brandys, Richard Flavel, Robert Godlberg, Richard Hamilton, Land O'Lakes, Inc., and Roman Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. BC626611 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 11, 2016), is brought on behalf of all holders of common stock of Ceres, Inc., to enjoin the acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Ceres common stock by Land O'Lakes, Inc., through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. Ceres, Inc. is an agricultural biotechnology company that develops and markets seeds and traits to produce crops for animal feed, sugar and other markets. Land O'Lakes, Inc. is a cooperative corporation incorporated under the laws of Minnesota with industry-leading operations that span the spectrum from agricultural production to consumer foods. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com CHASE RECEIVABLES: Faces "Cohen" Suit Over Automated Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- David Cohen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chase Receivables and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:16- cv-04169-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., July 7, 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. Chase Receivables operates a debt collection firm located at 1247 Broadway, Sonoma, CA 95476. 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 CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: "Jerry Venable" Suit Removed to W.D. Ok. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Jerry Venable Revocable Family Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Chesapeake Operating LLC, including affiliated predecessors and affiliated successors, Case No. CJ-16-00011 was removed from the District Court of Beaver County Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court Western District of Oklahoma. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00782-M to the proceeding. Chesapeake Operating LLC is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and production company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. REX A SHARP PA 5301 W 75th St Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0505 Facsimile: (913) 901-0419 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick L. Stein, Esq. Timothy J. Bomhoff, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT 211 N Robinson Ave, 10th Fl. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-9621 Facsimile: (405) 235-0439 E-mail: patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com Tim.Bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com CHEVRON USA: Court Denies Motion to Remand, Bid for Legal Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Susie Morgan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied Plaintiffs' motion to remand, and their request for costs and attorney's fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c) in the case captioned, JOSEPH ROBERTSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. CHEVRON USA, INC., ET AL., SECTION: "E" (3), Defendant, Case No. 15-874 (E.D. La.). Joseph Robertson and 157 other plaintiffs filed suit in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans on February 5, 2015; 33 additional plaintiffs were named in a supplemental petition. The case involves personal injury and property damage claims arising from alleged exposure to contamination from oil field pipe. The case was originally filed in state court and subsequently removed to federal court under the mass action provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiffs, Joseph Robertson, et al., move to remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon) and Mobil Exploration and Producing U.S., Inc. (MEPUS) oppose Plaintiffs' motion, as do Defendants Joseph F. Grefer and Camille Grefer (the Grefers). The court issued an order on September 2, 2015, granting Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court, as the Court found Defendants failed to establish the individual amount in controversy as required under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a) and (d)(11)(B)(i). On January 22, 2016, the Fifth Circuit reversed the Court's finding that no plaintiff has satisfied the individual amount-in-controversy requirement, and the Fifth Circuit remanded the case to the Court to address Plaintiffs' remaining jurisdictional arguments. Plaintiffs argue Defendants fail to establish minimal diversity. Plaintiffs also seek costs and attorney's fees incurred as a result of the removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c). In her Order and Reasons dated July 11, 2016 available at https://is.gd/Or7f1n from Leagle.com, Judge Morgan found that the Defendants have established minimal diversity for purposes of removal under CAFA, as at least one plaintiff and one defendant are citizens of different states. The Court affirmed the district court's decision to decline to award attorney's fees under Sec. 1447(c) since the Defendants satisfied the statutory criteria of removal. Joseph Robertson, et al. are represented by Darleen Marie Jacobs, Esq. DARLEEN M. JACOBS, APLC 823 St Louis St, New Orleans, LA 70112 Tel: (504)522-0155 - and - Paula Adams Ates, Esq. ATES LAW FIRM, APLC 13726 River Rd, Destrehan, LA 70047 Tel: (888)874-9159 - and - Robert G. Harvey, Sr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TAMARA KLUGER JACOBSON, LLC 600 North Carrollton Avenue New Orleans, LA 70119 Tel: (504) 822-2136 Chevron USA Inc. is represented by Michael Raudon Phillips, Esq. -- mike.phillips@keanmiller.com -- Brett P. Fenasci, Esq. -- brett.fenasci@keanmiller.com -- and Shannon A. Shelton, Esq. -- shannon.shelton@keanmiller.com -- KEAN MILLER LLP ConocoPhillips Company et al. are represented by Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Esq. -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Janika D. Polk, Esq. -- jpolk@kuchlerpolk.com -- Mark Edward Best, Esq. -- mbest@kuchlerpolk.com -- Michele Hale DeShazo, Esq. -- mdeshazo@kuchlerpolk.com -- Milele N. St. Julien, Esq. -- mstjulien@kuchlerpolk.com -- and Skylar B. Rudin, Esq. -- srudin@kuchlerpolk.com -- KUCHLER POLK SCHELL WEINER & RICHESON, LLC Exxon Mobil Corporation is represented by Glen Marion Pilie, Esq. -- glen.pilie@arlaw.com -- David M. Stein, Esq. -- david.stein@arlaw.com -- E. Paige Sensenbrenner, Esq. -- paige.sensenbrenner@arlaw.com -- Martin Alan Stern, Esq. -- martin.stern@arlaw.com -- Roland M. Vandenweghe, Jr., Esq. -- roland.vandenweghe@arlaw.com -- and Valeria M. Sercovich, Esq. -- Valerie.sercovich@arlaw.com -- ADAMS & REESE, LLP Anadarko U.S. Offshore Corporation is represented by Mary S. Johnson, Esq. -- msj@jgmclaw.com -- Jill Thompson Losch, Esq. -- jtl@jgmclaw.com -- and Nichole M. Gray, Esq. -- pwg@jgmclaw.com -- JOHNSON GRAY MCNAMARA CONOPCO INC: Court Preliminarily Approves "Morales" Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William B. Shubb of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement in the case captioned, ALBA MORALES; LANIE COHEN; LINDA CLAYMAN; and KENNETH DREW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CONOPCO, INC., d/b/a UNILEVER, Defendant, Case No. 2:13-2213 WBS EFB (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Alba Morales, Lanie Cohen, Linda Clayman, and Kenneth Drew brought this putative class action against defendant Conopco, Inc., d/b/a Unilever, asserting claims arising out of defendant's alleged labeling of certain hair care products as "TRESemme Naturals" despite them containing synthetic ingredients. Plaintiffs contend that defendant violated California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and various other state consumer protection laws. The parties litigated the case for nearly two years before reaching a settlement agreement on February 5, 2016 before mediator Jonathan Marks. The parties agreed the gross total settlement fund is $3.25 million whch provides that plaintiffs' counsel will apply to the court for a fee award of up to 30% of the gross settlement amount, or $975,000. Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of consumers in the United States who have purchased TRESemme Naturals products. Plaintiffs seek preliminary approval of the parties' stipulated class-wide settlement, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). In his Memorandum and Order dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/E6gKjh from Leagle.com, Judge Shubb found that the settlement was the result of vigorous, arm's-length bargaining. The Court appointed Plaintiffs Alba Morales, Lanie Cohen, Linda Clayman, and Kenneth Drew are conditionally certified as the class representatives, the law firm of Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP, through Mark Kindall, is conditionally appointed as class counsel, the law firm of Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, through Alan Plutzik and Michael Strimling as liaison counsel and KCC Class Action Service LLC as class administrator. The final fairness hearing is set for October 17, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. Alba Morales and Lainie Cohen are represented by Joseph DePalma, Esq. -- jdepalma@litedepalma.com -- and Katrina Carroll, Esq. -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC Morales et al. are also represented by: Mark P. Kindall, Esq. Robert A. Izard, Esq. IZARD NOBEL LLP Town Center, 29 S Main St, West Hartford, CT 06107 Tel: (860)493-6292 - and - Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. BRAMSON PLUTZIK MAHL & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP 2125 Oak Grove Rd Ste 120 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Tel: (925) 945-0200 Linda Clayman and Kenneth Drew are represented by Katrina Carroll, Esq. -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC They are also represented by: Mark P. Kindall, Esq. Robert A. Izard, Esq. IZARD NOBEL LLP Town Center, 29 S Main St, West Hartford, CT 06107 Tel: (860)493-6292 - and - Alan R. Plutzik, Esq. BRAMSON PLUTZIK MAHL & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP 2125 Oak Grove Rd Ste 120 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Tel: (925) 945-0200 Conopco, Inc. is represented by Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. -- lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP; and Michael Phillip Esser, Esq. -- michael.esser@kirkland.com -- and Ross Weiner, Esq. -- ross.weiner@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP CONTRA COSTA: Court Preliminarily Approves Deal in Retirees' Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California preliminarily approved the parties' comprehensive written settlement agreement in the case captioned, RETIREE SUPPORT GROUP OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, MICHAEL SLOAN; ALYN D. GOLDSMITH; DEBORAH ELITE; BILLIE JO WILSON ELKIN; SUSANNE BEADLE; and ALICE GROTHMANN; Plaintiffs, v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Defendant, Case No. C 12-00944 JST (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County (Plaintiff RSG), Plaintiffs MICHAEL SLOAN; ALYN D. GOLDSMITH; DEBORAH ELITE; BILLIE JO WILSON ELKIN; SUSANNE BEADLE; and ALICE GROTHMANN (collectively Plaintiff Class Representatives) and Defendant Contra Costa County (Defendant County) move to preliminarily approve their comprehensive written settlement agreement. The terms of the Agreement required Plaintiff RSG to file a Third Amended Complaint alleging a class action and seeking damages. Plaintiff RSG and Plaintiff Class Representatives filed their Third Amended Complaint on June 16, 2016. Alternatively and additionally, the Parties agree and stipulate that Defendant County's time for response is extended to and including twenty (20) days after the Fairness Hearing to finally approve the Agreement on October 25, 2016. In his Stipulation dated July 11, 2016 available at https://is.gd/UMQQTf from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar approved the comprehensive written settlement. Retiree Support Group of Contra Costa County, et al. are represented by: Jeffrey Greg Lewis, Esq. Jacob Avery Richards, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206)623-1900 Contra Costa County is represented by Raymond Francis Lynch, Esq. -- rlynch@hansonbridgett.com -- Lawrence M. Cirelli, Esq. -- lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com -- Matthew Joseph Peck, Esq. -- mpeck@hansonbridgett.com -- and Stephen B. Peck, Esq. -- speck@hansonbridgett.com -- HANSON BRIDGETT LLP CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: October 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on July 18 issued a statement regarding the Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Securities Litigation. TO: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. between August 23, 2010 and April 14, 2015. A Settlement Hearing shall be held before the Honorable George H. King of the Central District of California on October 31, 2016 at 9:30 a.m. in the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Courtroom 650, Los Angeles, CA 90012, in the action captioned Erickson v. Corinthian Colleges, Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-07466-GHK (PJWx) (the "Action"). At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will consider whether: (1) to permanently certify a class, for settlement purposes only, of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. ("Corinthian") between August 23, 2010 and April 14, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"); (2) to approve as fair, reasonable, and adequate the proposed settlement of the Action in exchange for $3.5 million; (3) to dismiss with prejudice the Action and to enter judgment releasing the Settled Claims against the Defendants and Released Parties; and (4) to approve Lead Counsel's applications for the payment of attorneys' fees and costs, reimbursement of Claims Administrator costs, and a service award for the Lead Plaintiff. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Corinthian common stock during the Class Period, you will be bound by the Settlement unless you send a letter stating that you "request exclusion from the Class in the Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Securities Litigation," postmarked by September 16, 2016, to: Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Garden City Group, LLC, P.O. Box 10274, Dublin, OH 43017-5774. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself, you can object to the Settlement by filing a signed letter with the Court saying that you object to the proposed Settlement in the Corinthian Colleges, Inc. Securities Litigation. Your objection must be filed with the Court and mailed to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel, at the addresses set forth below, no later than September 16, 2016: LEAD COUNSEL Jeremy A. Lieberman POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL John W. Spiegel Munger Tolles & Olson LLP 355 South Grand Avenue 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Any objection must include: (1) your name, address, telephone number, and signature; (2) proof of ownership of Corinthian common stock and membership in the Class; (3) a detailed statement of your objections to any matters before the Court; (4) a written notice of your intention to appear at the hearing (if you intend to appear); and (5) all documents or writings you wish the Court to consider. For copies of the complete settlement documents, please visit the Claims Administrator's website at www.CorinthianSecuritiesLitigation.com or contact the Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-855-907-3149 Any questions regarding the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel. Please do not contact the Court or the Clerk's Office or Defendants' Counsel regarding this Notice. Dated: July 18, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DELAWARE: Court Denies Noble's Motion to File Amended Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Sue L. Robinson of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied a motion to file an amended complaint in the case captioned, THOMAS E. NOBLE, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF DELAWARE, GOVERNOR JACK MARKELL and ANYONE ELSE RESPONSIBLE, Defendants, Case No. 16-188-SLR (D. Del.). According to the Court, Movant Thomas A. Noble, a prose litigant, has engaged in filing numerous lawsuits that contain frivolous legal arguments that are vexatious and abuse the judicial process. On September 13, 2004, United States District Judge Kent A. Jordan entered an order enjoining movant from filing any pro se civil rights complaints without prior approval of the court. Movant was given notice to show cause why injunctive relief should not issue; he responded to the show cause order, but "did not show cause" why the order should not be entered. The barring order issued, and movant did not appeal. Under protest, the movant requests leave to file a complaint against The State of Delaware (the State), Governor Jack Markell (Markell), and anyone else responsible. He states he was served the September 13, 2004 barring order for the first time on June 18, 2016. Movant contends the barring order is inapplicable because it applies solely to prisoners proceeding in forma pauperis, that it does not address allowing him to hire an attorney to file civil rights complaints for him, that it did not address allowing him to proceed pro se if he pays the filing fee, and that the court lacks constitutional authority to require him to seek prior approval to file a complaint if he pays the filing fee. A copy of Judge Robinson's Memorandum dated July 11, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/iTPnRM from Leagle.com. DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES: "Leonard" Suit Goes to Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Catherine D. Perry of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case captioned, MATTHEW LEONARD, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DELAWARE NORTH COMPANIES SPORT SERVICE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:15 CV 1356 CDP (E.D. Mo.). Plaintiff Matthew Leonard worked at a concession stand owned and operated by defendant Delaware North Companies Sportservice, Inc., during one baseball game at Busch Stadium. Leonard alleges that although at the time he believed he was serving as a volunteer to raise money for Washington University in St. Louis, he now knows that he should have been compensated as an employee. Leonard signed a Volunteer Release, Waiver and Indemnification Agreement in which he agreed to submit any dispute arising from his concession stand activities to binding arbitration. DNCS has filed a motion to enforce the arbitration agreement, compel individual arbitration of Leonard's claims, and dismiss the case. In her Memorandum and Order dated July 11, 2016 available at https://is.gd/FsAzHg from Leagle.com, Judge Perry concluded that the arbitration agreement signed by Leonard is enforceable and that all of his claims in the case are encompassed by that agreement. Matthew Leonard is represented by: Ryan Michael Paulus, Esq. Jeremy D. Hollingshead, Esq. John M. Eccher, Esq. OLLINGSHEAD AND PAULUS 8350 N St Clair Ave #225, Kansas City, MO 64151 Tel: (816)581-4040 Delaware North Companies Sport Service, Inc. is represented by Douglas W. King, Esq. -- dking@shandselbert.com -- Kevin Anthony Sullivan, Esq. -- ksullivan@shandselbert.com -- and Mark J. Bremer, Esq. -- mbremer@shandselbert.com -- SHANDS AND ELBERT LLP; Richard L. Alfred, Esq. -- ralfred@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP DRAFTKINGS: Loses Bid to Move Gambling Case to Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------ According to Legal Sports Report, a federal judge has denied the attempt by daily fantasy sports site DraftKings to move a Tennessee lawsuit to federal court. In a June 30, 2016 decision recently obtained by Legal Sports Report, Judge Harry S. Mattice, Jr., granted plaintiff Erica Miller's motion to continue her case in a local Tennessee court. DraftKings had sought to have the lawsuit heard in a federal courthouse. The decision represents one of the first -- if not the first -- formal rulings against a leading DFS provider. Overview of Miller v. DraftKings The case stems from a spouse suing to recover money allegedly lost by her husband. According to Judge Mattice's decision, plaintiff Erica Miller's lawsuit alleged that DraftKings operated "a daily and weekly fantasy sports website that amounts to an unlawful gambling enterprise and/or lottery" under Tennessee state law. The plaintiff claimed damages of $46,400. Ms. Miller filed her lawsuit against DraftKings on April 1, 2016, in Chancery Court of Greene County, Tennessee. Later in April, DraftKings filed legal papers to shift the case from state court to federal court. Ms. Miller contested the shift, desiring to keep the case at the local level. Judge Mattice wrote that the "sole issue" in the federal-state court debate was whether the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. By rule, federal courts only hear cases worth $75,000 or more. Smaller cases stay with state-level courts. An email excerpt included by Judge Mattice in his decision indicated that Miller's attorneys offered to settle the case for $74,000, just shy of the threshold amount. DraftKings made a handful of legal arguments as to why the case should be valued at $75,000 or more, despite the fact that the plaintiff was only claiming damages of $46,400. In one, DraftKings argued that the judge should consider possible punitive damages in the case even though the plaintiff never sought such extra damages. Judge Mattice disagreed with each of DraftKings' claims and ruled that the case should be "remanded" to Tennessee state court where it was initially filed. Judge Mattice's decision made no mention of Tennessee's recent move to enact DFS-enabling legislation. What is the impact of the case? Judge Mattice's decision only pertains to a preliminary issue in the case -- where the litigation should take place. The merits of the case have yet to be decided. However, the decision does provide a hint as to how DraftKings' litigation strategy differs from its legislative stance. In litigation, the Miller case indicates that DraftKings would prefer lawsuits to be heard in federal court. Such a stance makes sense from a consistency perspective. In contrast, fantasy sports bills are moving forward on a state-by-state basis, with considerable resources devoted to lobbying different state legislatures. Despite a Congressional hearing on DFS in May, there does not appear to be any active lobbying for a federal solution to disparate state laws impacting the legality of daily fantasy play. As more of the lawsuits filed in late 2015 and early 2016 reach advanced levels, a clearer picture will emerge if the strategy employed by DraftKings in the Miller case is repeated elsewhere. Multi-district litigation looming The Miller v. DraftKings lawsuit is not part of the large-scale consolidated class action lawsuit transferred to Boston in February. However, the June 30 decision in the Miller v. DraftKings case coincidentally came down the same day a massive 273-page consolidated class action complaint was filed with the federal court in Massachusetts hearing the merged lawsuit. The case includes allegations of negligence, false advertising, fraud and illegal gambling. Plaintiffs in the case come from no fewer than 25 states, including Tennessee. Defendants include DraftKings, FanDuel and certain banks and payment processors. Also included as defendants are close to three dozen investors, a group that includes media companies, sports leagues and venture capital firms. The Boston-based consolidated class action lawsuit in federal court could take years for a resolution. E&S RING: Faces "Kleronomos" Lawsuit Under Calif. Labor Code ------------------------------------------------------------ KLERONOMOS, individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. E & S RING MANAGEMENT CORP., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No: BC 627551 (Cal. Super., Country of Los Angeles, July 19, 2016), was filed under the California Labor Code, the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order, and the California Business and Professions Code. Defendant is a property management company that leases and manages properties. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan Harris, Esq. Rebecca Lee, Esq. HARRIS & RUBLE 655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor Los Angeles, CA 91203 Phone: (323) 962-3777 Fax: (323) 962-3004 E-mail: ahharis@harrisandruble.com rlee@harrisandruble.com ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "East" Suit in Eastern District Louisiana ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Electrolux Home Products, Inc. The case is captioned Angelia East and Sarah LaVergne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-12631 (E.D. Lo., July 11, 2016). Electrolux Home Products, Inc. manufactures and markets home appliances in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Randolph Davis, Esq. SLACK & DAVIS, LLP 2705 Bee Cave Road, Suite 220 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 795-8686 E-mail: jdavis@slackdavis.com ELECTROLUX HOME: Court Strikes Class Allegations in "Waters" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Western Virginia granted in part defendant's motion to dismiss and granted its alternative motion to strike in the case captioned, GLORIA WATERS and WILLIAM HALL, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:13CV151 (STAMP) (N.D. W.Va.). The named plaintiffs live in Weirton, West Virginia. They purchased an Electrolux "high efficiency" washing machine at a Sears Department Store in Steubenville, Ohio in 2009. The plaintiffs originally filed the proposed class action in West Virginia state court alleging claims for consumer fraud, breach of warranties, and unjust enrichment on behalf of all persons in West Virginia who own a washing machine manufactured by Electrolux. The defendants removed the case to the Court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint defining a new class of persons in Ohio who purchased or own a washer manufactured by Electrolux, and alleging violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA), violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Sections 1345.01-1345.13, breach of express warranties, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, tortious breach of warranties, strict products liability, and unjust enrichment. Electrolux then filed a motion to dismiss and to strike the Ohio Class. The Court denied the motion to strike and granted the motion to dismiss, but permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint to allege damages to the named plaintiffs as to their strict products liability claims. The plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint alleging that the named plaintiffs suffered the following damages: (1) damaged or ruined clothing washed in their washing machine; (2) future health risks caused by exposure to the biofilm and mold that developed in their machine; and (3) money spent on cleaning supplies to clean their washing machine. Electrolux then filed the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and alternatively to strike the class allegations. Electrolux argues that the complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Alternatively, Electrolux asks the Court to strike the class allegations. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/9rYnkd from Leagle.com, Judge Stamp said the plaintiffs have plausibly stated claims for strict products liability under West Virginia law. However, the plaintiffs may no longer maintain their class allegations. The Court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss because the plaintiffs have alleged damages to an identifiable set of the named plaintiffs' property: clothing washed in their defective washing machine and granted because the plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege future damages to their health based on exposure to biofilm and mold in their washing machine and that a plaintiff may never recover consequential economic losses resulting from the inability to use the defective product, including lost profits. The plaintiffs are directed to file a third amended complaint. Gloria Waters and William Hall are represented by Amy E. Keller, Esq. -- aek@wexlerwallace.com -- Edward Wallace, Esq. -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- and Michael H. Bowman, Esq. -- mhb@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER WALLACE LLP -- and R. Brent Irby, Esq. -- birby@mhcilaw.com -- MCCALLUM, HOAGLUND COOK & IRBY LLP Electrolux Home Products, Inc. is represented by: Jeffrey A. Holmstrand, Esq. GROVE & DELK, PLLC 44 1/2 Fifteenth Street Wheeling, WV 26003 Tel: (304)905-1961 ELIZABETH ARDEN: Faces "Ross" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Revlon --------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIS ROSS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ELIZABETH ARDEN, INC., E. SCOTT BEATTIE, FRED BERENS, FRANZ- FERDINAND BUERSTEDDE, MAURA J. CLARK, M. STEVEN LANGMAN, EDWARD D. SHIRLEY, WILLIAM M. TATHAM, REVLON, INC., REVLON CONSUMERPRODUCTS CORPORATION, and RR TRANSACTION CORP., Case No: CACE-16-013220 (Fla. Cir., Broward County, July 19, 2016), was filed in connection with Revlon's proposed acquisition of Elizabeth Arden, Inc. Elizabeth Arden, Inc. is a global beauty products company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph E. White III, Esq. Jonathan M. Stein, Esq. Adam D. Warden, Esq. Jordan D. Utanski, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Phone: (561) 394-3399 Fax: (888) 458-9055 E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com jstein@saxenawhite.com awarden@saxenawhite.com jutanski@saxenawhite.com - and - Richard A. Manikas, Esq. RYAN & MANIKAS, LLP 995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Phone: (484) 588-5516 Fax: (484) 450-2582 EXAMWORKS GROUP: Daytona Beach Police Filed Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- ExamWorks Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("ExamWorks" or the "Company") on April 26, 2016, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Gold Parent, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership ("Parent") and Gold Merger Co, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, upon the terms and subject to the conditions of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into ExamWorks (the "Merger"), with ExamWorks surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent. ExamWorks Group said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2016, that following the announcement of the Merger, a putative class action was filed on June 17, 2016 by a purported Company shareholder in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned City of Daytona Beach Police and Fire Pension Fund v. ExamWorks Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 12481 (the "Complaint"). A copy of the Complaint is available at https://goo.gl/MIKLzR FIRST CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First Credit Services, Inc. and John Does 1- 25, Case No. 2:16-cv-04182-WJM-MF (D.N.J., July 11, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. First Credit Services, Inc. provides collection and decline management programs for health clubs and gyms. 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 FITBIT INC: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Sleep Tracker Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge refused on July 15, to dismiss a class action accusing Fitbit of lying to consumers that its wearable devices can track sleep quality. U.S. District Judge James Donato said the plaintiffs had sufficiently stated their consumer deception and warranty claims that Fitbit advertises on its product packaging that its "Flex" device and other products equipped with a sleep-tracking feature can track sleep quality even though it knows the devices can't actually do so. The Flex uses an accelerometer to track things like the number of hours a wearer slept and the number of times they woke up, but the plaintiffs say that accelerometers can only measure movement, and that movement data do not provide an accurate picture of how long and how well a wearer slept. They also say Fitbit charged $30 or more for sleep-tracking products than devices without the function. Donato said the product packaging, coupled with the plaintiffs' own experiences with the products and documents stating that the devices can only measure motion, are enough to bring their claims. Fitbit argued that the plaintiffs hadn't shown that its packaging misleads consumers and that the claims lacked the specificity necessary to allege fraud. "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously and demonstrate that plaintiffs' case has no merit," Fitbit said in a statement on July 18. Fitbit also cited a number of scientific studies finding that accelerometers do accurately track sleep, but Donato declined to consider them because the plaintiffs' claims are based on Fitbit's packaging statements that the devices will "track your night," including "hours slept" and "sleep quality," and not on the products' underlying science. "These are not the kind of vague and empty taglines that courts have treated as non-actionable," Donato said in his ruling. "They are the type of particularized statements that can be sued on because they make measurable claims about a product's characteristics and functionality." Although the plaintiffs have agreed to drop their breach of implied warranty claim, Donato found that the warranty claim could stand because sleep tracking is a key feature of the Flex and Fitbit's other sleep-tracking devices. Fitbit said on July 18, that the court had not addressed the merits of the plaintiffs' allegations in refusing to dismiss the suit. "Due to procedural rules, the court is bound by the complaint and cannot consider the scientific studies that support Fitbit's claim," the company said. "These studies demonstrate that Fitbit trackers do track sleep. Fitbit trackers are not intended to be scientific or medical devices, but are designed to provide meaningful data to our users to help them reach their health and fitness goals." Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for comment on July 15, morning. The plaintiffs are represented by Patrick Perotti -- pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- and Frank Bartela -- fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- of Dworken & Bernstein Co. in Painesville, Ohio. Fitbit is represented by William Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- Erin Bosman -- ebosman@mofo.com -- and Julie Park -- juliepark@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco and San Diego. The case captioned, JAMES P. BRICKMAN, et al., individually and as a representative of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FITBIT, INC., Defendant., Case No. 15-cv-02077-JD (N.D. Cal.). FORESIGHT ENERGY: Must Defend Against "Carver" WARN Act Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Sue E. Myerscough of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied Defendants' motions to dismiss and Plaintiffs' request for oral argument on the motions in the case captioned, NICK CARVER, WADE JACOBS, DALE BASIL, MIKE LEBETER, and ERIC WALLACE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORESIGHT ENERGY LP, MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION, MURRAY AMERICAN COAL, INC, FORESIGHT ENERGY GP LLC, FORESIGHT ENERGY LLC, FORESIGHT ENERGY SERVICES LLC, PATTON MINING LLC, HILLSBORO ENERGY LLC, HILLSBORO ENERGY LLC d/b/a DEER RUN MINE, MURRAY ENERGY HOLDINGS COMPANY, FORESIGHT RESERVES LP, THE CLINE GROUP LLC, CHRISTOPHER CLINE, and DOE DEFENDANTS 1B10 Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-3013 (C.D. Ill.). The Deer Run Mine is a bituminous coal mine operated by the Murray Energy Corporation; Murray American Coal, Inc.; and Murray Energy Holdings Company (Defendants) in Hillsboro, Illinois. The Deer Run Mine employed approximately 160 workers, including Plaintiffs. In March 2016, Plaintiffs Nick Carver, Wade Jacobs, Dale Basil, Mike Lebeter, and Eric Wallace, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, filed a First Amended Complaint against Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act) by failing to give 60 days' notice of their employment loss or the closing of the Deer Run Mine. In the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint establishes that 60 days' notice under WARN Act was excused for the closure of the Deer Run Mine under the Act's natural disaster exception because the combustion events which led to the closure qualify as a natural disaster. Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in opposition (d/e 27), arguing that WARN Act exception determinations are an inappropriate basis for dismissal and that the Amended Complaint alleges that the combustion events did not constitute a natural disaster. In her Opinion dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/bJEE0v from Leagle.com, Judge Myerscough concluded that Plaintiffs have stated a claim for relief and do not allege facts which unambiguously establish that the natural disaster exception to the Act applies because Plaintiffs allege all of the required elements for a claim under the WARN Act. Plaintiffs' Request for Oral Argument is also denied. Nick Carver, et al are represented by Brandon Michael Wise, Esq. -- brandon.wise@thewisefirm.com -- THE WISE FIRM LLC Murray Energy Corporation, et al are represented by Robert Lance Witcher, Esq. -- lance.withcer@ogletreedeakins.com -- Joseph Thomas Charron, Jr., Esq. -- joseph.charron@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Sarah J. Kuehnel, Esq. -- sarah.kuehnel@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC Foresight Energy GP LLC, et al. are represented by Henry Pietrkowski, Esq. -- hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP GOLDEN STATE: "Magana" Suit Claims Violation of Cal. Labor Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- FERMIN MAGANA, on behalf of himself all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, v. GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE INC.; and DOES l-100; Case No: RG 16823732 (Cal. Super., July 19, 2016), alleges failure by the Defendants to comply with California's wage and hours laws, Wage Orders and/or the California Labor Code. GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE INC. owns and operates trucks, industrial trucks, industrial vehicles and/or industrial work sites. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC ú 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92l21 Phone: (619) 234-2833 Fax: (619) 234-4048 GOOGLE INC: Aug. 28 Online Ads Case Management Conference Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Burger, writing for Northern California Record, reports that a massive civil court class-action lawsuit alleging that Google purposely misled and overcharged advertisers for online ads that were placed on error pages and inactive "parked" websites is advancing in the wake of a June 6 Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision not hear Google's appeal to put a halt to the case. Attorneys for class-action members, which may number in the hundreds of thousands, assert that Google violated California's fair advertising laws by misleading advertisers who used Google's AdWords online platform from 2004 to 2008. In its appeal, Google argued that the class action should be stopped as the advertisers' group is heterogeneous does not have a valid, fair or comprehensive method of calculating damages. In 2012, a federal judge ruled that plaintiffs could not file a class-action lawsuit in part because they would each qualify for different amounts of damages. That decision was overturned in California's 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded that lack of a class-wide method for calculating damages in and of itself was insufficient to halt class-action proceedings, Noah Schubert, a partner in the law firm of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP, told the Northern California Record. SCOTUS' June 6 decision upholds the 9th Circuit Court's decision. Furthermore, Mr. Schubert pointed out that his law firm and others participating in the class action are making use of the same methods to calculate damages that Google uses to calculate ad rates for its Smart Pricing program. "We're calculating damages using Google's own Smart Pricing methodology and the differences between what advertisers should have paid and what they actually paid for their online ads," Mr. Schubert said. Class-action attorneys have not publicly disclosed the value of damages for the entire class action, for which plaintiffs number in the hundreds of thousands. More broadly, the lawsuit is likely to set legal precedents that could have ramifications and resolve issues in a wide variety of consumer class action lawsuits, Schubert said. Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe filed the first individual lawsuit that led to formation of the class action in 2008. Having been appointed interim lead counsel for the entire class action, Schubert wrote the legal brief that SCOTUS reviewed in its June 6 decision on behalf of plaintiffs, his firm and the others participating in the lawsuit. Looking ahead, Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California will be adjudicating the case. Judge Davila has scheduled a case management conference for Aug. 28 during which both sides will meet with the judge to discuss how the case will proceed, Schubert said. "From our point of view, the key issue in the case is whether Google concealed from our plaintiffs and the class that their ads were placed on parked and other little or unused websites of little benefit to advertisers," he said. "That representation would be considered false and misleading, in which case the question becomes how much money should be awarded by way of damages." Mr. Schubert declined to comment when asked if he foresees the possibility of a settlement with Google before a possible trial begins. However, he did point out that the case has been going on for eight years, and that plaintiffs and attorneys are looking forward to Judge Davila setting an adjudication schedule that sees the case advance quickly to trial. GREAT SENECA: Texas Fraudulent Sues for Consumers in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------- TEXAS FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS and All Others Similarly Situated v. GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP. Case no: DC-16-08637 (Tex. Dist., July 19, 2016), seeks equitable relief from alleged unlawful, void and fraudulent judgments rendered against consumers in the Courts of Dallas County, Texas. GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP. is "debt buyer" and/or "debt collector" engaged in the business of filing consumer debt collection lawsuits in the Courts of the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: ROSS TETER, Esq. TETER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 815823 Dallas, TX 75381-5823 Phone: (214) 850-8095 Fax (972) 243-2510 E-mail: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com GRUBHUB HOLDINGS: Souran Seeks to Certify Delivery Drivers' Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs ask the Court to conditionally certify the action titled THOMAS SOURAN, KELLY REARDON, ROY WILKIE, CARMEN GONZALEZ, LOUIS RAMZY, ADAM SMITH, and MICAH LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. GRUBHUB HOLDINGS INC. and GRUBHUB INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-06720 (N.D. Ill.), as a collective action under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court for an order allowing notice to be issued to all GrubHub delivery drivers, who have worked for GrubHub since GrubHub began its delivery operation. The Plaintiffs have brought the Case on behalf of delivery drivers, who have worked for the GrubHub -- a food delivery service, which dispatches drivers through a mobile phone application or through GrubHub's Web site. The Plaintiffs allege that GrubHub has misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors and, thereby, has failed to comply with the FLSA by not paying the delivery drivers minimum wage for each work week and by failing to pay the delivery drivers time-and-a-half for the hours that they worked beyond 40 per week. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lC5ILCWK The Plaintiffs are represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 323-1550 Facsimile: (312) 323-1560 E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com - and - Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com - and - Matthew D. Carlson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 466 Geary St., Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com HANNIBAL, MO: Court Narrows Claims in Suit Over Red Lights ---------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge E. Richard Webber of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Defendant City of Hannibal's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and dismissed Counts I, II, III, IV, V, and VIII of Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned, JACOB BLAIR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF HANNIBAL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15CV00061 ERW (E.D. Mo.). Plaintiffs Jacob and Sarah Blair (Plaintiffs) filed a Class Action Complaint in the Court on August 25, 2015, against Defendants City of Hannibal (Hannibal), Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. (Redflex) and Does 1 through 24 alleging Hannibal's red light camera program is unconstitutional. On November 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (Amended Complaint) against Defendants asserting the following eight counts: (I) Declaratory Judgment and Request for Injunction pursuant to Missouri Revised Statute Sec. 527.010 et seq; (II) Violation of Plaintiffs' Constitutional Rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I Sec. 10 of the Missouri Constitution; (III) Unjust Enrichment; (IV) Abuse of Process; (V) Civil Conspiracy; (VI) Aiding and Abetting against Redflex; (VII) Damages for Violation of Missouri Revised Statute Sec. 484.010, et seq, against Redflex; and (VIII) Money Had and Received. On May 5, 2016, Hannibal filed the pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings asserting these arguments: (1) Count I for declaratory and injunctive relief fails because Plaintiffs have an adequate legal remedy; (2) Count II fails because Plaintiffs have waived any constitutional claims they may have had; (3) if Plaintiffs have not waived their constitutional claims, Count II still fails because Plaintiffs have not pled a constitutional claim which entitles them to relief; (4) Counts III and VIII of Amended Complaint fail, as a matter of law, because they are barred by the voluntary payment doctrine; and (5) Counts III, IV, V, and VIII fail, as a matter of law, because they are barred by the sovereign immunity doctrine. Plaintiffs opposed, contending that their Amended Complaint states, with sufficient factual detail, multiple viable claims against Hannibal for their illegal scheme. In his Memorandum and Order dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/cfSWjtu from Leagle.com, Judge Webber dismissed Counts III, IV, V, and VIII finding that the red light program is a governmental function so that Hannibal is entitled to sovereign immunity. Count II is also dismissed because Plaintiffs waived their constitutional claims by paying the fine and pleading guilty and Count I because injunctive and declaratory relief are not appropriate. Jacob Blair and Sarah Blair are represented by: Nathan D. Sturycz, Esq. STURYCZ WATTS LLC 5757 Phantom Dr #250 Hazelwood, MO 63042 Tel: (877)314-3223 Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. is represented by JoAnn Tracy Sandifer, Esq. -- joann.sandifer@huschblackwell.com -- and Omri E. Praiss, Esq. -- omri.praiss@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP HOMELAND SECURITY: TSA Workers' Suit Has Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion to approve notice of collective actions and to conditionally certify a class in the case captioned, K.H., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-02740-JST (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff K.H. filed the action against Defendant Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), on June 18, 2015. Plaintiffs K.H., C.V., W.L., and J.M. (Plaintiffs K.H., et al.) are over 40 years of age and are Federal Air Marshals (FAMs). Plaintiffs are employed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security. Plaintiffs Jeffrey Boyer, Brian Pierog, Donna Baxter, Karnel McMahan, Richard DeVivo, Gary McConaghy, and Kristen Pavkovich (Plaintiffs Boyer, et. al.) are over 40 years of age and were FAMs in the Federal Air Marshal Service's (FAMS) Pittsburgh Field Office. Plaintiff K.H. filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint on July 22, 2014. One month later, Plaintiff filed an amended EEO complaint. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took no action on Plaintiff's complaints within the 180-day requirement. Plaintiff K.H. filed this claim for relief against the DHS for age discrimination on June 18, 2015, under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and/or strike Plaintiff's Complaint on September 4, 2015. The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion. Plaintiffs filed their operative FAC on January 15, 2016. DHS filed a second motion to dismiss on February 5, 2016. The motion was granted in part and denied in part on April 26, 2016. Plaintiffs filed the motion to approve notice and to conditionally certify the class on April 15, 2016. Plaintiffs assert that conditional certification is appropriate in light of their allegations that the putative class members "(1) are FAMs employed by Defendant; (2) performed the same duties; (3) worked in the Cincinnati, Cleveland, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Diego, or Tampa Field Office; and (4) were subjected to the FAMS' decision to close their respective Field Offices." DHS does not oppose conditional certification. In his Order dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/8duD22 from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar concluded that Plaintiffs have offered substantial allegations that the putative class members were all harmed by a policy or decision that resulted in the closing of the TSA offices at which they worked and that conditional certification and approval of the proposed notice are both appropriate. Case Management Conference is scheduled for January 18, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. and a Joint Case Management Statement is due January 9, 2017. K.H., et al. are represented by Nicholas Michael Wieczorek, Esq. -- nwieczorek@mpplaw.com -- and Jeremy J. Thompson, Esq. -- jthompson@mpplaw.com -- MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP -- Ernest B. Orsatti, Esq. -- eborsatti@rothmangordon.com -- ROTHMAN GORDON, P.C. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is represented by: Wendy M. Garbers, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 2242 Washington, DC 20530-0001 Tel: (202) 514-2000 ILLINOIS WORK INJURY: Certification of 3 Classes Sought ------------------------------------------------------- PRS, LLC asks the Court to enter an order determining that the action captioned PRS, LLC, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v. CENTRAL ILLINOIS WORK INJURY RESOURCE CENTER, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-07497 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendants. PRS defines the classes as: For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Central Illinois Work Injury Resource Center, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice. For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Central Illinois Work Injury Resource Center, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice. For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV, alleging nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Central Illinois Work Injury Resource Center, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice. The Plaintiff further asks that it be appointed as class representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9BsFZ4jC The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Dulijaza Clark, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com ccombs@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com jclark@edcombs.com INSMED INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on July 18 disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against Insmed, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Insmed securities between March 18, 2013 and June 8, 2016, for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Insmed's officers and directors. Insmed, a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of inhaled therapies for patients with serious lung diseases. The company's lead product candidate is known as Arikayce, or liposomal amikacin, for treatment of nontuberculous mycobacteria ("NTM") lung disease. View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog: www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/insmed-inc Insmed Accused of Misleading Investors About Its Lead Product Candidate According to the complaint, throughout the class period, Insmed submitted several filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission touting positive financial results and stating that the financial information was accurate and disclosed any material changes to the company's internal control over financial reporting. In fact, with regard to its clinical trials, Insmed officials spoke with confidence, stating, "Collectively, these data sets bring us closer to our goal to commercialize a potentially life-saving treatment for patients suffering from these orphan lung diseases." In addition, Insmed officials seemed optimistic about Arikayce's potential for commercialization, stating, "We continue to advance our regulatory filing and our preparations for commercialization in Europe." However, the complaint alleges that Insmed officials failed to disclose that: (i) the data on which Insmed's European marketing authorization application ("MAA") for Arikayce relied was not likely to support approval by the European Medicines Agency ("EMA") for the treatment of NTM lung disease; (ii) Arikayce's approval by the EMA for treatment of NTM lung disease and subsequent commercialization in Europe were thus less likely and/or imminent than Insmed had led investors to believe; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Insmed's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On June 8, 2016, Insmed announced that it had withdrawn its MAA from the EMA for Arikayce for the treatment of NTM lung disease. The company revealed that the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use indicated that the phase 2 study did not provide a sufficient amount of evidence to support an approval. On this news, Insmed stock fell $0.99 per share, or 8.24%, to close at $11.02 per share on June 9, 2016. Insmed 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 -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a shareholder rights law firm. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. INSTANT TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Robles" Suit in Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Instant Transportation, LLC and Ardit Islamaj. The case is captioned Milained Robles, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Instant Transportation, LLC and Ardit Islamaj, Case No. 1685CV01018 (Mass. Sup. Ct., July 11, 2016). The Defendants own and operate a transportation company in Worcester, Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jeremy Shafran, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State St. Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 723-7700 Facsimile: (617) 227-0313 E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com INTERSTATE-RIM: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that the proper payment of overtime and allowance for mandated meal and rest periods remains a basic tenet of California labor amidst a basket of rights for employees in the Golden State. And yet, employers continue to violate overtime pay laws and other basic employee rights entrenched in state laws. One of the latest examples is an overtime pay lawsuit filed against Interstate-RIM Management Company LLC. The lead plaintiff in the proposed class action lawsuit, Nancy Ramirez, holds in her action that Interstate-RIM pays their non-exempt employees, non- discretionary incentive pay based on job performance. While the plaintiff has no issue with the payment of such incentive pay, the complaint centers on the allegation that Interstate-RIM failed to include this non-discretionary incentive pay when calculating overtime. To that end, the incentive pay should have rightly been reflected in a non-exempt employee's hourly rate for the purposes of computing overtime. Any missed meal breaks and rest periods, as mandated by California overtime law, should be associated as extra time worked and thus, qualify for overtime as well. The class action unpaid overtime lawsuit alleges that not only were all overtime hours not properly compensated, but that Interstate-RIM did not have a policy in place in order to facilitate the provision of a 30-minute meal period, provided without interruption, prior to the 5th hour of work as mandated by California employment law. The overtime pay class action identified Interstate-RIM as one of the largest hotel management companies in the US. Ms. Ramirez seeks to represent all non-exempt employees who worked for Interstate-RIM at any time during a period beginning four years prior to the date the complaint was filed (June 24, 2016), and ending on a date to be determined by the Court. According to the unpaid overtime lawsuit, the amount of damages sought is under $5 million. The lawsuit also holds that Interstate-RIM required their non-exempt employees to work off the clock on a consistent basis. The conduct is described as requiring non-exempt employees to clock out, only to be detained for the purposes of answering emails and text messages on behalf of the employer, without benefitting from compensation. "Defendant's uniform policy and practice not to pay Plaintiff and other California Class Members for all time worked, including overtime worked, is evidenced by Defendant's business records," the lawsuit states. The complaints include unfair competition in violation of the California labor code, failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to provide accurate itemized statements, and failure to reimburse employees for required expenses. The lawsuit is Nancy Ramirez et al v. Interstate-RIM Management Company, LLC, Case No. BC624979, filed June 24 of this year in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles. JB HUNT: "Lipford" Sues Over Discrimination ------------------------------------------- Richard Lipford, Plaintiff, v. J.B. Hunt Transportation, Inc. and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Defendants, Case No. L-2552-16 (N.J. Sup., July 12, 2016), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees, equitable back and front pay, reinstatement, equitable instatement or promotion and any other relief under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Plaintiff was employed as a delivery driver from April 2015 until his discriminatory termination on or about January 19, 2016. He injured his back while delivering a refrigerator. Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Tel: (856) 727-9700 JOHNSON CONTROLS: Court Denies Motion to Remand "Hostetler" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon E. Deguilio of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana denied a motion to remand in the case captioned, AMOS and DEBBIE HOSTETLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV- 226 JD (N.D. Ind.). The case is a putative class action arising out of alleged environmental contamination that originated at a plant formerly operated by defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. The plaintiffs, a number of individuals who own property or reside in an adjacent neighborhood, allege that contamination primarily consisting of trichloroethylene (TCE) entered the groundwater and migrated onto their properties. In 2007, Johnson Controls sold the plant to defendant Tocon Holdings, LLC, which briefly operated a manufacturing facility at the property, and more recently began demolishing the plant, which the plaintiffs argue has caused additional environmental hazards. The plaintiffs filed the action in state court, asserting a number of claims arising under state law on behalf of a proposed class consisting of individuals who have owned, rented, or occupied properties affected by the contamination. After litigating the case in state court for nearly a year, Johnson Controls filed a notice of removal, invoking federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. Plaintiffs move to remand the case to state court. In support, they present three separate grounds: -- they argue that the notice of removal was untimely under the removal statute. -- they argue that Johnson Controls waived its right to remove by litigating the case in state court prior to filing its notice of removal. -- they argue that the case falls under the local controversy exception to the Class Action Fairness Act, which requires a court to relinquish jurisdiction over cases that meet prescribed statutory elements showing that the case is truly local in nature. In his Opinion and Order dated July 11, 2016 available at http://is.gd/0CuU30from Leagle.com, Judge Deguilio found that they have failed to satisfy each of the elements of the local controversy exception because Plaintiffs have failed to show that greater than two-thirds of the members of the proposed class are citizens of Indiana. Amos Hostetler, et al. are represented by Michael P. O'Neil, Esq. -- moneil@taftlaw.com -- Thomas A. Barnard, Esq. -- tbarnard@taftlaw.com -- Melissa A. Gardner, Esq. -- mgardner@taftlaw.com -- and Rodney L. Michael, Jr., Esq. -- rmichael@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP They are also represented by: John D. Ulmer, Esq. YODER AINLAY ULMER & BUCKINGHAM LLP 130 N Main St, Goshen, IN 46526 Tel: (574)533-1171 Johnson Controls Inc., et al. are represented by Andrew E. Skroback, Esq. -- andrew.skroback@btlaw.com -- Lauren T. Lee, Esq. -- william.lee@btlaw.com -- Scott W. Coyle, Esq. -- scott.coyle@btlaw.com -- and Thomas Joseph Hall, Esq. -- thomas.hall@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP KROGER CO: Removed "Coffelt" Class Suit to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been commenced against The Kroger Co., The Pictsweet Company, CRF Frozen Foods, LLC, and Does 1 through 25, inclusive. The case is captioned Roger Coffelt, Jr., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. The Kroger Co., The Pictsweet Company, CRF Frozen Foods, LLC, and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 5:16-cv-01471-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal., July 7, 2016). The Kroger Co. operates a supermarket chain throughout the United States. The Pictsweet Company and CRF Frozen Foods, LLC are growers, packers and distributors of frozen vegetables and vegetables with sauce blends for retail and foodservice markets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq. Joshua H. Watson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CLAYEO C ARNOLD APLC 111 W. Ocean Blvd., Fourth Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 216-8270 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: clay@justice4you.com jwatson@justice4you.com LAND RESTORATION: Faces Tex. Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- SERGIO CONTRERAS and ALBERTO SANCHEZ, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, v. LAND RESTORATION LLC and LAND RESTORATION HOLDINGS LLC, Case 1:16-cv-00883 (W.D Tex., July, 19, 2016), seeks actual damages, liquidated damages, a declaratory judgment, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, taxable costs of court, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant Land Restoration LLC is a company that does landscaping, pool, and masonry design, construction and maintenance. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert W. Schmidt, Esq. Joe K. Crews, Esq. CREWS LAW FIRM, P.C. 701 Brazos, Suite 900 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: (512) 346-7077 Fax: (512) 342-0007 E-mail: schmidt@crewsfirm.com LYFT INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Teague" Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Bryan Teague, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01768-BTM-MDD (S.D. Cal., July 7, 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. Lyft, Inc. operates a transportation network company based in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas J. Campion, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J CAMPION 17150 Via Del Campo, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (619) 299-2091 Facsimile: (619) 858-0034 E-mail: doug@djcampion.com MAGNUSSENS FREMONT: "Valdez" Suit Claims Consumers Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUAN VALDEZ, an individual; and, on behalf all others similarly situated, v. MAGNUSSENS FREMONT IMPORTS, Inc. an active California corporation, dba MAGNUSSENS LEXUS OF FREMONT; TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, an active California corporation, dba LEXUS FINANCIAL SERVICES; and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, Case No: RG 18823774 (Cal. Super., County of Alameda County, July 19, 2016), alleges violation of Consumers Legal Remedies Act and of California Vehicle Leasing Act. MAGNUSSENS FREMONT LEXUS is in the business of buying, repairing and re-selling used vehicles to the general public, and, taking vehicles in trade. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Liberty, Esq. LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES, 553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A Foster City, CA 94404 Phone: (650) 341-0300 Fax: (650)403-1783 MARGARET BRADFORD: "Briggs" Sues Over House Defects --------------------------------------------------- Ginger Briggs, Plaintiff, v. Margaret Bradford, Joe Session, Angellero Session and Does 1-30, Defendants, Case No. RG16822884 (Cal. Super., July 12, 2016), seeks general and special damages including property damage and losses, punitive and exemplary damages, statutory damages, compensatory damages for losses resulting from humiliation, mental anguish, frustration, annoyance and emotional distress, incidental expenses, past, present and future, interest, attorney's fees and costs of suit incurred, pre- judgment interest, statutory penalties and such other and further relief for tortious and contractual breach of the implied warranty of habitability, breach of contract and violation of California Civil Codes. Defendants own and manage the residential unit that the plaintiffs reside in, wherein they find mold and mildew contamination, water leaks and intrusion, defective windows and inadequate weather stripping. Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Wolff, Esq. Chris Beatty, Esq. 2 LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC 1956 Webster Street, Ste. 275 3 Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: (510) 834-3300 Fax: (510) 834-3377 Email: andrew@awolfflaw.com chris@awolfflaw.com MARTIN AVENUE: Class Cert. Hearing in Podiatry Suit on Aug. 23 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on July 20, 2016, in the case styled Podiatry In Motion, Inc. v. Martin Avenue Pharmacy, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-06556 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman. The minute entry states that: -- motion hearing was held on July 20, 2016; -- Plaintiff's motion to continue its motion for class certification is granted; -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is entered and continued to August 23, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. -- status hearing is set for August 23, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rMrFvXwA MASSAGE GREEN: Class Claims Tossed, Suit Goes to Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Defendant's unopposed motion to compel individual arbitration, strike Plaintiff's class claims, and dismiss the Complaint without prejudice in the case captioned, ASHLEY SALBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MASSAGE GREEN INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-02805-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.). Ashley Salberg filed a putative class action against Defendant Massage Green International Franchise Corporation. The Complaint alleges six causes of action against Defendant, which are all premised on Defendant's alleged failure to pay wages and overtime pursuant to state and federal wage and hour laws. On May 5, 2016, Defendant filed an unopposed motion to (1) compel individual arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Sec. 2; (2) strike any references to class allegations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) or alternatively, dismiss all class claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); and (3) stay litigation until the completion of individual arbitration pursuant to 9 U.S.C. Sec. 3 or alternatively, dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff is a party to an arbitration agreement which covers all the claims alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint and requires that they be resolved exclusively through individual arbitration. The Agreement also provides that it be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) because the "company's business involves interstate commerce," and that it be in conformity with the procedures of the California Arbitration Act (CAA). In his Order dated July 11, 2016 available at https://is.gd/gfEdl2 from Leagle.com, Judge Curiel found that Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated that the Agreement is valid and enforceable under the FAA and that the Agreement encompasses all of Plaintiff's claims of unpaid wages and overtime, which are directly related to Plaintiff's employment. In addition, the Court found that the clear language of the Agreement expressly forbids class certification in arbitration and requires that any issues relating to Plaintiff's employment be decided by individual arbitration. The Court exercises its discretion to conclude that dismissal is appropriate and granted Defendant's alternative request to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(b)(6) without prejudice because Plaintiff expressly waived the rights to bring class claims, which leaves only Plaintiff's individual claims remaining in the action. Ashley Salberg is represented by Alisa A. Martin, Esq. -- alisa@amartinlaw.com -- AMARTIN LAW, PC; and Lindsay Christine David, Esq. -- lcdavid@sdlawoffices.com -- SAN DIEGO COUNTY LAW OFFICES Massage Green International Franchise Corporation is represented by Boris Sorsher, Esq. -- bsorsher@fisherphillips.com -- Nathan K. Low, Esq. -- nlow@fisherphillips.com -- and Usama Kahf, Esq. -- ukahf@fisherphillips.com -- FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP MATAGRANO INC: "Alapati" Suit Alleges Violation of Cal. Wage Laws ----------------------------------------------------------------- T.J ALAPATI on behalf of himself all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. MATAGRANO INC., and DOES- 100, Case No: RG 16323713 (Cal. Super., County of Alameda, July 19, 2016), alleges violation of the Defendant due to failure to comply with California's wage and hours laws, Wage Orders, and/or the California Labor Code. MATAGRANO INC. owns, and operates trucks, industrial trucks, industrial vehicles and/or industrial work sites. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jamie Serb, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Diego, CA 92121 Phone: (619) 234-2833 MDL 2624: Krause Seeks Certification of Classes in Adware Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Krause, John Whittle, Rhonda Estrella, Jessica Bennett and Robert Ravencamp, Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Lenovo Adware Litigation, MDL No. 5:15-md-02624- RMW (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court for an order certifying, as to Defendant Lenovo, 12 causes of action on behalf of these three Classes: (1) Direct Purchaser Class (represented by Richard Krause, Esq., and Robert Ravencamp, Esq.): All persons who purchased one or more Lenovo computer models, on which VisualDiscovery was installed, in the United States directly from Lenovo. (2) Indirect Purchaser Class (represented by Jessica Bennett, Esq., Rhonda Estrella, Esq., and John Whittle, Esq.): All persons who purchased one or more Lenovo computer models, on which VisualDiscovery was installed, in the United States from someone other than Lenovo. (3) California Class (represented by Jessica Bennett, Esq. and Rhonda Estrella, Esq.): All persons who purchased one or more Lenovo computer models, on which VisualDiscovery was installed, in California. The Plaintiffs also seek an order certifying Richard Krause, Esq., John Whittle, Esq., Rhonda Estrella, Esq., Jessica Bennett, Esq., and Robert Ravencamp, Esq., as Class Representatives and certifying the law firms of Pritzker Levine LLP, Girard Gibbs LLP and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, LLP as Class Counsel. The litigation arises from the wrongful conduct of Defendants Lenovo and Superfish secretly installing malware called VisualDiscovery on the Plaintiffs' laptop computers, according to the Motion. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, VisualDiscovery operated continuously in the background, analyzing and injecting ads into visited webpages. The malware intercepted both unencrypted and encrypted web traffic, allowing Superfish to obtain the content of the Plaintiffs' communications and jeopardize the security of the Plaintiffs' private and information. VisualDiscovery negatively impacted the computers' performance in material ways. Consequently, the Plaintiffs allege, all Class members overpaid for Lenovo laptops installed with VisualDiscovery malware. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IrSjvBM8 The Court will commence a hearing on September 23, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Shiho Yamamoto, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: jkl@pritkzkerlevine.com ecp@pritzkerlevine.com sy@pritzkerlevine.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Elizabeth A. Kramer, Esq. Andre M. Mura, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com eak@girardgibbs.com amm@classlawgroup.com - and - Steven N. Williams, Esq. Matthew K. Edling, Esq. Alexandra P. Summer, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com medling@cpmlegal.com asummer@cpmlegal.com MEDIFIT CORPORATE: Final Hearing on "Flores" Suit Deal on Nov. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William H. Orrick entered an order in the lawsuit entitled FRANCISCO FLORES v. MEDIFIT CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-03423-WHO (N.D. Cal.), granting a motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court preliminarily approves the MediFit Corporate Services, Inc. "Wage and Hour" Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims, based on the Court's determination that the Settlement is within the range of possible final approval. Per the parties' Joint Response to Court's Notes Regarding Hearing on Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and their representations at the preliminary approval hearing held on July 20, 2016, the Court approved certain amendments to the Settlement Agreement. Judge Orrick conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the proposed Plaintiff Classes, defined: California Class: All persons who worked in California for Defendant, or its entity, MediFit Community Services, LLC, at any point since June 16, 2011 as a group exercise instructor, personal trainer, or swim instructor. FLSA Class: All persons who worked in California for Defendant, or its entity, MediFit Community Services, LLC, at any point since June 16, 2012 as a group exercise instructor, personal trainer, or swim instructor. The Court provisionally (i) finds Scott Cole & Associates, APC to be sufficiently experienced and proficient in class action proceedings that they may act as Class Counsel and are, therefore, appointed as such, (ii) appoints Francisco Flores and Giulia Ferraris as the representatives of the Plaintiff Classes, and (iii) appoints Rust Consulting as the Settlement Administrator. The Court approves, as to form and content, the Class Notice and the Second Amended Complaint. The final approval hearing will be held on November 9, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=x1s92tfg MICHAELS STORES: Rowe Seeks to Certify Retail Store Workers Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled LAUREL ROWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MICHAELS STORES, INC. and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-01592-EJD (N.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify a class consisting of: All persons who are employed or have been employed by Defendants in California, in a retail store, who were, at any time within four years of the filing of this Complaint, classified as a non-exempt retail store employee. Laurel Rowe also moves the Court to certify the Terminated Subclass consisting of: All members of the Plaintiff Class whose employment ended during the Class Period. Excluded from the Class and Terminated Subclass are all claims resolved in the case titled Ragano v. Michaels Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:11-CV-11-3908-CRB (N.D. Cal.), for all individuals who opted in to the settlement class, and only during those time periods governed by the terms of the class settlement agreement in this prior action. Also excluded are any Assistant Store Managers, Store Managers, and Support Specialists. The Plaintiff further moves the Court for appointment of the Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of the Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on October 20, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VwcdyCa8 The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr. #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com MIDLAND FUNDING: 6th Cir. Affirms Approval of Revised Deal ---------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. of the Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirmed the district court's approval of a revised settlement agreement, certifying a class or approving the class notice in the case captioned, ELAINE PELZER; DIANNE FREDERICK; RAUL OSORIO, Intervenors-Appellants, v. MARTHA VASSALLE; JEROME JOHNSON; ANDREA BRENT; HOPE FRANKLIN; CLASS MEMBERS, Plaintiffs- Appellees, MIDLAND FUNDING LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-4156 (6th Cir.). The case is a nationwide class settlement of three class-action lawsuits arising from similar factual predicates. In the oldest of the three, Midland Funding v. Brent, Midland Funding LLC (Midland Funding) filed a debt-collection action in April of 2008 against Andrea Brent in the Municipal Court of Sandusky, Ohio. The parties in the Brent, Franklin, and Vassalle actions finally reached an agreement and presented it to the [district] court on March 9, 2011. In the settlement, the parties stipulated to the certification of a class that included all natural persons sued by Midland between January 1, 2005, and the date upon which the court would enter preliminary approval of the class action settlement in any debt collection lawsuit in any court where an affidavit attesting to facts about the underlying debt was used by Midland in connection with the debt collection lawsuit. The settlement provided for both monetary and injunctive relief. The district court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 11, 2011. Out of a class that included approximately 1.4 million members, over 133,000 class members, or 9.2% of the class, filed claims, while 4,262, or about 0.3% opted out, and 61, or about 0.004% filed objections. On August 11, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted final approval of the settlement. Eight of the objectors appealed. The Appeals Court reversed the district court's order approving the settlement, vacated the judgment certifying the nationwide settlement class and the award of attorneys' fees, and remanded the case for further proceedings. On remand, the parties engaged in a new round of settlement negotiations. In the revised settlement, the injunctive relief remains in place. Under the provision, Midland must "create and implement procedures for the generation and use of affidavits in debt-collection lawsuits, which procedures would be reasonably assured to prevent the use of affidavits in debt-collection lawsuits where the affiant lacked personal knowledge of the facts set forth in the affidavit." A retired federal judge has been appointed Special Master to monitor Midland's compliance with the injunction, and has issued orders approving certain language in the revised affidavits. The term of the stipulated injunction has been extended to last for five years instead of one. Both parties retain the right to seek relief from or modification of the approved affidavits The district court preliminarily approved the revised settlement on November 27, 2013. On May 15, 2014, the district court held a fairness hearing. Counsel for the parties and the objectors presented argument. On October 14, 2014, the district court issued an opinion and order approving the revised settlement, certifying the class, and finding the notice adequate. The district court also awarded class counsel their requested fee of $1.5 million plus $14,809 in expenses. A group of objectors appeal the district court's approval of the revised settlement, approval of the class notice, and certification of the class. In his Opinion dated July 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/mls4Fe from Leagle.com, Judge Cole held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in approving the settlement, certifying the class, or approving the class notice. MONEY STORE: Class Decertification After Jury Verdict Proper ------------------------------------------------------------ Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a class of mortgage borrowers awarded $32 million by a jury was properly decertified after the verdict, the Second Circuit said (Mazzei v. Money Store, 2016 BL 227527, 2d Cir., No. 15-2054, 7/15/16 ). Decertification after a jury verdict but before the entry of final judgment comports with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, the federal rule that governs class actions, and the Seventh Amendment right to a jury, Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote July 15 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Defense attorney Rebecca Weinstein Bacon said decertification after a jury verdict doesn't happen often, but that's because "class action trials are kind of like unicorns -- you don't see a lot of them." But a number of courts have recognized that the procedure is appropriate, Ms. Bacon, a partner at Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP in Chicago, told Bloomberg BNA. "This is a good reminder for defendants that there are a lot of opportunities up until final judgment to take a stab at decertification," she said. A Teachable Moment Decertification is always a risk class plaintiffs' face, plaintiffs' attorney Jonathan D. Selbin told Bloomberg BNA. Mr. Selbin is a partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP in New York. Mr. Selbin said he and colleague Elizabeth Cabraser are using the decision as a teachable moment with the more junior attorneys at their firm. "It means you've got to be really careful that your evidence comes in exactly as you said it would," he said. "You've got to try it as a class action start to finish." Ms. Bacon and Mr. Selbin represented the opposing parties in one of the few consumer class actions to go to trial in recent years. The jury ruled in favor of Whirlpool Corp. over allegations that its front-loading washing machines were prone to mold in In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washer Prods. Liab. Litig. (Glazer v. Whirlpool Corp.) , N.D. Ohio, No. 08-65001, verdict 10/30/14 (15 CLASS 1265, 11/14/14). Improper Late Fees After Joseph Mazzei defaulted on a mortgage loan, it was accelerated, meaning the entire principal and interest became due. He filed a class action against The Money Store and other loan servicers alleging they improperly charged late fees after the acceleration. Mr. Mazzei won certification for a class of borrowers whose loans were owned or serviced by the lender. A jury awarded $133.80 to Mr. Mazzei and $32 million to the class. The defendants moved for decertification after the verdict. The trial judge granted the motion, finding that Mr. Mazzei failed to prove through classwide evidence that borrowers whose loans were only serviced by The Money Store had a contractual relationship with the company. High Decertification Standard On appeal, Mr. Mazzei argued that decertification isn't available after a jury verdict. But the Second Circuit said Rule 23 provides that a certification order "may be altered or amended before final judgment." The decertification didn't impinge on the class's right to a trial by jury under the Seventh Amendment either, the appeals court said. Mr. Mazzei will receive the $134 in individual damages awarded to him by the jury, the court said. The decertification order vacated the $32 million class award. But the absent class members are still able to file individual actions for breach of contract damages because the statute of limitations on their claims was tolled by the class action. The last relevant question on appeal, the court said, was how to deal with the jury finding that the absent class members were all in privity with the defendant when the judge found otherwise. "We hold that when a district court considers decertification (or modification) of a class after a jury verdict, the district court must defer to any factual findings the jury necessarily made unless those findings were 'seriously erroneous,' a 'miscarriage of justice,' or 'egregious,'" the court said. This high standard of error was met, making decertification appropriate here, the appeal court concluded. Judges Amalya L. Kearse and Ralph K. Winter joined the opinion. Sharma & DeYoung LLP and Paul Grobman in New York represented Mazzei. McCarter & English LLP represented the defendants. MORGAN KEEGAN: Court Grants Motion to Compel Payment ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted Plaintiffs' emergency motion to compel the settlement administrator to make payments to class members in the case captioned, JOHN W. CROMEANS, JR., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN KEEGAN & CO., INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:12-CV-04269-NKL (W.D. Mo.). Under the Court-approved settlement, Plaintiffs' attorneys have already been paid fees and expenses, and the settlement administrator is prepared to disburse about $4.4 million to class members who have submitted valid claims. However, the process has been delayed by a post-settlement dispute between the parties. Plaintiffs have claimed that Defendants were required under the settlement agreement to deposit more money for payments to class members. Plaintiffs claimed that some of the bonds at issue were sold after the class period and are now held by non-class members, so those bonds could not be tendered as part of the claims process. Plaintiffs therefore argued that Defendants owe an additional $411,618 to the class. The Court has rejected Plaintiffs' argument and ruled that Defendants do not owe the class an additional $411,618. Plaintiffs move to compel the settlement administrator to proceed to make payments to class members who have submitted valid proofs of claim. Morgan Keegan takes the position that the settlement administrator cannot do so while Plaintiffs' appeal is pending before the Eighth Circuit and that the Court lacks jurisdiction to enter such an order. In her Order and Reasons dated July 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/tfE5Yc from Leagle.com, Judge Laughrey held that Plaintiffs' present appeal does not trigger a stay of settlement administration. John W. Cromeans is represented by Andrew P. Campbell, Esq. -- andy.campbell@campbellguin.com -- Stephen D. Wadsworth, Esq. -- stephen.wadsworth@campbellguin.com -- and John C. Guin, Esq. -- jonathan.guin@campbellguin.com -- CAMPBELL, GUIN, WILLIAMS, GUY & GIDIERE LLC Plaintiff is also represented by: J. Timothy Francis, Esq. JAMES L. NORTH & ASSOCIATES Title Building, 300 Richard Arrington Jr Blvd N, Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: (205)251-0252 -- and -- Richard E. McLeod, Esq. THE MCLEOD LAW FIRM PC 2020 Wyandotte St. Kansas City, MO 64108 Tel: (816)421-5656 Elkton Bank and Trust Company, et al. are represented by Caroline Smith Gidiere, Esq. Stephen D. Wadsworth, Esq. -- stephen.wadsworth@campbellguin.com -- and John C. Guin, Esq. -- jonathan.guin@campbellguin.com -- CAMPBELL, GUIN, WILLIAMS, GUY & GIDIERE LLC -- J. Timothy Francis, Esq. -- JAMES L. NORTH & ASSOCIATES -- Richard E. McLeod, Esq. -- THE MCLEOD LAW FIRM PC They are also represented by: J. Timothy Francis, Esq. JAMES L. NORTH & ASSOCIATES Title Building, 300 Richard Arrington Jr Blvd N, Birmingham, AL 35203 Tel: (205)251-0252 -- and -- Richard E. McLeod, Esq. THE MCLEOD LAW FIRM PC 2020 Wyandotte St. Kansas City, MO 64108 Tel: (816)421-5656 Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc. and Armstrong Teasdale LLP are represented by Esq. Charles W. Hatfield, Esq. -- chuck.hatfield@stinson.com -- Erin M. Naeger, Esq. -- erin.naeger@stinson.com -- and Jeremy A. Root, Esq. -- jeremy.root@stinson.com -- STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP MOTION PICTURE: Sued Over Ratings on Films with Tobacco Imagery --------------------------------------------------------------- Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that plaintiffs defend a lawsuit seeking an injunction where no films featuring tobacco imagery can be given "G," "PG" or "PG-13" ratings. Imagine Coke, Pepsi and Dr. Pepper formed a trade association that inspected soft drinks, and despite knowing that a certain ingredient caused debilitating diseases that would result in one million deaths, decided to put labels on bottles certifying that the contents are suitable for children under 17 to drink. That's a hypothetical conjured up by plaintiffs suing the Motion Picture Association of America over films rated "G," "PG," and "PG-13" that contain tobacco imagery. "This case is no different," write the plaintiffs in a memorandum filed on July 15. The MPAA, its studio members and the National Association of Theatre Owners are defending against what they see as an impingement of free speech. In response to a putative class action flagging such films as Dumb and Dumber To, Transformers: Age of Extinction and Iron Man 3 as featuring smoking imagery yet recommended for young audiences, the defendants characterize movie ratings as "opinions" about what most American parents would think about the suitability of a motion picture for viewing by children. "The First Amendment provides those opinions with 'full constitutional protection' against civil liability," argued the MPAA's lawyers in a motion. The plaintiffs are now fighting against the possibility their lawsuit is stricken under California's SLAPP statute. "The complaint raises no question of artistic freedom or of defendants' right to participate in public debate," states plaintiffs' newest memo. "Instead this lawsuit deals with quotidian issues of false labeling and advertising. The complaint asserts that defendants cannot affix a PG-13 or lower certification on movies with tobacco imagery, because they know that it has been scientifically established that subjecting children to such imagery will result in the premature death of more than a million of them." The lawsuit opens up challenging issues that if given thrift could invite all sorts of legal liability on Hollywood's rating system. If this litigation experiences success, it could open the floodgates to lawsuits blaming Hollywood for helping cause gun deaths and other social calamities. For that reason, the studios and theater owners are deeming ratings to be opinions that must not be applied to "prescribe socially-appropriate values."' The plaintiffs see this as a deflection against an action targeting speech they deem to be commercial. They say that Hollywood can give no ratings or very restrictive ratings on films with smoking, but that they can't give certifications of appropriateness to children if the scientific community believes otherwise. "In the Motion, however, straightforward claims for negligence, consumer fraud and false advertising against a trade association promoting the sale of its members' products have been improperly analyzed as if they were defamation claims against newspapers, book publishers and news agencies for speech published to inform the public about issues of public interest," continues the memorandum. "Defendants assert that their speech is being targeted. Yet, every negligent misrepresentation, consumer fraud and false advertising case challenges speech. But the 'speech' that is being targeted is false commercial speech; it is the false and misleading ratings that defendants assign and then affix to each film they rate with the individual, numbered certification trademark or seal of the MPAA." NASDAQ OMX: Court Sends Fees Dispute Between Insurers to Trial -------------------------------------------------------------- BEAZLEY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-5119 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y.), is a dispute between three isurers of NASDAQ arising from a class action suit that retail investors in Facebook Inc. brought against NASDAQ entities and officers in 2012 in the aftermath of Facebook's troubled initial public offering on the NASDAQ stock exchange. On October 4, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized 41 actions related to the Facebook IPO in the Southern District of New York before Judge Sweet, including eight actions brought against NASDAQ entities and officers alleging federal securities law and negligence claims. On April 30, 2013, a consolidated amended class action complaint (the CAC) was filed against NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, Robert Greifeld (NASDAQ's President and CEO at the relevant time), and Anna Ewing (NASDAQ's Chief Information Officer at the relevant time) (collectively, the NASDAQ Parties), on behalf of a putative class of all persons "that entered pre-market and aftermarket orders to purchase and/or sell the common stock of Facebook Inc. on May 18, 2012 in connection with Facebook's initial public offering and who thereby suffered monetary losses as a result of the NASDAQ Parties' wrongdoing. Beazley moves for partial summary judgment against ACE on its second cause of action seeking a declaratory judgment that ACE is obligated to provide indemnity coverage to NASDAQ in connection with the Facebook Class Action. Conversely, ACE moves for summary judgment on all remaining claims against it (Counts Two, Four, and Five) primarily on the basis that the Facebook Class Action falls within the "professional services" exclusion of the relevant policy. Illinois National Insurance Company likewise moves for summary judgment on all remaining claims against it. In his Opinion and Order dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/ndHwrZ from Leagle.com, District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the Facebook Class Action's claims fall within the "professional services" exclusion, the Court denied Beazley's motion for summary judgment, granted ACE's motion for summary judgment on Counts Two and Four, and granted INIC's motion for summary judgment in its entirety. The Court denied ACE's summary judgment bid on plaintiff's breach of contract claim (Count Five), since ACE breached its duty to advance defense costs to NASDAQ and since Beazley appears to have damages in the form of NASDAQ's unreimbursed attorneys' fees. Judge Rakoff said Beazley is entitled to recover NASDAQ's unreimbursed reasonable defense costs in excess of $2 million. It appears undisputed that NASDAQ incurred a minimum of $10,723.75 in unreimbursed fees in excess of $2 million. ACE has failed to present any argument as to why it should not be held liable for those unreimbursed fees. Accordingly, ACE is not entitled to summary judgment on Count Five, and the case will proceed to trial on that count. At trial, Beazley will not be permitted to re- litigate arguments that have been rejected in this Opinion and Order or to introduce new theories of liability. The sole issue for trial will be the amount of unreimbursed attorneys' fees and costs reasonably incurred by NASDAQ in defending the Facebook Class Action in excess of $2 million. Beazley and ACE were directed to contact chambers jointly by no later than July 15 to schedule a trial date. Beazley Insurance Company, Inc. is represented by Dustin H. Thai, Esq. -- dustin.thai@troutmansanders.com -- Kevin Kieffer, Esq. - kevin.kieffer@troutmansanders.com -- Peter Lucier, Esq. -- peter.lucier@troutmansanders.com -- Ryan C. Tuley, Esq. -- ryan.tuley@troutmansanders.com -- and Matthew Joel Aaronson, Esq. -- matthew.aaronson@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP Ace American Insurance Company is represented by Daniel Wagner London, Esq. -- dlondon@londonfischer.com -- LONDON FISCHER LLP NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Snead Must Amend Class Cert. Bid by Sept. 13 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro entered an order in the lawsuit captioned SONIA SNEAD, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, and U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 2:16-cv-00602-NIQA (E.D. Pa.), deeming as moot the Plaintiff's first motion for class certification. In light of the Court's Second Revised Scheduling Order ordering the Plaintiff to file an amended motion for class certification by September 13, 2016, the Court ordered that the first-filed motion is deemed moot. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BN7PHUvp NUTRIMOST LLC: Werfel Suit Moved to Southern District New York -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Werfel Chiropractic, PC and Howard Werfel, for themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Nutrimost, LLC, Nutrimost Doctors, LLC, and Raymond Wisniewski, Case No. 030478-2016, was removed from the New York Supreme Court, Rockland County to the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (White Plains). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:16-cv-05514-UA to the proceeding. The Defendants offer nutrition programs to consumers throughout New York. The Defendant is represented by: Judith Ann Lockhart, Esq. CARTER LEDYARD & MILBURN LLP 2 Wall Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 238-8603 Facsimile: (212) 732-3232 E-mail: lockhart@clm.com NUVASIVE INC: Bid to Dismiss "Mauss" Suit Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part Defendant's motion to dismiss and granted requests for judicial notice in the case captioned, BRAD MAUSS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NUVASIVE, INC.; ALEXIS V. LUKIANOV; KEVIN C. O'BOYLE; and MICHAEL J. LAMBERT, Defendants, Case No. 13CV2005 JM (JLB) (S.D. Cal.). The case is a putative securities-fraud class action on behalf of those who purchased NuVasive securities between October 22, 2008, and July 30, 2013. Danny Popov filed the initial complaint in August 2013. Brad Mauss was appointed as lead plaintiff in December 2013. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint in February 2014. The first amended complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim because it did not link the allegedly false statements to the asserted reasons for their falsity, and it did not identify which Defendant made the statements. The operative Fifth Amended Complaint asserts two claims, for (1) securities fraud, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, against all Defendants; and (2) control-person liability under Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act, against Defendants Lukianov, O'Boyle, and Lambert. Plaintiff alleges, in sum, that Defendants engaged in illegal sales, marketing, and billing practices that exposed the company to an increased risk of regulatory liability under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the False Claims Act, but they did not disclose that risk to investors, who bought their shares at an inflated price and were harmed when the concealed risk materialized. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's fifth amended complaint for failure to state a claim and both parties request judicial notice of several items. Defendants also filed a request for judicial notice of a number of documents relating to historic stock prices, SEC filings and press releases as evidence of what information NuVasive disclosed to the market, and evidence of NuVasive's annual revenues for the periods beyond the class period. In his Order dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/MS4nTt from Leagle.com, Judge Miller found that the combination of "partial disclosures" is sufficient to plead loss causation at the stage of the lawsuit and the case against O'Boyle is dismissed without leave for Plaintiff to further amend because Plaintiff has been unsuccessful plead a viable case. NuVasive's financial forms and press releases are appropriate for judicial notice. Danny Popov, et al are represented by Cheryl D. Hamer, Esq. Michele S. Carino, Esq. -- chamer@pomlaw.com -- and Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. -- jalieberman@ponlaw.com -- POMERANTZ LLP; Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP Nuvasive, Inc., et al. are represented by Robert W. Brownlie, Esq. -- robert.brownlie@dlapiper.com -- Kellin Maurine Chatfield, Esq. -- kellin.chatfield@dlapiper.com -- and Noah A. Katsell, Esq. -- noah.katsell@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP OBESITY RESEARCH: Appeals Court Reinstates "Duran" Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Associate Justice Catharine F. Easterly of the District Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part the trial court's decision in the case captioned, FRED DURAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. OBESITY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents; DEMARIE FERNANDEZ et al., Objectors and Appellants, Civil No. 14-CV-433 (D.C. App.). On August 24, 2011, Maia Falconi-Sachs and another person signed a one-year lease agreement -- with a term beginning on that date -- for a Senate Square apartment at 201 I Street Northeast, Washington, D.C. 20002. The lease named appellant and the other person as the "Lessee," Senate Square as the "Lessor," Bozzuto as the lessor's "Agent," and set the monthly rent amount at $2,499.00. On April 6, 2012, appellees placed a "Final Notice Letter" under appellant's door, informing her that her April rent had not been received, and that a late fee in the amount of $249.85 was due immediately. Appellant gave appellees a check for $249.85 on April 21, 2012. On June 27, 2012, appellant filed a class action complaint in the District of Columbia Superior Court, alleging violations of the Consumer Protection Procedure Act (CPPA), fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unconscionability, and restitution/unjust enrichment. She amended the complaint on July 12, 2012, in order to add appellees' addresses for service of process. On August 16, 2012, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, but later was remanded and appellees were ordered to pay appellant's attorneys' fees. Falconi-Sachs v. LPF Senate Square, LLC, 963 F.Supp.2d 1, 3 (D.D.C. 2013). On February 14, 2013, the case was re-opened in Superior Court, and appellant filed a motion for class certification. Appellant later orally requested without opposition that the motion for class certification be stayed, and the trial court granted her request. On June 21, 2013, appellant filed a subsequent amended complaint. Appellees then filed a motion to dismiss on July 12, 2013, and the motion was granted on February 7, 2014. The trial court dismissed appellant's CPPA cause of action, holding that it "falls within the realm of landlord-tenant relations and thus outside the scope of the CPPA." The court further held that appellant's fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims failed to meet the respective elements of those torts, that her unconscionability claim failed to plead sufficient facts to show either procedural or substantive unconscionability, and that her unjust enrichment claim was barred by the voluntary payment doctrine. Maia Falconi-Sachs timely appealed. In her Judgment dated July 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/m4IhkP from Leagle.com, Judge Easterly held that the trial court erred by dismissing appellant's unjust enrichment claim and the court's ruling on the affirmative defense of voluntary payment was possibly incorrect and at the very least premature. The Court vacated the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim and remanded to give appellant the opportunity to prove her claim. Maia Falconi-Sachs is represented by: Daniel Hornal, Esq. TALOS LAW 705 4th Street NorthWest, Suite 403 Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 709-9662 LPF Senate Square, LLC et al. are represented by Ward B. Coe III, Esq. -- wcoe@gejlaw.com -- David W. Kinkopf, Esq. -- dkinkopf@gejlaw.com -- and Hillary H. Arnaoutakis, Esq. -- harnaoutakis@gejlaw.com -- GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES LLP OKLAHOMA: Leatherwood Moves Certification of Prisoners Class ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled MICHAEL D. LEATHERWOOD v. HECTOR RIOS, WARDEN, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00767-C (W.D. Okla.), seeks certification of a class consisting of all medium- security offenders incarcerated at Lawton Correctional Facility as of July 15, 2015, and all medium-security offenders who have arrived, or will arrive, at Lawton Correctional Facility subsequent to July 15, 2015, until the time the ongoing common constitutional violation at issue in the case has been cured. Lawton Correctional Facility is a private for-profit prison under contract with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections to provide incarceration services to medium-security classified inmates subject to state convictions. The Plaintiff is classified as a medium-security inmate assigned by DOC to be housed at LCF. LCF houses as many as 2548 medium-security inmates at any time and the population of inmates is fluid. Mr. Leatherwood also seeks the appointment of competent and qualified class counsel to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. He contends that qualified counsel should have experience representing large class plaintiffs in civil right cases because he is a pro se litigant and is not a licensed attorney and is not educated or skilled in the law. He asks the Court to provide a liberal review of the Motion in regards to his pro se status. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HPFWFLwH Defendant Quiroga and Keefe Commissary Network, LLC are represented by: Niki Cung, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 234 East Millsap Road #200 Fayetteville, AR 72703-4099 Telephone: (479) 695-1933 Facsimile: (479) 973-0007 E-mail: Niki.Cung@KutakRock.com Defendant Minyard is represented by: Stefanie E. Lawson, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 313 NE 21st Street Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Telephone: (405) 521-3921 Facsimile: (405) 521-4518 E-mail: stefanie.lawson@oag.ok.gov OMNI INSURANCE: Bid to Dismiss Colter Suit Premature, Court Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge J. Michelle Childs of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina denied Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, Allison Colter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Omni Insurance Company and Omni Indemnity Company, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-04171-JMC (D.S.C.). On February 17, 2015, Plaintiff Allison Colter was involved in a motor vehicle accident with Defendants' insured. After determining that their insured was liable for the damage to Plaintiff's vehicle, Defendants told Plaintiff that she would receive an amount equal to her repair estimate minus a betterment or depreciation charge for certain damaged parts. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed the instant putative class action seeking damages from Defendants Omni Insurance Company and Omni Indemnity Company (Defendants) for their alleged imposition of an illegal and unauthorized "betterment" or depreciation charge on property settlements for accidents. On October 8, 2015, Defendants removed the matter to the court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332 alleging that there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants, and the amount in controversy herein exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. After removing the matter, Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on November 3, 2015, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that Plaintiff lacks standing to raise a breach of contract class claim. In her Order and Opinion dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/gNB3Ei from Leagle.com, Judge Childs found that Defendants' Motion is premature as to Plaintiff's standing to bring a breach of contract claim. Allison Colter is represented by: Rachel G. Peavy, Esq. Thomas Jefferson Goodwyn, Jr., Esq. GOODWYN LAW FIRM 2519 Devine Street, Suite A Columbia, SC 29205-1846 Tel: (803)470-2117 Omni Insurance Company and Omni Indemnity Company are represented by Brett Harris Bayne, Esq. -- brett.bayne@mgclaw.com -- and J. Andrew Delaney, Esq. -- adelaney@mgclaw.com -- MCANGUS GOUDELOCK AND COURIE ONCALL LLC: Faces "Orue" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- MARIA THERESA ORUE 11625 Hawk Dr. Harrison, OH 45030 v. ONCALL, LLC Serve Statutory Agent CT Corporation System 1300 East Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44114, Case: 1:16-cv-00760-MRB (S.D. Ohio, July 19, 2016), was brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. OnCall, LLC offers sales force automation as well as an outsourced sales force for commercialization solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradley L. Gibson, Esq. GIBSON LAW, LLC 9200 Montgomery, Rd., Suite 11A Cincinnati, OH 45242 Phone: (513) 834-8254 E-mail: brad@gibsonemploymentlaw.com OZ MINERALS: Court Approves Zinifex Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Creamer Media's Mining Weekly reports that the Federal Court has approved the settlement agreement between Adelaide-based miner Oz Minerals and ACA Lawyers, on behalf of former Zinifex shareholders. "As a result of the court approval, the class action against Oz Minerals has been dismissed without admission of liability by the company," the ASX-listed firm reported on July 18. Oz Minerals has agreed to an amount of A$32.5-million, of which its net contribution is A$24-million to settle the class action from Zinifex shareholders, who claimed that the company had failed to disclose information to the market about refinancing its debt. Zinifex merged with Oxiana in 2008 to form Oz Minerals. PAD AND PUBLICATION: Cert. Hearing in Podiatry Suit on Aug. 23 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on July 20, 2016, in the case entitled Podiatry In Motion, Inc. v. Pad and Publication Assembly Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-06357 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman. The minute entry states that: -- motion hearing was held on July 20, 2016; -- Defendants' motion for extension of time to August 17, 2016, to file responsive pleading is granted; -- Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue its motion to certify class is granted; -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is entered and continued to August 23, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.; and -- status hearing is set for August 23, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JAp1iYQ4 PAPA JOHN'S: Settles Class Action Over Delivery Fees Sales Tax -------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Maher, writing for Madison-St. Record, reports that a Madison County class action claiming Papa John's Pizza wrongly charged sales tax on delivery fees has reached preliminary settlement. The agreement, signed by Circuit Judge Andreas Matoesian, approved $165,000 in attorney fees; a $2,000 "case contribution award" to lead plaintiff Zachary Tucker and purchase discounts of between $1 and $3 for qualified customers. A final approval hearing will take place at 9:00 a.m. on Oct. 14. "Defendants have denied and continue to deny every allegation of liability, wrongdoing, and damages, as they have substantial factual and legal defenses to all class allegations and claims in the litigation," states the preliminary settlement document prepared by plaintiffs' counsel from the Carey, Danis & Lowe firm in St. Louis. Alan Wagner of Tampa, Fla. served as co-counsel. The agreement also states, "Defendants have always maintained, and continue to maintain, that sales taxes that are voluntarily paid by customers and remitted to the state of Illinois are not recoverable under Illinois law. Nonetheless, Defendants have concluded that because continuing to defend the litigation would be protracted and expensive, and would present risks and uncertainties, including whether plaintiff might prevail on all or some of his claims at trial or on appeal, it is prudent to fully and finally settle the litigation on a class-wide basis on the terms and conditions set forth in the proposed settlement agreement." Larry Hepler -- lhepler@heplerbroom.com -- and W. Jason Rankin -- jrankin@heplerbroom.com -- of HeplerBroom in Edwardsville represent Papa John's. According to the agreement, Papa John's stopped charging sales tax on delivery fees on Oct. 1, 2015. The document further states that the settlement provides "significant benefits to the proposed class" in the form of future purchase discounts to class members who timely and properly fill out a claim form. Discounts are determined by the number of qualifying purchases made between May 5, 2009 and May 6, 2016: -- Between one and nine: $1 -- Between 10 and 24: $2 -- 25 or more: $3 The case was originally filed in Madison County in May 2014 and later removed to federal court. After two failed attempts to remand to Madison County, the parties engaged in settlement discussions and reached an agreement in principle to settle. As part of the settlement, the federal court action would be dismissed and refiled in state court. It was dismissed in federal court on Sept. 23, 2015 and refiled in Madison County on Jan. 13, 2016. "Despite reaching the terms of the proposed settlement relatively early in the litigation, plaintiff's counsel has invested a considerable amount of time and expense into the investigation and prosecution of this matter," the settlement agreement states. Madison County Circuit Court case number 16-L-49 PAUL MICHAEL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- David Cohen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Paul Michael Associates and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:16-cv-04145-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., July 11, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Paul Michael Associates operates a law firm located at 159-16 Union Turnpike #302, Fresh Meadows, NY 11366. 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 PEARLS GROUPS: Court Approves Sale of Gold Coast Resort ------------------------------------------------------- Sharnie Kim, writing for ABC, reports that a Gold Coast resort subject to a class action relating to a multi-billion-dollar financial scam has been given the green light for sale by the Federal Court. For nearly two decades, the Pearls Group duped millions of some of India's poorest people into investing about $10 billion into fake or worthless land leases. Authorities in India have begun seizing Pearls' assets there, and four Indian Pearls directors have been arrested on fraud charges. The group is further alleged to have siphoned more than $100 million to Australia, including into the 2010 purchase of the Sheraton Mirage Resort on the Gold Coast for $62 million by one of its subsidiaries, Pearls Australasia, now known as Miiresorts Group. Shine Lawyers lodged a class action suit in the Federal Court of Australia on behalf of about 46,000 Indian investors, who collectively put more than $10 million into the scheme, and wanted Pearls' Gold Coast assets frozen. At a hearing in Brisbane, the court heard the Sheraton Mirage will be sold on July 29 to an undisclosed buyer for about $140 million. Barrister Caroline Kenny QC for the Indian investors argued the sale should be blocked to safeguard the proceeds, or a receiver be appointed ahead of an expected trial. "Undertakings by lawyers and controllers of Miiresorts will be totally inadequate," she said. But the parties agreed the sale should proceed as planned, subject to several undertakings including that settlement not occur before July 29, and the profits be deposited into a law firm's account. However, the court was told there could be as little as $40 million remaining from the sale, once government charges, a $42 million mortgage and other money, including a potential success fee for the directors, was paid. Justice raises concerns about class action Justice John Dowsett also expressed concerns about the strength of the class action suit against Miiresorts Group and associated companies, and whether the investors could prove the funds used to purchase the Sheraton Mirage Resort were indeed ill-gotten gains from the Ponzi scheme. But Caroline Kenny QC for the Indian investors said there was no other explanation for the funds and there was a "strong circumstantial case". "If there is an alternative source of funding, why haven't we heard about it?" she asked. But Justice Dowsett said the argument may not be sufficient. "I can't take a serious decision based on that . . . courts act on evidence, I'm afraid," he said. "I can see you've got good cause for suspicion . . . but I can't make assumptions based on newspaper reports that appear on the Indian subcontinent." Douglas Savage QC for resort owners Miiresorts Group said the evidence against his client may not be admissible, and it needed time to respond. "The applicants' material consists in large measure of newspaper reports, Google searches and conversations with unidentified people and the like," he said. The case was adjourned for a pre-trial directions hearing on August 18. PETER THOMAS: Falsely Marketed Personal Care Products, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Florence M. Goldkrantz v. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC and Peter Thomas Roth Labs LLC, Case No. CV-16-865842 (Ohio Cmm. Pl., July 7, 2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of misusing expressions "all-natural" or "all-natural 100%" in the packaging and advertisements of their personal care products. Peter Thomas Roth, LLC engages in the research and development of skin care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Schlachet, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARK SCHLACHET 3515 Severn Road Cleveland, OH 44118 Telephone: (216) 225-7559 Facsimile: (216) 932-5390 E-mail: markschlachet@me.com PHILADELPHIA HOUSING: Settlement in "Howard" Case Granted in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted, in part, Plaintiff's motion for judicial approval of the settlement agreement in the case captioned, AISHIA HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant, Case No. 15-4462 (E.D. Pa.). Aishia Howard brought the action against her former employer, Philadelphia Housing Authority (Defendant), pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant took retaliatory action to terminate her employment after she complained about wage and overtime violations that she was experiencing. On February 26, 2016, the parties participated in a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Thomas J. Rueter, during which the parties agreed to settle the matter for a total of $10,000.00. After applicable tax withholdings and deductions, Plaintiff will receive $6,250.00. Under the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff's counsel will receive $3,750.00 in attorneys' fees and expenses. On March 31, 2016, Plaintiff filed her motion for approval of the settlement, a memorandum of law in support of the motion, and a declaration of attorneys' fees and costs. In his Opinion and Order dated July 1, 2016 available at https://is.gd/IBCieX from Leagle.com, Judge Robreno granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for judicial approval of the Settlement Agreement. The Court did not approve the overbroad release provisions, because they are neither fair nor reasonable in light of the FLSA's purpose and the Court's approval role. In all other respects, the Court found that the proposed Settlement Agreement reflects a fair and reasonable compromise of a bona fide dispute and does not otherwise impermissibly frustrate the implementation of the FLSA in the workplace. Aishia Howard is represented by: Peter D. Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. THE WINEBRAKE LAW FIRM LLC 715 Twining Rd #211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: +1 215-884-2491 Philadelphia Housing Authority is represented by Gregory D. Hanscom, Esq. -- ghanscom@fisherphillips.com -- and Lori Halber, Esq. -- lhalber@fisherphillips.com -- FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP PRIVATEBANCORP INC: "Parshall" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------------- Paul Parshall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Privatebancorp, Inc., Larry D. Richman, Norman R. Bobins, James M. Guyette, Cheryl E. Mayberry Mckissack, Edward W. Rabin, Jr., William R. Rybak, Alejandro Silva, Diane M. Aigotti, Michelle L. Collins, James B. Nicholson, Richard S. Price, Ralph B. Mandell, Canadian Imperial Bank Of Commerce and CIBC HOLDCO Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2016CH09135 (Ill. Cir., July 12, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent enjoinment, damages, reasonable allowance for attorneys and experts fees and such further relief for breach of fiduciary duties. PrivateBancorp will be acquired by Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and its wholly owned subsidiary, CIBC Holdco Inc. and together with Canadian Imperial where stockholders of PrivateBancorp will receive $18.80 in cash and 0.3657 of a share of CIBC for each share of PrivateBancorp they own, valued at approximately $47.00 per share. Plaintiff alleges that said transaction is unfair and inadequate because the intrinsic value of the Company is materially in excess of the amount offered; denies shareholder the right to share proportionately and equitably in the true value of the Company's valuable and profitable business and future growth in profits and earnings. Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore B. Bell, Esq. Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC One South Dearborn Street, Suite 2122 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel.: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (312) 212-4401 - and - Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 - and - Katharine M. Ryan, Esq. Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP 995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311 Wayne, PA 19087 Tel: (484) 588-5516 PRIVATEBANCORP INC: Faces "Griffin" Suit Over Sale to CIBC ---------------------------------------------------------- JOHN J. GRIFFIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PRIVATEBANCORP, INC., LARRY D. RICHMAN, NORMAN R. BOBINS, JAMES M. GUYETTE, CHERYL E. MAYBERRY MCKISSACK, EDWARD W. RABIN, JR., WILLIAM R. RYBAK, ALEJANDRO SILVA, DIANE M. AIGOTTI, MICHELLE L. COLLINS, JAMES B. NICHOLSON, RICHARD S. PRICE, RALPH B. MANDELL, CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE and CIBC HOLDCO INC., Case No: 2016CH09435 (IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION, July 19, 2016), alleges breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of PrivateBancorp's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. PRIVATEBANCORP, INC. delivers business and personal financial services to middle-market companies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore B. Bell, Esq. Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC One South Dearborn Street, Suite 2122 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (312) 212-4401 - and - Joseph Levi, Esq. Michael H. Rosner, Esq. Justin G. Sherman, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 PYRAMID CONSULTING: Class Certification Sought in "Getchman" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Lynn Getchman asks the Court to conditionally certify the lawsuit styled DEBORAH LYNN GETCHMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. PYRAMID CONSULTING, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-01208-CDP (E.D. Mo.), as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Getchman also moves the Court to order disclosure of contact information for similarly situated individuals, and to approve notice for dissemination to those similarly situated. In her verified complaint, the Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid overtime owed to her individually and to a collective group of similarly situated employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XfFxtvps The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. Jason M. Finkes, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC 2726 S. Brentwood Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 645-4100 Facsimile: (314) 736-6216 E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com jason.finkes@dolleylaw.com QUAKER OATS: "Jaffee" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Robyn Jaffee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Quaker Oats Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-21576 was transferred from the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-07134 to the proceeding. Quaker Oats Company is a food conglomerate based in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Barrett, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 E-mail: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com - and - Marc Raymer Weintraub BAILEY AND GLASSER LLP 360 Central Avenue, Suite 1500 St. Petersburg, FL 33701 Telephone: (727) 894-6745 Facsimile: (727) 894-2649 E-mail: mweintraub@baileyglasser.com - and - James Lawrence Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert Maurice Fulton, Esq. HILL WARD & HENDERSON 101 E Kennedy Boulevard Suite 3700 PO Box 2231 Tampa, FL 33601 Telephone: (813) 221-3900 Facsimile: 221-2900 E-mail: bfulton@hwhlaw.com RASH CURTIS: Conover May File First Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the case captioned, CARMA CONOVER, Plaintiff, v. RASH CURTIS & ASSOCIATES, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-08381-FLW-TJB (D.N.J.). On December 1, 2015, Plaintiff Carma Conover filed a Complaint against Defendant alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, (TCPA). The class allegations consist of the same facts and legal theories as those alleged in the original Complaint only expanded to include "all persons within the United States who received any pre-recorded messages via an Automated Telephone Dialing System from Defendant without prior express consent." On April 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed the present motion seeking to add class allegations. The motion comes six months following the Complaint and 24 days following Defendant's Answer. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/XcMqMB from Leagle.com, Judge Bongiovanni found that Defendant has not satisfied any of the prerequisites under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 15(a)(2). Carma Conover is represented by: Michael Alan Siddons, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL ALAN SIDDONS 230 N Monroe St, Media, PA 19063 Tel: (610)255-7500 Rash Curtis & Associates is represented by Andrew Michael Schwartz, Esq. -- amschwartz@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN, PC RDX INC: "Roach" Suit Alleges Non-compliance of Cal. Wage Laws -------------------------------------------------------------- CINDY ROACH, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, v. RDX Inc.; and DOES 1-100, Case No: RG 16823780 (Cal. Super., County of Alameda, July 19, 2016), alleges that the common policies and practices of RDX Inc. and/or DOES 1-100 was a direct cause of Defendant's failure to comply with California's wage and hours laws, Wage Orders, and/or the California Labor Code. RDX Inc. owns, and operates trucks, industrial trucks, industrial vehicles and/or industrial work sites. The Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jill Vecchi, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92J2l Phone: (619) 234-2833 Fax: (619) 234-4048 REACHLOCAL: Shareholders Sue Directors Over Gannett Deal -------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling ReachLocal (digital advertising) too cheaply through an unfair process to Gannett, for $4.60 a share or $156 million, shareholders say in a class action in Los Angeles Superior Court. ROCKWATER ENERGY: Court Denies Motion for Leave to Amend -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge David Alan Ezra of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend in the case captioned, JUAN ESTRACA and RICHARD KEN BARERRA, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ROCKWATER ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:16-CV-310-DAE (W.D. Tex.). Plaintiffs Juan Estraca and Richard Ken Barerra allege that they were employed by Defendant Rockwater Energy Solutions, Inc. as flowback well testers. Plaintiffs state that Rockwater contractually agreed to pay flowback well testers an hourly rate, with an overtime rate of one and one-half times the regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, and that flowback well testers would be paid 24 hours per day during assignments to frac sites. However, Plaintiffs allege that Rockwater repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiffs for the 24-hour day, in violation of the contract. On March 28, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their original complaint, alleging that Rockwater had violated the overtime pay requirement of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219 and seeking to bring a collective action under the FLSA. Plaintiffs also alleged a claim for breach of contract due to Rockwater's failure to compensate Plaintiffs without deductions for off-duty hours, and a claim for quantum meruit for furnishing services to Defendant which were accepted and for which payment was reasonably expected. Plaintiffs seek leave to amend their complaint to add a class action complaint to pursue their breach of contract and quantum meruit claims. On June 17, 2016, Defendants filed a Response objecting to the proposed amendment, arguing that the claims are preempted by the FLSA, and further arguing that Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient facts to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule 23(b), making the amendment futile. In his Order dated July 7, 2016 available at https://is.gd/N4U4D2 from Leagle.com, Judge Ezra held that the quantum meruit claim stated in the Proposed Amended Complaint seeks only compensation for employment services; such a claim is preempted by the FLSA, and is not appropriately brought as a class action and that it fails to state a class action complaint for breach of contract upon which relief can be granted. Juan Estraca, et al. are represented by: Dorian Vandenberg-Rodes, Esq. Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (832)539-4690 Rockwater Energy Solutions, Inc. is represented by Juan B. Rodriguez, Esq. -- juan.rodriguez@ogletreedeakins.com -- Lawrence D. Smith, Esq. -- Lawrence.smith@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Mark A. McNitzky, Esq. -- mark.mcnitzky@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC SANTANDER CONSUMER: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Johnson-Morris" ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Charles P. Kocoras of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Defendant's partial motion to dismiss in the case captioned, CHERYL JOHNSON- MORRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., an Illinois corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:13-CV-01009-JCM-PAL, No. 16C1456 (N.D. Ill.). Plaintiff Cheryl Johnson-Morris filed her original Class Action Complaint in the Circuit Court of Cook County on December 18, 2015, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by Defendant Santander Consumer USA, Inc. Santander removed the action to the Court on January 28, 2016, and then sought dismissal of all claims. Johnson-Morris responded with an amended complaint, again asserting violations of the FDCPA (Count I) and the TCPA (Counts II and III). Before the Court is Santander's motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the FDCPA claim (Count I) in Johnson Morris's First Amended Complaint (Complaint), as untimely and for failure to allege a cognizable claim under that Act. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 11, 2016 available at https://is.gd/jVotwk from Leagle.com, Judge Kocoras held that the Complaint does not indicate when Johnson-Morris knew she had been injured and that Santander caused her injury and the questions of timeliness should be based on a more complete factual record. As to FDCPA claims, the majority of courts have determined that similar flat transaction fees are incidental to the principal obligation, and thus, fall under the scope of the FDCPA. Cheryl L. Johnson-Morris is represented by Benjamin Harris Richman, Esq. -- brichman@edelson.com -- Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- Dominick Larry, Esq. -- nlarry@edelson.com -- and John Aaron Lawson, Esq. -- alawson@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC Santander Consumer USA, Inc. is represented by Henry Pietrkowski, Esq. -- hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP -- Jarrod D. Shaw, Esq. -- jshaw@mcguirewoods.com -- Marc A. Lackner, Esq. -- mlackner@mcguirewoods.com -- and Tammy L. Adkins, Esq. -- tadkins@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP SCOTTRADE INC: Court Dismisses Duqum Consolidated Class Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Shirley Padmore Mensah of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted Defendant Scottrade, Inc.'s motion to dismiss consolidated class action complaint in the case captioned, ANDREW DUQUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCOTTRADE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:15-CV-1537- SPM (E.D. Mo.). Defendant is a firm that provides brokerage, banking, and retirement planning services to individuals and businesses. Between September 2013 and February 2014, hackers gained access to Defendant's customer databases and exported confidential customer PII from those databases. The data breach was reported to involve the confidential information of approximately 4.6 million customers. Shortly after Defendant announced the data breach, several of Defendant's customers filed putative class action lawsuits based on the data breach. The Court subsequently consolidated all four cases pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and E.D. Mo. Local Rule 4.03. On February 19, 2016, Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Class Action Complaint, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs allege that they had accounts with Defendant and that as a result of the data breach, their PII was disclosed, transferred, sold, opened, read, mined, and otherwise used without their authorization. Plaintiffs allege several causes of action against Defendant related to the data breach, including breach of contract, breach of implied contract, negligence, unjust enrichment/assumpsit, declaratory relief, and violations of various state consumer protection statutes. Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' Consolidated Class Action Complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), because Plaintiffs have not suffered an injury in fact and therefore do not have standing to bring suit in this Court under Article III of the United States Constitution. Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. In her Memorandum and Order dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/xFJ5Hn from Leagle.com, Judge Mensah found that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the increased risk of identity theft and fraud are not sufficient to demonstrate injury in fact for purposes of Article III standing and that the case lack subject matter jurisdiction. Andrew Duqum, et al. are represented by Anthony G. Simon, Esq. -- asimon@simonlawpc.com -- and John M. Simon, Esq. -- jsimon@simonlawpc.com -- THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. -- John S. Marrese, Esq. -- jmarrese@siprut.com -- Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- and Richard Lane Miller, II, Esq. -- rmiller@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC, Paula R. Brown, Esq. -- pbrown@bholaw.com -- Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq. -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- Timothy G. Blood, Esq. -- tblood@bholaw.com -- BLOOD AND HURST, LLP; Geoff J. Spreter, Esq. -- geoff@spreterlaw.com -- SPRETER LAW FIRM, APC Richard Obringer is represented by Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC; Paula R. Brown, Esq. -- pbrown@bholaw.com -- Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq. -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- and Timothy G. Blood, Esq. -- tblood@bholaw.com -- BLOOD AND HURST, LLP; and Geoff J. Spreter, Esq. -- geoff@spreterlaw.com -- SPRETER LAW FIRM, APC Scottrade, Inc. is represented by Brandi Lynne Burke, Esq. -- bburke@thompsoncoburn.com -- Christopher M. Hohn, Esq. -- shohn@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thomas E. Douglass, Esq. -- tdouglas@thompsoncoburn.com -- and David M. Mangian, Esq. -- dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN, LLP SENIOR LIVING: White Seeks to Certify Hourly-Paid Laborers Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled TERRANCE WHITE, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. SENIOR LIVING MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Case No. 8:16-cv-02057-JSM-TBM (M.D. Fla.), moves the Court for conditional certification and facilitation of Court- authorized notice. The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of current and former hourly-paid laborers, who work(ed) at the Defendant's location in Bartow, Florida, between July, 2013, and the present; who worked hours for which they were not compensated, in some cases working more than 40 hours per week, without lawful and proper and complete overtime compensation; Mr. White asks the Court to direct the Defendant to produce to his counsel a list containing the full names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members, who worked for the Defendant in its Bartow, Florida locations between July 2013, and the present. He also seeks to facilitate notice to all hourly-paid laborers, who worked in the Defendant's facility in the Bartow, Florida, who (1) worked more than 40 hours in any given week; and (2) were not paid proper overtime compensation for all of their hours worked, including those hours worked over 40 and those who were not paid the entirety of all of the "straight-time" hours that they actually worked for the Defendant. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4xtfZ8iL The Plaintiff is represented by: W. John Gadd, Esg. LAW OFFICE OF W. JOHN GADD, PA 2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 250 Clearwater, FL 33762 Telephone: (727) 524-6300 E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com SKULLCANDY INC: Faces "Paprakis" Suit Over Sale to Incipio ---------------------------------------------------------- ROSE PAPRAKIS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SKULLCANDY, INC., S. HOBY DARLING, DOUG COLLIER, HEIDI O'NEIL, JEFF KEARL, SCOTT OLIVET, GREG WARNOCK, RICK ALDEN, and JASON HODELL, Case 2:16-cv-00810-BCW (Utah Dist., July 19, 2016), alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act in connection with acquisition of Skullcandy by Incipio, LLC. Defendant Skullcandy is a lifestyle-driven audio brand fusing technology with focus on action sports, fashion, and music. The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Scofield, Esq. PETERS SCOFIELD 7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, UT 84093-6160 Phone: (801) 322-2002 Fax: (801) 912-0320 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com - and - James M. Wilson Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Phone: (212) 971-1341 Fax: (212) 601-2610 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com SNAPCHAT: Faces Class Action Over Privacy Law Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Meg Graham, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that two Illinois men filed a lawsuit against Snapchat earlier this year alleging the social media company violated state privacy laws with the technology it uses for its "Lenses" feature. Now, the case has landed in federal court. The class-action suit claims Snapchat has illegally collected, stored and used users' biometric information -- features like iris scans, fingerprints or face geometry that are biologically unique to each person and are used to determine someone's identity -- and thus violates the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. A Snapchat spokesman said no biometric information is collected or stored through the feature in question and called the lawsuit frivolous. Jose Luis Martinez and Malcolm Neal filed the suit in May in a superior court in Los Angeles County, where Snapchat is based. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit claims Snapchat collects biometric information when users take photos of themselves using the Lenses feature, which identifies the size and shape of a user's face and overlays animations like dog ears or a mustache. The suit estimates Snapchat has created, collected and stored "tens if not hundreds of millions" of face templates, which it says are detailed geographic maps made by extracting and analyzing data from points and contours of user's faces. The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, enacted in 2008, regulates how companies and individuals collect and use biometric data. The act says no private entity can gather and keep an individual's biometric information without prior notification and written permission from that person. Snapchat's privacy policy for Lenses claims it uses object recognition, not facial recognition, when analyzing a user's face. "Object recognition is an algorithm designed to understand the general nature of things that appear in an image," the privacy policy says. "It lets us know that a nose is a nose or an eye is an eye. But object recognition isn't the same as facial recognition. While Lenses can recognize faces in general, they can't recognize a specific face." In an email to Blue Sky, a spokesman for the company said no biometric information is collected or stored through Lenses. "Contrary to the claims of this frivolous lawsuit, we are very careful not to collect, store or obtain any biometric information or identifiers about our community," the spokesman said. The suit seeks damages of $5,000 for "each and every intentional and reckless violation" of the privacy act, or $1,000 if the court finds a violation was negligent. According to the notice of removal filed by Snapchat's attorneys, the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Attorneys for the plaintiffs could not be reached for comment on July 18. STARZ: Faces "Freedman" Suit Over Sale to Lions Gate ---------------------------------------------------- BARBARA FREEDMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. JOHN C. MALONE, ROBERT BENNETT, STARZ, GREGORY MAFFEI, CHRIS ALBRECHT, IRVING AZOFF, ANDREW T. HELLER, SUSAN LYNE, JEFF SAGANSKY, DAN SANCHEZ, CHARLES TANABE, ROBERT WEISENTHAL, ORION ARM ACQUISITION INC., and LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT CORP., Case No: Case No. 12571 (Del. Ch., July 19, 2016), alleges breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the sale of the Company to Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. Through its subsidiaries, Starz operates as a worldwide media and entertainment company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman M. Monhait, Esq. Bradford P. deLeeuw, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS P.A. 919 Market Street, Suite 1401 Citizens Bank Center Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 656-4433 - and - Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. Julie B. Palley, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 963-0600 Fax: (215) 963-0838 - and - Michael A. Toomey, Esq. Eleven Times Square 640 8th Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 688-0782 Fax: (212) 688-0783 SUNDIAL BRANDS: Faces "Padilla" Suit Over Hair, Scalp Products -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIANNE PADILLA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SUNDIAL BRANDS LLC, a New York Limited Liability Company, and NUBIAN HERITAGE, INC., a New York Corporation, and DOES 1-25, Case No. RG 16823809 (Cal. Super., County of Alameda, July 19, 2016), alleges that Defendants' marketing, labeling, and advertising practices with regards to its Shea Moisture and Nubian Heritage hair and scalp products violate California's Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professional Code, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and California's False Advertising Law. Sundial Brands is a skin care and hair care manufacturer and maker of brands. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark N. Todzo, Esq. Howard Hirsch, Esq. Abigail Blodgett, Esq. LEXINGTON LAW GROUP 503 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94117 Phone: (415) 913-7800 Fax: (415) 759-4112 E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com hhirsch@lexlawgroup.com ablodgett@lexlawgroup.com SUTTER HEALTH: Antitrust Class Action Can Proceed, Court Rules -------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Anderson, writing for Sacramento Business Journal, reports that an antitrust suit accusing Sutter Health of overcharging patients, employers and health insurers has been allowed to seek class-action status, in a federal appellate court ruling handed down on July 15. The decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a lower-court ruling that had dismissed the case brought by plaintiffs Djeneba Sidibe and other health plan members. The court heard arguments in the appeal on July 8. This latest decision sends the case back down to lower courts and opens the door for a class-action trial on claims that the Sacramento-based health system uses its dominance in Northern California to overcharge patients, employers and insurers. The ruling on July 15 does not address the merits of the lawsuit's claims, only Sutter's arguments that that the case should not be tried as a class action. Regarding the underlying case, Sutter Health holds that "these allegations have no basis in fact," said Karen Garner, the health system's public relations director. "The plaintiff's allegation that we demand to include all of our hospitals in contracts is simply false. We have many agreements that include only some of our hospitals and physicians," Ms. Garner said. "We are confident that the ultimate result will be the same regardless of the decision, and we are hopeful that the plaintiff will stop pursuing this costly litigation." In a similar but different case, the United Food and Commercial Workers & Employers Benefit Trust sued Sutter in 2014, alleging that it required health plan customers to include all Sutter hospitals in their networks, and that Sutter enforces that policy with contracts which charge higher rates for out-of-network services. In October, the union prevailed with a ruling that opened the door to a court trial, where Sutter had sought for the case to be decided in arbitration. That ruling also did not address the merits of the case against Sutter. SYNGENTA AG: Court Declines to Adopt MDL Coordination Order ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge David R. Herndon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois declines to adopt the Syngenta MDL Coordination Order and denied a motion to stay in the case captioned, IN RE SYNGENTA MASS TORT ACTIONS This Document Relates to Tweet et al. v. Syngenta AG et al., Case No. 3:16-CV- 00255-DRH (S.D. Ill.). Thousands of lawsuits have been filed in various federal and state courts arising from Syngenta's development and sale of corn seeds containing genetically modified traits known as MIR 162 and Event 5307 (used in products called Viptera and Duracade) before China's approval to import corn with that trait. With the exception of certain Mass Actions filed in this district, all related federal actions against Syngenta have been centralized in an MDL before Judge John W. Lungstrum in the District of Kansas (Syngenta MDL). In late 2015, three actions, involving more than 2,800 plaintiffs, were removed to the Southern District of Illinois (Poletti, Brase Farms, and Wiemers Farms). Each case was removed as a "mass action" under the Class Action Fairness Act's (CAFA) mass action provision. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(11)(B) and no other ground for removal was asserted. At a hearing on February 18, 2016, the Court ordered the consolidation of Poletti, Brase Farms, and Wiemers Farms. The Court directed the plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint in the lead case (Poletti). The Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed on March 4, 2016. The Amended Consolidated Complaint consolidated the claims of all existing Plaintiffs in Poletti, Brase Farms, and Wiemers Farms, with the exception of three plaintiffs: (1) Larry Miller (Wiemers Farms); (2) Bradley A. Ferree (Brase Farms); and (3) Leroy Tweet (Poletti)). Plaintiffs Larry Miller, Bradley A. Ferree, and Leroy Tweet were not included in the Amended Consolidated Complaint because they had retained other counsel and wished to proceed on a separate complaint. Accordingly, for purposes of case management, the Court (1) consolidated the claims of Larry Miller, Bradley A. Feree, and Leroy Tweet and (2) directed the same to file a consolidated amended complaint in 3:16-CV-00255-DRH. The matter is before the Court for case management. At issue is whether the Syngenta MDL Coordination Order should be adopted in the instant action. Also pending is the defendants' motion to stay further proceedings in the case pending a final decision by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on transfer of the action into the existing Multi-District Litigation currently pending before Judge Lungstrum in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. In his Order dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/5ddC1p from Leagle.com, Judge Herndon found that given the claims asserted against the Exporter Parties, the litigation presents different issues and dynamics than those involved in the Syngenta MDL and that JPML still have the case authority in the case so that it would not be prudent for the Court to halt these proceedings. All Plaintiffs in Case 16-255 are represented by Brian John Perkins, Esq. -- bjp@meyers-flowers.com -- Michael W. Lenert, Esq. -- mwl@meyers-flowers.com -- and Peter J. Flowers, Esq. -- pjf@meyers-flowers.com -- MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC; Michael K. Johnson, Esq. -- mjohnson@JohnsonBecker.com -- JOHNSON BECKER PLLC They are also represented by: Clayton A. Clark, Esq. Scott A. Love, Esq. William Wayne Lundquist, Esq. CLARK, LOVE & HUTSON GP 440 Louisiana St. Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77002 Tel: (832)699-1528 -- and -- Martin J. Phipps, Esq. Joseph Barrett Deacon, Esq. PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP 102 9th Street San Antonio, TX 78215 Phone: +1 210-340-9877 Syngenta Corporation, et al. are represented by Edwin John U., Esq. -- edwin.u@kirkland.com -- Jordan M. Heinz, Esq. -- jordan.heinz@kirkland.com -- Michael D. Jones, Esq. -- michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Patrick F. Philbin, Esq. -- patrick.philbin@kirkland.com -- and Ragan Naresh, Esq. -- ragan.naresh@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS They are also represented by: Michael J. Nester, Esq. DONOVAN ROSE NESTER PC 201 S Illinois St Belleville, IL 62220 Tel: (618)212-6500 Gavilon Grain, LLC is represented by Theodore J. MacDonald, Jr., Esq. -- tmacdonald@heplerbroom.com -- and Troy A. Bozarth, Esq. -- tbozarth@heplerbroom.com -- HEPLERBROOM LLC; James G. Powers, Esq. -- jpowers@mcgrathnorth.com -- and Patrick D. Pepper, Esq. -- ppepper@mcgrathnorth.com -- MCGRATH, NORTH, MULLIN & KRATZ, PC LLO SYSCO CORPORATION: "Martin" Suit Removed to E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- John Martin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Sysco Corporation, SYSCO Central California, Inc., and Does 1-100, Case No. 9000052, was removed from the Stanislaus County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-at-00530 to the proceeding. The case asserts labor-related claims. The Defendants are involved in marketing and distributing food products to restaurants, healthcare and educational facilities, hotels and inns, and other foodservice and hospitality businesses. John Martin is a pro se plaintiff. The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey C. Bils, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025-0509 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: jbils@bakerlaw.com T-MOBILE USA: Class Cert. Bid Okayed; Settlement Denied for Now --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Richard A. Jones of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granted plaintiff A.D.'s motion for certification of a settlement class but denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in the case captioned, A.D., by and through his parents and guardians, E.D. and H.D., individually, on behalf of similarly situated individuals, and on behalf of T-MOBILE USA, INC. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN, Plaintiff, v. T-MOBILE USA, INC. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN; T-MOBILE USA, INC.; and UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-00180-RAJ (W.D. Wash.). In February 2015, Plaintiff A.D., by and through his parents and guardians, E.D. and H.D., filed the case alleging that T-Mobile USA, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan (Plan); T-Mobile USA, Inc., and United Healthcare Services, Inc. (collectively, T-Mobile) failed to comply with the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (Parity Act). The Parity Act generally requires group health plans and health insurance issuers to cover medically necessary services to treat mental health conditions as defined by the terms of the plan and in accordance with applicable laws under the same terms and conditions as medical and surgical services. Plaintiff's complaint sets forth three claims for relief: (1) breach of fiduciary duties pursuant to Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); (2) recovery of benefits, clarification of rights under terms of the plan, and clarification of rights to future benefits under the plan pursuant to ERISA; and (3) to enjoin acts and practices in violation of the terms of the plans, to obtain other equitable relief, and to enforce the terms of the plans pursuant to ERISA. The parties agreed to resolve, on a class-wide basis, the criteria for coverage on a prospective basis. The proposed Settlement Agreement provides prospective relief following a "best practice" model for delivery of ABA therapy, as well as a settlement fund of $676,935.00 to address claims for reimbursement for any members who paid for ABA services out-of-pocket. Any attorneys' fees, costs, claims administration costs, and an incentive award will also be drawn from this settlement fund. In the motion, Plaintiff proposes a class of "All individuals who have been, are, or will be participants or beneficiaries under the T-Mobile USA, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan who have received, require, or are expected to require Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy for the treatment of autism and/or autism spectrum disorder." In his Order dated July 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/XiNQ1L from Leagle.com, Judge Jones found that the class should be certified under Rule 23(b)(1). The Court reserved its ruling on the incentive award until it has reviewed Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees to determine whether an award of up to $10,000 is warranted. Plaintiff may file a single, renewed motion that addresses the concerns raised by the court no later than July 30, 2016. A. D., Plaintiff, represented by Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. -- ehamburger@sylaw.com -- and -- Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. - espoonmore@sylaw.com -- SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER T-Mobile USA, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan, et al. are represented by Katie Denise Fairchild, Esq. -- fairchildk@lanepoweel.com -- Ryan P. McBride, Esq. -- mcbrider@lanepowell.com -- and Barbara J. Duffy, Esq. -- duffyb@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC TACO BELL: $1.2MM in Attorney Fees Awarded in Employee Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in Sacramento awarded $1.2 million in attorney fees in an employment class action against Taco Bell, but did not award incentives or costs -- nor the $7.3 million requested. THINGS REMEMBERED: 9th Cir. Directs Briefing in Kaur Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- In the appellate case, KIRAN KAUR, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarily situated, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. THINGS REMEMBERED, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Respondent, No. 16-80060 (9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Petitioner's motion for leave to file a reply in support of the petition. The reply has been filed. The court, in its discretion, grants the petition for permission to appeal the district court's April 20, 2016 order denying class action certification. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f); Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Within 14 days after the date of this order, petitioner shall perfect the appeal in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(d). In addition to all other issues the parties may wish to raise in this appeal, the parties shall brief the issue of whether the district court should have considered less drastic alternatives before denying class certification based on concerns with the vigor of class counsel's representation. See, e.g., Busby v. JRHBW Realty, Inc., 513 F.3d 1314, 1323-24 (11th Cir. 2008) ("In the event that class counsel does act improperly, the ordinary remedy is disciplinary action against the lawyer and remedial notice to class members, not denial of class certification.") (internal citation omitted). The court sua sponte grants any individual or entity leave under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(a) to file an amicus curiae brief addressing the above-stated issue in this appeal. The brief(s) shall comply with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29(c) and (d); the due dates are governed by Rule 29(e). A copy of the Ninth Circuit's July 20 Order is available at https://is.gd/d44oFv from Leagle.com. Plaintiff-Appellant Kiran Kaur is represented by: Glenn A. Danas, Esq. Robert Drexler, Esq. Katherine Ward Kehr, Esq. Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1840 Century Park East, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com Robert.Drexler@Capstonelawyers.com Katherine.Kehr@CapstoneLawyers.com Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Defendant-Appellee Things Remembered, Inc., is represented by: Amanda N. Fu, Esq. Marlene S. Muraco, Esq. Kimberly Gee Ramos, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON P.C. 50 W. San Fernando Street San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 998-4150 E-mail: afu@littler.com mmuraco@littler.com kgee@littler.com - and - Alexa Woerner, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 1255 Treat Boulevard Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Telephone: (925) 932-2468 E-mail: awoerner@littler.com TOWNSHIP BAGEL: "Kirsch" Sues Over Age Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------- Helena Kirsch, Plaintiff, v. Township Bagel Cafe Corp., Donna Leuzzi, Pat Leuzzi And John Does 1-5 AND 6-10, Defendants, Case No. L-2551-16 (N.J. Sup., July 12, 2016), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees, equitable back and front pay, reinstatement, equitable instatement or promotion and any other relief under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Plaintiff had been employed by Olivia Bagels located at 288 Egg Harbor Road, Sewell, New Jersey as a cook. She was terminated because of her age, claiming that she was slowing down. She was 59 at that time. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Tel: (856) 727-9700 Website: www.CostelloMains.com TOYOTA: Faces Detroit Suit Over Defective Prius Motor ----------------------------------------------------- Courthouse New Service reported that in a federal class action in Detroit over his Toyota Prius Plug-In, a Michigan man says the electric motor never works when it is colder than 55 degrees. The car is supposed to operate in all-electric mode for up to 13 miles on a full charge, but lead plaintiff Richard Rosenbaum says it works only in the summer, but just for 8 or 10 miles. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Hearing in "Huffman" Class Suit on Aug. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on July 22, 2016, in the case entitled Richard Huffman, et al. v. Transworld Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-03418 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman. The minute entry states that the status hearing set for July 25, 2016, is stricken and reset to August 31, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., in light of proceedings before Magistrate Judge Finnegan. The Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is entered and continued to the next status. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z0qXKmew TUFF SHED: "Topping" Suit Removed to Southern Dist. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Jeffrey Topping, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Tuff Shed, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case No. 37-02016-00014577-CU-OE-NC, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01793-BAS-JMA to the proceeding. Tuff Shed, Inc. is a manufacturer and installer of storage buildings and garages. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harmik Yeremian, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N Brand Blvd Ste 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Tiffany Tran, Esq. PALMER KAZANJIAN WOHL HODSON 2277 Fair Oaks Blvd., Suite 455 Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 442-3552 Facsimile: (916) 640-1521 E-mail: ttran@pkwhlaw.com TYSON FOODS: Court Partially Grants Motion for Reconsideration -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Theresa L. Springmann of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted in part defendants' motion for reconsideration in the case captioned, RONALD MAZZACONE, Plaintiff, v. TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC., and TYSON FOODS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:13-CV-897-TLS (N.D. Ind.). Ronald Mazzacone has sued his former employer, Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., and Tyson Foods, Inc., under the Americans with Disabilities Act for failure to accommodate his disability and per se discrimination based on a 100% healed policy. On February 29, 2016, the Court issued an Opinion and Order denying the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, the Court found that, when viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, a question of fact exists as to whether the Plaintiff is a qualified individual; and, given the contrasting versions of events leading up to the Plaintiff's termination, whether Tyson failed to engage in the interactive process or was responsible for any breakdown in communications between the parties, leading to the denial of a reasonable accommodation. Finally, the Court determined that a material issue of fact existed as to whether Tyson applied a "100% healed policy." In the motion, Defendants request that the Court reconsider the Summary Judgment Order. Tyson maintains that the Court should enter summary judgment in its favor on all claims because there are no genuine issues of material fact. In her Opinion and Order dated July 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/nRd4uQ from Leagle.com, Judge Springmann held that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the availability of a vacant position to accommodate the Plaintiff and there is sufficient ambiguity and conflict in the record to question whether Tyson's light-duty positions were permanent or temporary. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Tyson on the per se discrimination claim having relied on a manifest error of fact regarding the nature of the conversations, particularly in light of the context of the entire case. Ronald Mazzacone is represented by: David M. Lutz, Esq. DAVID M LUTZ LLC 4203 W Jefferson Blvd Fort Wayne, IN 46804 Tel: (260)432-3700 Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. and Tyson Foods, Inc. are represented by Todd J. Kaiser, Esq. -- todd.kaiser@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Michelle R. Maslowski, Esq. -- michelle.maslowski@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC UNITED STATES: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Atkins" --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Catherine D. Perry of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned, ROBERT J. ATKINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 4:15 CV 933 CDP (E.D. Mo.). Plaintiffs are owners of nine parcels of property along a 144.3- mile corridor in the State of Missouri which was formerly used as a railroad line by the Missouri Central Railroad Company and the Central Midland Railway Company. Plaintiffs seek compensation for the government's alleged taking of their private property for public use when the Surface Transportation Board, following the procedures set out in the National Trails System Act, authorized use of an abandoned rail line as a recreational trail. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class that would include themselves and more than 325 other Missouri property owners whose property is similarly situated along the former railroad line. In February of 2015 a Notice of Interim Trail Use (NITU) was issued, which triggered plaintiffs' claim here. They contend that the use of the National Trails System Act to allow the abandoned rail line to be used as a trail interferes with their exclusive rights over their properties and is therefore a government taking for which they are owed compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In her Memorandum and Order dated July 18, 2016 available at https://is.gd/Pf93H2 from Leagle.com, Judge Perry concluded that the Plaintiffs failed to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because they failed to show that questions common to the class predominate over questions affecting only individual members. Robert J Atkins, et al. are represented by J. Robert Sears, Esq., at BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE The United States of America is represented by: Edward Carlos Thomas, IV, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 2242 Washington, DC 20530-0001 Tel: (202) 514-2000 UNITED STATES: Lockheed Workers Mull Suit Over Pensions Cut ----------------------------------------------------------- Annette Cary, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that workers who saw their Hanford pensions cut in a largely failed economic development program are preparing to file a class action lawsuit July 19 against the Department of Energy. The planned lawsuit seeks to restore Hanford pension and other benefits for as many as 500 former and current employees of Lockheed Martin Services Inc., or LMSI, which provided information technology and other services at Hanford. More than 100 people packed a meeting in Richland on July 18 to hear about the planned lawsuit, which would cover 20 years of benefit cuts. "It's not a slam-dunk case," warned Richland attorney Doug McKinley. But it may shame the federal government into finally doing the right thing, he said. "We have nothing to lose," he added. Workers have been fighting to have retirement benefits restored since 1996, when about 2,000 Hanford workers were assigned to "enterprise companies" as Fluor won the contract for environmental cleanup at Hanford. Those companies were no longer considered part of Hanford, and years of service figured into workers' pensions were capped in 1996. As most of the enterprise companies folded, some of them by 1998, their workers typically have been reassigned to other contractors with full Hanford pension benefits. But Lockheed Martin Services has remained "outside the fence," as Hanford workers call it. Through the years, workers have pursued many avenues to regain lost pension and other retirement benefits, said Peter Turping, a former Lockheed Martin Services worker, who led the meeting. They have met with state and federal elected and nonelected officials. They have appealed pension payouts. They have filed ethics reports with DOE and Lockheed. They have contacted the DOE Office of Inspector General and made their case in news articles in the Tri-City Herald and letters to the editor. "Really, the only remedy is to file a legal suit," Mr. Turping said. Workers have to opt in to the lawsuit. A signup sheet will be available at www.mckinleylaw.com in the coming days for workers who did not sign up at the Richland meeting. A core group of 30 have been covering legal expenses, so there is no cost to sign up for the class action lawsuit, Mr. Turping said. One obstacle the lawsuit faces is the statute of limitations, McKinley said. He will be arguing that the clock did not start running on the case in 1996, but that the case remains current because the committee of Hanford contractors that oversees the Hanford pension continues to make decisions regarding it. In 1996, enterprise companies were formed with the goal of building long-term, non-Hanford business to become permanent Tri- City companies and reduce the local economy's reliance on Hanford. Initially, they were given Hanford work and staffed with employees of the previous Hanford contractor, Westinghouse and its subcontractors. Westinghouse employees, who were not allowed to apply for other jobs at Hanford, were told that Lockheed Martin Services and other enterprise companies were "outside the fence," and employees there would accumulate no more years of Hanford service to increase their pension benefits when they retired. "The justification for this injury on LMSI employees was that enterprise companies were commercial entities and not entitled to government benefits," said a message sent to LMSI workers invited to the July 18 meeting. Not only were years of service frozen on workers' Hanford pensions, reducing their pension payment, but a retirement medical benefit and a retirement life insurance benefit were eliminated. Yet, employees assigned to enterprise companies continued to work on the same Hanford projects, often at the same desks and with their same co-workers. While LMSI employees have long heard that they work for a commercial company, DOE disagreed when it comes to paying for the work. The Department of Energy said that Mission Support Alliance improperly awarded $63.5 million in taxpayer money as profit to Lockheed Martin Services, according to an Office of Inspector General report issued in April. Lockheed Martin is a principal owner of Mission Support Alliance, which subcontracted some work to Lockheed Martin Services. The report said that the contract with Lockheed Martin Services was a noncommercial and noncompeted subcontract, making it ineligible for a profit payment beyond what Mission Support Alliance received. "We think that proves our case," Mr. Turping said. The issue also came up in state Legislature hearing in 2009 after the state Department of Revenue concluded that Lockheed Martin Services was not doing cleanup work and was not eligible for a lower business and occupation tax rate offered to companies directly involved in Hanford cleanup. Legislation was proposed and passed to restore the tax break. Workers argued then that it was not fair for companies to claim a Hanford tax break if they did not have to offer their employees the Hanford benefit package because they were considered nonHanford companies when it came to employees. US PENITENTIARY: 3rd Cir. Reinstates "Richardson" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal prisoner can represent a class of inmates in a prison special protection unit even though he was removed from it six weeks after filing his lawsuit, the Third Circuit ruled. Sebastian Richardson was a prisoner at the U.S. Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, where he was immediately placed in the special management unit program. The program is intended to house inmates with special security concerns -- individuals with past histories of violence, or gang related activity -- to ensure they are not placed in a cell with known enemies. Once in the program, inmates are rotated between cells every three weeks, sometimes getting a new cellmate in the process. However, Richardson claims the program does not work as intended at USP Lewisburg. Rather, prison officials frequently place inmates in cells with hostile cellmates, increasing their risk of serious injury. After seven months of living with a compatible cellmate, Richardson claims prison staff ordered him to "cuff up" on the cell door so a new inmate could be transferred to this cell. Richardson refused to cuff up after finding out that his new cellmate would be a man known to his fellow prisoners as "the Prophet," who had attacked over 20 former cellmates. Looking out for his own safety had serious repercussions for Richardson, according to his December 2011 complaint. Richardson was allegedly stripped naked, dressed in paper clothes and held in hard restraints for a month. He also claims he was forced to sleep on the floor, and frequently refused the use of a shower or toilet. Between January 2008 and July 2011, there have been 272 reported incidents of inmate-on-inmate violence at the prison, he claims. Richardson filed a class action against USP Lewisburg officials, seeking a change in the prison's alleged unwritten policy that encourages intra-inmate violence. However, he was soon transferred out of the special management unit, and the prison officials claim that he may no longer serve as a class representative for prisoners in the SMU. A federal judge agreed Richardson lacked standing, but the Third Circuit reversed the decision on July 15. Precedent establishes that "when a would-be class representative is not given a 'fair opportunity' to show that certification is warranted (perhaps because her individual claim became moot before she could reasonably have been expected to file for class certification), she should be permitted to continue seeking class certification for some period of time after her claim has become moot," Judge D. Brooks Smith said, writing for the three-judge panel. Otherwise, class action litigation would devolve into a race between the parties to see who could act first -- plaintiffs in moving for class certification, or defendants in mooting those claims. "Richardson was transferred out of USP Lewisburg's SMU program a mere six weeks after he filed his amended complaint," which clearly did not give him enough time to file for class certification, Smith said. The judge continued, "Whatever the outer bounds may be, it is clear that if a defendant acts to moot a would-be class representative's claim within six weeks of the filing of a class action complaint, that plaintiff did not have a fair opportunity to present his case for class certification to the District Court." The court also "excuse[d]" Richardson's failure to file a motion for class certification because the class certification question was raised by the defendants and responded to by Richardson within seven weeks of filing his complaint, so the issue was squarely before the court. The case captioned, SEBASTIAN RICHARDSON, Appellant v. DIRECTOR FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; BRYAN A. BLEDSOE; DAVID YOUNG, Associate Warden at USP Lewisburg; DONALD C. HUDSON, JR., Associate Warden; CAPTAIN BRADLEY TRATE; SEAN SNIDER, Deputy Captain; LT. JAMES FLEMING; LT. PEDRO CARRASQUILLO; LT. CHRIS MATTINGLY; LT. MATTHEW SAYLOR; LT. AARON SASSAMAN; LT. JASON SEEBA; ROGER MILLER; LT. THOMAS JOHNSON; LT. CAMDEN SCAMPONE; LT. KYLE WHITTAKER, No. 15-2876 (3rd Cir.) VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: "Lelaj" Sues Over Denied Incentives ----------------------------------------------------------- Areti Lelaj on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Verizon Communications Inc. and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05472 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2016), seeks economic compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees and any other relief for violation of the Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiff purchased FiOS services but were then denied those incentives and/or promotional gifts under said purchase. Verizon offered a $400.00 Verizon prepaid Visa card and an Ellipsis 8 tablet or $200.00 off any tablet from Verizon Wireless if plaintiff ordered and subscribed to Verizon FiOS service. Verizon Communications Inc. is a telecommunications corporation maintaining a corporate domicile in the State of New Jersey and offering FiOS services throughout the State of New Jersey and elsewhere. Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Tel: (856) 727-9700 Website: www.CostelloMains.com VIGO COUNTY, IN: Court Dismisses "Grayless" Complaint ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge William T. Lawrence of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed the complaint in the case captioned, DAVID H. GRAYLESS, VIGO COUNTY JAIL INMATES IN "P-POD", Plaintiffs, v. VIGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SHERIFF GREG EWING, DEANDREA K. SMILEY, SGT. YARBROUGH, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-CV-281-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind.). The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, alleges in the complaint the Vigo County Commissioners run the jail and are responsible for any constitutional deprivation that occurs. The plaintiff claims his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were violated when his pod was placed on a lockdown without notice. Next, the plaintiff claims that certain defendants violated his equal protection rights when his pod was placed on lockdown without notice. Finally, the plaintiff alleges a violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment based on the cold temperatures in the day room. In the motion, plaintiff requests that the action proceed as a class action. In his Entry dated July 12, 2016 available at https://is.gd/UaJahL from Leagle.com, Judge Lawrence found that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it lacks factual content allowing the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the conditions of his confinement involve the deprivation of a single identifiable human need or the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities. The class certification is denied because he cannot adequately represent a class action. The plaintiff has until August 11, 2016 to file an amended complaint. VIRGINIA: Court Rules in "Correll" Suit Over Voting Rights ---------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Robert E. Payne of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted in part Plaintiff's motion for declaratory and injunctive relief in the case captioned, Carroll Boston Correll, Jr., On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Mark R. Herring, In his official capacity as Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16CV467 (E.D. Va.). Plaintiff Carroll Boston Correll, Jr., a Virginia delegate to the Republican National Convention, filed a Verified Class Action Complaint For Injunctive And Declaratory Relief on June 24, 2016. The original Complaint posited a class consisting of Republican and Democrat delegates to the parties' respective national conventions. Subsequently, Correll filed the Amended Complaint, which does not include Democrat delegates in the putative class. The Amended Complaint includes allegations purporting to represent a class of all Virginian delegates to the 2016 Republican National Convention. The Amended Complaint presents five counts: Count I alleges that Va. Code Sec. 24.2-545(D) violates Correll's First Amendment right to free political speech, more specifically his individual right to "vote for a presidential nominee at a party's nominating convention," "by stripping delegates" to the 2016 Republican National Convention "of their freedom to vote their conscience, or to vote consistent with party rules." Count II alleges that Section 545(D) violates Correll's First Amendment rights of free association, again "by stripping delegates" to the 2016 Republican National Convention "of their freedom to vote their conscience, or to vote consistent with party rules." Count III alleges that Section 545(D) "exceeds the powers retained by the Commonwealth of Virginia under the Constitution of the United States" and cannot be enforced. Count IV and Count V present prayers for forms of relief, rather than claims upon which relief may be granted. Immediately after filing his Complaint, Correll filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. During a telephone conference, the parties shortly thereafter agreed to consolidate for hearing and decision the request for a restraining order and the request for a preliminary injunction. The parties agreed that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2), the Court should further consolidate the hearing on the preliminary injunction with a bench trial on the merits. At trial, the parties presented a Joint Stipulation and ten Joint Exhibits. Correll presented an additional set of exhibits consisting of minutes from earlier Republican National Conventions. Correll and the Intervenors each presented an expert witness to testify about the Rules of the Republican Party that govern the proceedings of the national party (RNC Rules), particularly about RNC Rules 16, 17, 37, and 38. The experts also testified about certain filings that the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV) made pursuant to RNC Rule 16. In his Memorandum Opinion dated July 11, 2016 available at https://is.gd/zPPOPn from Leagle.com, Judge Payne entered judgment in Correll's favor on Counts I and II and the Commonwealth will be permanently enjoined from enforcing Va. Code Sec. 24.2-545(D). There is no need to enter judgment on Counts IV or Count V because they are prayers for relief, not claims upon which relief can be granted. As to Count III, Correll put on no evidence and did not argue it that the dismissed it with prejudice. Carroll Boston Correll, Jr., is represented by Andrew Michael Grossman, Esq. -- agrossman@bakerlaw.com -- David Boris Rivkin, Jr., Esq. -- drivlin@bakerlaw.com -- Mark Wendell DeLaquil, Esq. -- mdelaquil@bakerlaw.com -- and Richard Bryan Raile, Esq. -- rraile@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Mark R. Herring, et al. are represented by: Anna Tillie Birkenheier, Esq. Heather Hays Lockerman, Esq. Joshua David Heslinga, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Tel: (202)353-1555 VISA INC: 3 Canadian Wal-Mart Stores Stops Accepting Cards ---------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Nassauer and Robin Sidel, writing for The Wall Street Journal, report that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has taken the unusual step of making its shoppers feel the pain of a dispute with Visa Inc. The retail behemoth on July 18 stopped accepting Visa credit cards at three of its Canadian stores, marking a rare consumer-facing battle in an escalating war between the biggest global retailer and credit-card companies, largely over the fees Wal-Mart pays them. Despite months of talks, Wal-Mart said it was unable to agree on terms with Visa. The retail chain argues that the fees it pays when shoppers use the cards are too high. U.S. stores, which account for 62% of Wal-Mart's global sales, are unaffected by the Canada dispute and work under a different agreement. For the showdown, Wal-Mart picked Thunder Bay, Ontario, a town of 120,000 at the northwest corner of Lake Superior relatively isolated from other major Canadian and northern U.S. cities. "It's an escalation. They want to see what the consumer does and they want to see what Visa does," said Dave Marcotte, a senior vice president at Kantar Retail, a research and consulting firm. Because of Thunder Bay's size and location, it's a relatively low- risk gambit. "The location kind of keeps things contained," said Mr. Marcotte. Wal-Mart plans to roll out the change in phases across Canada, where it has 405 stores, said a company spokesman. The company hasn't set a timeline. Visa says it is working to ensure Canadians can use their cards everywhere they wish to shop -- including at Wal-Mart stores. Visa also says there's no evidence that reductions in credit-card- related fees in other countries have resulted in savings for consumers. Some customers caught in the middle voiced their displeasure on July 18. "I think Wal-Mart just lost a couple of thousands of dollars a month from one family," said Rebecca Zajac, who uses her Visa card from Royal Bank of Canada each week when she shops at one of the Thunder Bay stores. Ms. Zajac, who previously saw the signs at Wal-Mart warning that they would stop accepting Visa on July 18, says she stocked up on things she likes buying at Wal-Mart in advance and will go to a different grocery store that accepts Visa. Wal-Mart had posted signs at the front of its Thunder Bay stores in June saying it planned to shut off Visa. Ms. Zajac, a chef who briefly worked as a Wal-Mart greeter about 15 years ago, says she and her husband are debating whether to go back if Wal-Mart starts accepting Visa again. Wal-Mart spokesman Alex Roberton said: "We regret any customer dissatisfaction" and that the store is "taking a stand for our customers because Visa's high fees can result in increased prices." Mr. Roberton said fewer than 10 customers out of thousands in affected stores on July 18 didn't have the right form of payment. Visa and MasterCard Inc. agreed in late 2014 to cap Canadian fees at roughly 1.5%, but Wal-Mart and other large merchants typically are able to negotiate their own deals. A retailer blocking a credit card "is extremely rare," said Joel Bines, managing director at AlixPartners, a consultancy. Retailers are offering shoppers more ways to pay, from card types to mobile payment, said Mr. Bines. "Probably the last thing a retailer should be doing in today's fight for consumer share is making it harder for customers to shop." Earlier this year, Wal-Mart and Kroger Co. filed separate lawsuits against Visa related to new chip-enabled debit cards meant to enhance the cards' cybersecurity features. The retailers say that when shoppers use the new chip cards, they should be able to only type in a personal identification number, or PIN. Visa's rules require that customers also have the choice of signing. Retailers say signing is more expensive and less secure than a PIN. U.S. merchants paid roughly $40 billion in interchange fees last year -- roughly 2% of every transaction, according to payments consulting firm R.K. Hammer Inc. Meanwhile, a federal appeals court in June threw out a $7.25 billion antitrust settlement between Visa and MasterCard and millions of retailers after determining that some of the merchants covered by the pact weren't adequately represented, ending a class-action lawsuit that had stretched over a decade. In Canada, around 59% of people say Wal-Mart is right to cut off Visa from stores, according to a recent poll from the Angus Reid Institute, a Canadian polling agency. However, almost half of Wal-Mart shoppers surveyed who use Visa said they are less likely to shop there if the card is banned. The companies worked to win over public opinion July 18. On Twitter, Visa's Canadian account took a jab at Wal-Mart, noting that Visa is still accepted at many stores in Thunder Bay "most of them local small businesses." Visa also started offering a $25 gift card to cardholders who spend at least $75 at grocery stores. On social media, Wal-Mart repeated its mantra that Visa's fees indirectly raise prices in stores. It's more common for a merchant to cut off acceptance of a single card brand in the case of a contract's expiration, such as when Costco Wholesale Corp. recently stopped accepting American Express cards because it struck a new deal with Citigroup Inc. and Visa. WORLD WRESTLING: Sued for Hiding Head Trauma Risks -------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that World Wrestling Entertainment are being sued by Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka and dozens of other retired male and female wrestlers over neurological injuries they claimed were suffered during bouts -- while WWE concealed the risks. The complaint was filed on behalf of more than 50 plaintiffs who have performed with WWE or its predecessors since the 1970s, including Joseph "Road Warrior Animal" Laurinaitis and Paul "Mr Wonderful" Orndorff. It accused Stamford, Connecticut-based WWE and chairman Vince McMahon of intentionally classifying wrestlers as "independent contractors" rather than employees, as a means to avoid liability under applicable worker protection laws. "WWE placed corporate gain over its wrestlers' health, safety, and financial security, choosing to leave the plaintiffs severely injured and with no recourse to treat their damaged minds and bodies," the complaint said. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as improved medical monitoring. WWE, in a statement, called the lawsuit another attempt to hold it liable by a lawyer who had two earlier lawsuits dismissed. "This is another ridiculous attempt by the same attorney who has previously filed class action lawsuits against WWE, both of which have been dismissed," the statement said. "A federal judge has already found that this lawyer made patently false allegations about WWE, and this is more of the same. We're confident this lawsuit will suffer the same fate as his prior attempts and be dismissed." WWE has won the dismissal of some claims in other lawsuits accusing it of hiding the risks of head trauma from wrestling. The NFL and NHL have also been sued by retired players over head injuries. The July 18 complaint was filed with the federal court in New Haven, Connecticut. The plaintiffs accused WWE of concealing the risks of the degenerative brain disease chronic traumatic encephalopathy and other traumatic brain injuries attributable to wrestling, including through "scripted" moves it choreographed. Konstantine Kyros, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, in an email said WWE's "exploitative business model" kept his clients from learning their rights under laws such as the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act. According to the complaint, Mr. Laurinaitis, 55; Mr. Snuka, 72; and Mr. Orndorff, 66, suffer from cognitive difficulties including headaches, dizziness and memory loss. Messrs. Snuka and Orndorff have also experienced confusion, depression and mood swings. The plaintiffs include former referees and identical twins Earl and Dave Hebner, 66, who according the complaint have experienced cognitive difficulties. Dave Hebner has also been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, the complaint said. Below is the full list of plaintiffs (via Wrestle Zone): JOSEPH M. LAURINAITIS, a.k.a. | Road Warrior Animal JIMMY "SUPERFLY" SNUKA, by and through |his guardian, Carole Snuka PAUL ORNDORFF, a.k.a. Mr. Wonderful SALAVADOR GUERRERO IV, a.k.a. Chavo | Guerrero, Jr. CHAVO GUERRERO, SR., a.k.a. Chavo Classic BRYAN EMMETT CLARK, JR., a.k.a. Adam Bomb ANTHONY NORRIS, a.k.a. Ahmed Johnson JAMES HARRIS, a.k.a. Kamala DAVE HEBNER EARL HEBNER CHRIS PALLIES, a.k.a. King Kong Bundy KEN PATERA TERRY MICHAEL BRUNK, a.k.a. Sabu BARRY DARSOW, a.k.a. Smash BILL EADIE a.k.a. Ax JOHN NORD, a.k.a. The Bezerker JONATHAN HUGGER a.k.a. Johnny The Bull JAMES BRUNZELL, a.k.a. Jumpin' Jim SUSAN GREEN, a.k.a. Sue Green ANGELO MOSCA, a.k.a. King Kong Mosca JAMES MANLEY, a.k.a. Jim Powers MICHAEL "MIKE" ENOS" BRUCE "BUTCH" REED, a.k.a. The Natural CARLENE B. MOORE-BEGNAUD, a.k.a. Jazz SYLVAIN GRENIER OMAR MIJARES a.k.a. Omar Atlas DON LEO HEATON, a.k.a. Don Leo Jonathan TROY MARTIN, a.k.a. Shane Douglas MARC COPANI, a.k.a. Muhammad Hassan MARK CANTERBURY, a.k.a. Henry Godwin VICTORIA OTIS, a.k.a. Princess Victoria| JUDY HARDEE a.k.a. Judy Martin, MARK JINDRAK BERNARD KNIGHTON as Personal Representative of the Brian Knighton, a.k.a. Axl Rotten, Estate, MARTY JANNETTY JON HEIDENREICH TERRY SZOPINSKI, a.k.a. The Warlord SIONE HAVEA VAILAHI, a.k.a. The Barbarian LARRY OLIVER, a.k.a. The Crippler BOBBI BILLIARD TIMOTHY SMITH, a.k.a. Rex King TRACY SMOTHERS, a.k.a. Freddie Joe Floyd MICHAEL R HALAC, a.k.a. Mantaur RICK JONES, a.k.a. Black Bart KEN JOHNSON, a.k.a. Slick GEORGE GRAY, a.k.a. One Man Gang FERRIN JESSE BARR, a.k.a. JJ Funk LOU MARCONI ROD PRICE DONALD DRIGGERS RODNEY BEGNAUD, a.k.a. Rodney Mack RONALD SCOTT HEARD, a.k.a. Outlaw Ron Bass BORIS ZHUKOV YAKIMA REGIONAL: Violated Consumer Protect Act, Court Rules ----------------------------------------------------------- Molly Rosbach, writing for Yakima Herald, reports that in yet another blow to Yakima Regional Medical and Cardiac Center in a lawsuit over its charity care practices, a judge has ruled the hospital violated the state Consumer Protection Act by failing to provide adequate financial help to low-income patients. Besides reaffirming the position of the patients represented in the class action, the Consumer Protection Act violation means Regional and Toppenish Medical Center and their corporate owner could be required to pay up to triple damages, up to $25,000, for each of those patients. It was not immediately clear on July 18 how many patients the case could involve. "Clearly the actions of Defendants (the hospitals) were deceptive acts or practices," Superior Court Judge Susan L. Hahn wrote in her ruling, released to the attorneys in the case on July 14. The lawsuit against Regional, Toppenish and their Florida-based parent company Health Management Associates (now owned by Tennessee-based Community Health Systems) was filed in 2013. In December, the judge ruled in favor of the patients on an earlier motion, finding that the hospitals violated the state Charity Care Act by not informing patients of charity care options or screening them for financial need when they first arrived at the hospital, as the law requires. Instead, documents revealed, the hospitals aggressively sought payment from indigent patients who would have qualified for full or partial charity care, requiring deposits before medical services were provided and even sending them to collections for unpaid bills. ". . . it is likely some indigent patients were unable to pay these deposits and as a result denied access to qualified medical services," Judge Hahn wrote in her ruling. The judge had also previously found that the hospitals' failure to screen patients for charity care was a breach of contract, since its demand for payment was based on incorrect assessments of the patients' eligibility for charity care. Hospital leadership at Regional declined to comment on the ruling, citing ongoing litigation. "What I do want to emphasize is our hospital now uses new charity care policies approved by the Washington State Department of Health, policies that we adopted following our affiliation with CHS in January 2014," administrative director of operations Darrin Cook wrote in a statement. By fully establishing the hospitals' liability in the case, this latest ruling also affects how damages will be sought for patients included in the suit. Where Regional's owner has argued that damages should be determined individually for each person, lawyers for the patients want to determine the figure as an aggregate total. "The state Supreme Court has said, once liability is found, then you can do damages on an aggregate basis," lead attorney Ele Hamburger said. "It puts us in a strong position to argue that there shouldn't be thousands of jury trials on damages." Determining damages via individual trials would be "completely impractical," Ms. Hamburger said earlier this month. The aforementioned state Supreme Court case "makes a particular point that to do an individualized process would defeat the purpose of the class action, and it would let the wrongdoer benefit because they avoid payment for people who don't show up or who can't handle the claims process," she said. That case, Moore v. Washington Health Care Authority, dealt with public employees who had been wrongfully denied health coverage. If the judge declares that damages should be calculated in the aggregate, then after a trial establishes the full amount, members of the suit will receive a letter informing them how to submit their claims to receive their share of the money. The triple-damages piece of the Consumer Protection Act ruling only applies backward four years, so not every patient would be eligible for it, Ms. Hamburger said. This ruling could prove a boost to a similar case against Northwest Hospital in Seattle, brought by Columbia Legal Services in June, alleging the hospital there failed to screen emergency room patients for charity care and refused to allow patients to apply for charity care after bills had been sent out. Columbia Legal Services also initiated the case against Regional, Toppenish and HMA. YUM! BRANDS: Taco Bell Seeks to Overturn Verdict ------------------------------------------------ Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 11, 2016, that Taco Bell denies liability as to the underpaid meal premium class claim and has filed a post-trial motion to overturn the verdict. The Company and Taco Bell were named as defendants in a number of putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec.17200. Some plaintiffs also sought penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as well as statutory "waiting time" penalties and alleged violations of California's Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought to represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees. These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties' stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action, leaving Taco Bell as the sole defendant. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to the late meal break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative class members, and the class notice and opt out forms were mailed on January 21, 2014. Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On that same date, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one of the PAGA claims. On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the operative complaint and a motion to amend the class certification order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially granted both motions, rejecting plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal period class but certifying a limited rest break class and certifying an underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend the complaint to reflect those certifications. On December 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. On February 26, 2015, the court denied a motion by Taco Bell to dismiss or strike the underpaid meal premium class. Beginning on February 22, 2016, the late meal period class claim, the limited rest break class claim, the underpaid meal premium class claim, and the associated statutory "waiting time" penalty claim was tried to a jury. On March 9, 2016, the jury returned verdicts in favor of Taco Bell on the late meal period claim, the limited rest break claim, and the statutory "waiting time" penalty claim. The jury found for the plaintiffs on the underpaid meal premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.5 million. A bench trial was subsequently conducted with respect to the PAGA claims and plaintiffs' Business & Professions Code Sec.17200 claim. On April 8, 2016, the court returned a verdict in favor of Taco Bell on the PAGA claims and the Sec.17200 claim. In a separate ruling issued the same day, the court also ruled that plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest on the underpaid meal premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.3 million. Taco Bell denies liability as to the underpaid meal premium class claim and has filed a post-trial motion to overturn the verdict. Plaintiffs' have also filed various post-trial motions and have indicated an intention to appeal the jury and court verdicts. "We have provided for a reasonable estimate of the possible loss relating to this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation, there can be no assurance that this lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of those currently provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements," the Company said. YUM! BRANDS: Appellate Briefing Underway in Taco Bell Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 19, 2016, for the quarterly period ended June 11, 2016, that the Ninth Circuit set a briefing schedule, with plaintiff's brief due on July 27, 2016, and Taco Bell's answering brief due August 26, 2016. On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior Court. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of current and former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various violations of California labor laws including failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec.17200. This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case. Taco Bell removed the case to federal court and, on June 25, 2013, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to include a claim seeking penalties for alleged violations of PAGA. Taco Bell's motion to dismiss or stay the action in light of the In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied on October 30, 2013. In April 2014 the parties stipulated to address the sufficiency of plaintiff's legal theory as to her discount meal break claim before conducting full discovery. A hearing on the parties' cross- summary judgment motions was held on October 22, 2014, and on October 23, 2014, the court granted Taco Bell's motion for summary judgment on the discount meal break claim and denied plaintiff's motion. Trial was set for mid-April 2016. Plaintiff ceased to actively pursue this matter and failed to timely file the required pre-trial statement. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a request to dismiss with prejudice all of her remaining claims, which the court approved on March 2, 2016. Plaintiff then filed a notice of appeal concerning the court's summary judgment ruling. The Ninth Circuit has set a briefing schedule, with plaintiff's brief currently due on July 27, 2016, and Taco Bell's answering brief due August 26, 2016. Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time. * SA Gold Miners File Petitions Against Silicosis Judgment ---------------------------------------------------------- Mining Review reports that gold miners from the Occupational Lung Disease Working Group have filed petitions with the Supreme Court of Appeal against the class certification judgment. Gold miners from the Occupational Lung Disease (OLD) Working Group each filed petitions to the Supreme Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the class action certification judgement delivered in the South Gauteng High Court on May 13 in relation to workers suffering from silicosis and tuberculosis. The companies are made up of African Rainbow Minerals, Anglo American South Africa, AngloGold Ashanti, Gold Fields, Harmony and Sibanye Gold. The High Court certified the establishment of two separate classes for silicosis and tuberculosis and also changed the common law in respect of general damages claims. The court granted leave to appeal only in respect of the latter point. The class action suit will represent thousands of gold miners who contracted the fatal lung disease silicosis while working underground. It stretches back decades and includes non-South African miners who contracted the disease at the time. The companies say they are conscious of concerns that the appeal processes will delay finalization of the matters. The reason they site for the appeal is because the judgment addresses a number of highly complex and important issues. The High Court itself found that the scope and magnitude of the proposed claims is unprecedented in South Africa and that the class action would address novel and complex issues of fact and law. In an attempt to shorten any delay due to an appeal process, it is permissible to request that the appeals be dealt with on an expedited basis the gold miners also say. The companies intend to do this, should leave to appeal be granted by the Supreme Court of Appeal. In addition, the Working Group remains of the view that achieving a mutually acceptable comprehensive settlement which is both fair to past, present and future employees, and sustainable for the sector, is preferable to protracted litigation. The Working Group will continue with its efforts -- which have been on-going for more than a year -- to find common ground with stakeholders, including the claimants' legal representatives. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Exclude Expert Report in "Arbogast" OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted Defendant CBS Corporation of Delaware's motion in limine to exclude the report, opinions, and testimony of the Plaintiffs' expert as to asbestos exposure, R. Leonard Vance, Ph.D., J.D. PE, CIH, and, motion for summary judgment as to all of Plaintiffs' claims against it in the case captioned CHARLES LEMUEL ARBOGAST, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. A.W. CHESTERTON CO. et al., Defendants, Civil No. JKB-14-4049 (D. Md.). A full-text copy of Judge Bredar's Memorandum dated June 6, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/CDQIhT from Leagle.com. Charles Lemuel Arbogast, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by David M Layton, Ashcraft and Gerel LLP, John Eugene Herrick, Motley Rice LLC & John E Guerry, III, Motley Rice LLC. Barbara Arbogast, Plaintiff, represented by David M Layton, Ashcraft and Gerel LLP, John Eugene Herrick, Motley Rice LLC & John E Guerry, III, Motley Rice LLC. CBS Corporation of Delaware, Defendant, represented by Clare Marie Maisano, Evert Weathersby Houff. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC, David A Fusco, K and L Gates LLP, James B Insco, II, K and L Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J Sechler, K and L Gates LLP & Thomas E Birsic, K and L Gates LLP. Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michelle Noorani, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP & Warren N Weaver, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP. Foster Wheeler, LLC., Defendant, represented by R Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Dehay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by R Thomas Radcliffe, Jr., Dehay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by F Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Joshua Franklin Kahn, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Michael L Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Raymond P Harris, Jr., Schachter Harris LLP, Matthew R Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Cary I schachter, Schachter Harris LLP, Eric D Cook, Wilcox and Savage & James E Hooper, Wheeler Trigg Kennedy LLP. MCIC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Louis E Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC. Sepco Corporation, Defendant, represented by F Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC, Laura A Cellucci, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Leianne S McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Matthew R Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Richard M Lee, Selman Breitman LLP, pro hac vice. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Danielle Grilli Marcus, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP. Goodrich Corporation, Movant, represented by John C Ruff, DeHay and Elliston LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 9th Cir. Partially Affirms "Boyd" Summary Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- John H. Boyd, III, as the representative of plaintiff and appellant Captain John H. Boyd, Jr. (deceased), appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of Warren Pumps, LLC, and Air and Liquid Systems Corporation (successor in interest to Buffalo Pumps, Inc.) in a diversity products liability action alleging that exposure to asbestos from the Appellees' products during Captain Boyd's service onboard the United States Navy's USS Gainard and USS McCain in the 1950s caused Captain Boyd to develop mesothelioma. Reviewing the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, McIndoe v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 817 F.3d 1170, 1173 (9th Cir. 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case captioned JOHN H. BOYD, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARREN PUMPS, LLC, Defendants-Appellees. JOHN H. BOYD, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, Nos. 13-56975, 13-57018 (9th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's June 16, 2016 Opinion is available at https://is.gd/JAZEwx from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Dismiss Eaton Corp. Coverage Suit Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff, Eaton Corporation, filed a suit against Westport Insurance Corporation. Eaton alleges that Westport has wrongly failed to provide coverage for asbestos-related claims under an excess insurance policy that Westport's predecessor issued to Eaton's predecessor in 1978. Judge Lynn Adelman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin ordered that Westport's motion to dismiss, or, in the alternative, to transfer venue, is denied. The case is EATON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. WESTPORT INSURANCE CORPORATION F/K/A PURITAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 15-C-1157 (E.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of Judge Adelman's Decision and Order dated June 6, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/VbRmV3 from Leagle.com. Eaton Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Carmen N Anderson, Esq. -- canderso@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper SC, Jessica M Reginato, Esq. -- jreginato@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper SC, John T Waldron, K&L Gates LLP, Matthew J Louik, K&L Gates LLP, Kay M Brady, K&L Gates LLP & Kelly J Noyes, Esq. -- knoyes@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper SC. Westport Insurance Corporation, Defendant, represented by Benjamin A Blume, Esq. -- bblume@cmk.com -- Carroll McNulty & Kull LLC & Nicole J Kelly, Esq. -- nkelly@cmk.com -- Carroll McNulty & Kull LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Maine High Ct. Affirms Summary Judgments --------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Grant and the Estate of Edward Grant appeal from summary judgments entered against them in the Business and Consumer Docket (Murphy, J.) on their complaint for negligence; failure to warn of defective, unreasonably dangerous goods; and loss of consortium. The judgments were entered upon the motions of New England Insulation Company; Foster Wheeler, LLC; Warren Pumps, LLC; and Imo Industries, Inc. Because the Estate was unable to produce evidence to establish a prima facie case that any of the named defendants' products were a proximate cause of the injuries, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirms the summary judgments. The case is PATRICIA GRANT et al. v. FOSTER WHEELER, LLC, et al., No. BCD-15-404 (Me.). A full-text copy of the Opinion dated June 7, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/Z6L8UG from Leagle.com. On the briefs: Kevin M. Noonan, Esq., McTeague Higbee, PA, Topsham, for appellants Patricia Grant and the Estate of Edward Grant. Kip Adams, Esq. -- Kip.Adams@lewisbrisbois.com -- and Christopher Tauro, Esq. -- Chris.Tauro@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for appellee New England Insulation Company. Steven F. Wright, Esq., Wright & Associates, P.A., Portland, for appellees Foster Wheeler, LLC, and Imo Industries, Inc. Steven F. Wright, Esq., Wright & Associates, P.A., Portland, and Laurie J. Hepler, Esq., Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP, San Francisco, California, for appellee Warren Pumps, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mag. Judge Recommends Denial of Bid to Junk Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate L. Patrick Auld of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, in a June 7, 2016, memorandum opinion recommend that the court deny Defendant Brenntag North America, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Defendant Brenntag Specialties, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, and the Plaintiff's Motion for Limited Jurisdictional Discovery in the case captioned MERTON ERIC BRANSON, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, et al., Defendants, No. 1:15cv73 (M.D.N.C.). Magistrate Auld recommends that the court should deny the Dismissal Motions, without prejudice to resolution at trial of any viable personal jurisdiction issues, and will deny as moot the Discovery Motion. A full-text copy of Magistrate Auld's Decision is available at https://is.gd/cOwYS8 from Leagle.com. MERTON ERIC BRANSON, Plaintiff, represented by JOHN S. HUGHES, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A., WILLIAM MARC GRAHAM, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A. & W. MARLOWE RARY, II, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A.. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER ANDREW PAGE, Esq. -- Chris.Page@youngmoorelaw.com -- YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, P.A.. AVOCET ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, represented by JOHN T. HOLDEN, Esq. -- jholden@dmclaw.com -- DICKIE MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C.. BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP. BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES, INC., Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP. DURO DYNE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by KENNETH KYRE, JR., Esq. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com -- PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC. DURO DYNE MACHINERY CORP, Defendant, represented by KENNETH KYRE, JR., PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC. DURO DYNE NATIONAL CORP., Defendant, represented by KENNETH KYRE, JR., PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by KEITH E. COLTRAIN, Esq. -- Keith.Coltrain@WallTempleton.com -- WALL TEMPLETON & HALDRUP, P.A.. WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS, INC., Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Venue of "Griffin" Suit Transferred to Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James L. Robart of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, in a June 13, 2016 order granted Sarah Griffin's motion to transfer the venue of her complaint to the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Of the current defendants in this matter, only Defendant San Diego Gas & Electric Company filed an opposition. SDG&E agrees that transfer to the Southern District of California is appropriate but argues that transfer should occur under 28 U.S.C. Section 1406, rather than under Section 1404, because venue is improper in the Western District of Washington. The court has considered the submissions of the parties, the appropriate portions of the record, and the relevant law, and no party has requested oral argument. A full-text copy of Judge Robart's Decision is available at https://is.gd/UTHBiA from Leagle.com. The case is SARAH GRIFFIN, Plaintiff, v. CBS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. C16-0584JLR (W.D. Wash.). Sarah Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by Anna D. Knudson, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC, Kaitlin T. Wright, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC, Matthew Phineas Bergman, Esq. -- matt@bergmanlegal.com -- BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC & Vanessa Firnhaber Oslund, BERGMAN DRAPER & LADENBURG PLLC. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Christopher S. Marks, Williams Kastner & Gibbs LLP, Megan Maria Coluccio, SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds, SEDGWICK LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Christopher S. Marks, Williams Kastner & Gibbs LLP, Megan Maria Coluccio, SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds, SEDGWICK LLP. IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard G. Gawlowski, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), Defendant, represented by Richard D. Ross, BETTS PATTERSON & MINES. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by G. William Shaw, K&L GATES LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Murphy" to State Court Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- In April 2012, Robin Murphy, a Louisiana citizen, filed a petition for damages in state court premised upon his alleged occupational exposure to asbestos-containing materials, in the mid-1960's and 1970's, while working as an electronic technician at Southern Bell Telephone and as a carpenter helper for Roland Bourgeois. Removing defendant, Rohm and Haas Company was not initially named as a defendant in Murphy's suit. Supplier defendants Eagle, Inc., the McCarty Corporation, Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., and Taylor- Seidenbach, Inc., all Louisiana citizens, however, were named in the original petition as defendants. Murphy alleged that the fault of each of the various defendants "contributed . . . to [his] exposure to asbestos and subsequent contraction of mesothelioma." Murphy was deposed over the course of three separate days in September and October 2012. Thereafter, in the summer of 2014, he dismissed the Non-Diverse Defendants from his lawsuit without prejudice. Following Murphy's death on August 14, 2014, the Plaintiff, also a Louisiana citizen, filed a supplemental and amending petition for damages, on or about August 14, 2015, alleging that she is the surviving spouse of Robin Murphy and that he had passed away as a consequence of his asbestos exposure. She asserted wrongful death and survival claims against 26 separate and diverse defendants, including removing defendant, R&H, and re- named as defendants the Non-Diverse Defendants that her late husband had previously dismissed without prejudice. Following its receipt of service of the First Supplemental Petition, in September 2015, R&H filed exceptions in state court, as well as a motion, and proposed order, to set the exceptions for hearing. Six days later, on October 29, 2015, however, R&H removed the state court suit to this Court. The Plaintiff's motion to remand now before the Court, along with the parties' several supporting and opposing memoranda, followed. In seeking remand, the Plaintiff contends that the proper joinder of the Non-Diverse Defendants in this action precludes complete diversity of citizenship such that the matter must be remanded to state court. The Plaintiff further urges, in the alternative, that R&H waived any right it had to federal court removal by filing exceptions to the Plaintiff's First Supplemental Petition, along with a motion and proposed order to have the exceptions set for hearing, in state court. In opposition, R&H argues that the Non-Diverse Defendants are not properly joined and, thus, their Louisiana citizenship should not be considered. Given that, R&H maintains that diversity is complete, for purposes of the subject matter jurisdiction provided by 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, such that the Plaintiffs' request for remand should be denied. R&H likewise disputes that it waived its right to federal court removal by virtue of its pre-removal conduct in state court. Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in a June 7, 2016, order and reasons finds the Non-Diverse Defendants to have been improperly joined such that their Louisiana citizenship should not be considered for purposes of establishing subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332. Accordingly, because the other defendants are diverse from the Plaintiff in citizenship, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied. A full-text copy of Judge Engelhardt's Decision is available at https://is.gd/Iv4uNN from Leagle.com. The case is ROBIN MURPHY, ET AL., v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC., ET AL., SECTION "N" (5), Civil Action No. 15-5566 (E.D. La.). Carolyn Lanoue Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence G. Gettys, Heard, Robins, Cloud & Black, LLP. Irvin D. Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence G. Gettys, Heard, Robins, Cloud & Black, LLP. Kelly Murphy Ricks, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence G. Gettys, Heard, Robins, Cloud & Black, LLP. Robin S. Murphy, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence G. Gettys, Heard, Robins, Cloud & Black, LLP. Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Kay Barnes Baxter, Esq. -- kay@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Ashley A. Edwards, Esq. -- aedwards@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Georgia Noble Ainsworth, Esq. -- georgia@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Margaret Adams Casey, Esq., Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Martin James Dempsey, Jr., Esq. -- jimmy@cs-law.com -- Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & Marc John Bitner, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C.. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Esq. -- jay.jalenak@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller & Patrick Dale Roquemore, Esq. -- patrick.roquemore@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller. Eagle, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Reilly-Benton Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas L. Cougill, Esq. -- tomc@willingham-law.com -- Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jamie M Zanovec, Esq. -- jamiez@willingham-law.com -- Willingham Fultz & Cougill, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins, Esq., Willingham Fultz & Cougill & Jennifer D. Zajac, Esq. -- jenniferz@willingham-law.com -- Willingham Fultz & Cougill. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen Rodney Whalen, Esq. -- stephen.whalen@bswllp.com -- Breazeale, Sachse & Wilson, L. L. P. Occidental Chemical Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C.. Plastics Engineering Company, Defendant, represented by William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & Marc John Bitner, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. Rogers Corporation, Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann Puente-Martin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas A. Porteous, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC. Rohm & Haas Company, Defendant, represented by Tyson B. Shofstahl, Adams & Reese, LLP. Special Electric Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kay Barnes Baxter, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Ashley A. Edwards, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Georgia Noble Ainsworth, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC, Margaret Adams Casey, Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC & Martin James Dempsey, Jr., Cosmich Simmons & Brown, PLLC. Cooper Industries LLC, Defendant, represented by William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP. Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert E. Barkley, Jr., Esq. -- rbarkley@barkleythompson.com -- Barkley & Thompson, L.C., Mark Powell Seyler, Esq. -- mseyler@barkleythompson.com -- Barkley & Thompson, L.C. & Thomas E. Schwab, Esq. -- tschwab@barkleythompson.com -- Barkley & Thompson, L.C.. Siemens Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas Watson Redfearn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & M. Davis Ready, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP. Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cynthia Cleland Roth, Esq. -- croth@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, LLP & Paul D. Palermo, Esq. -- ppalermo@bluewilliams.com -- Blue Williams, LLP. Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard P. Sulzer, Esq. -- rsulzer@sulzerandwilliams.com -- Sulzer & Williams, LLC & Robert Edward Williams, IV, Esq. -- rwilliams@sulzerandwilliams.com -- Sulzer & Williams, LLC. Ward Lumber Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by David John Calogero, Davidson, Meaux, Sonnier, McElligott, Fontenot, Gideon &. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C.. BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, Defendant, represented by Nancy Cundiff, Esq. -- nbrechtel@csa-lawfirm.com -- Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, LLP & Christine Changho Bruneau, Esq. -- cbruneau@csa- lawfirm.com -- Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, LLP. AT&T Corp., Defendant, represented by Nancy Cundiff, Cotten, Schmidt & Abbott, LLP & Erin Wedge Latuso, Forman, Watkins & Krutz LLP. Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale, Anne Elizabeth Medo, Deutsch Kerrigan LLP, David C Bach, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale LLP, Edward J. Lassus, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale. Cytec Engineered Materials Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael W. Rutledge, Esq. -- mrutledge@shmrlaw.com -- Salley, Hite, Mercer & Resor LLC. Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Glenn B. Adams, Esq. -- gadams@phjlaw.com -- Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson, Leandro Ryan Area, Esq. -- rarea@phjlaw.com -- Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson & Nancy Lee Cromartie, Esq. -- ncromartie@phjlaw.com -- Porteous, Hainkel & Johnson. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stacey Leigh Strain, Esq. -- strain@hubbardmitchell.com -- Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Mold Verdict vs. Crane Co. Granted ---------------------------------------------------------- On March 30, 2010, Valent Rabovsky and his wife, Ann Rabovsky, commenced a civil action against various defendants in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, claiming that Valent Rabovsky, who had worked as a millwright since the 1950s, developed malignant mesothelioma from work-related exposure to asbestos and products containing asbestos, which were produced, manufactured, or sold by Defendants. This civil action was removed to federal court on July 1, 2010. In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs averred that Defendant Crane Co., individually and as successor-in-interest to Chapman Valve Company, manufactured, produced, sold, and/or supplied Crane Co. valves at Decedent's work sites. The Plaintiffs proceeded to trial against only Defendant Crane Co.; however, liability assessment of certain other defendants was also presented to the jury. On February 2, 2016, a jury trial was held on the issue of whether Defendant Crane Co. was negligent in failing to warn Plaintiffs of the danger of exposure to asbestos. The jury found in favor of the Plaintiffs and awarded $1,085,000 in damages, consisting of $835,000 in compensatory damages for the Decedent's Estate under the Survival Act, 20 Pa. C.S. Section 3371, et seq., and $250,000 for Ann Rabovsky for loss of consortium. The jury apportioned liability amongst Defendant Crane Co. and the Settling Defendants, and specifically assessed liability as follows: Joint Tortfeasor Defendant Apportioned Liability -------------------------- --------------------- Crane Co. 30% CBS Corporation 25% Foster Wheeler Energy Corp. 20% Goulds Pumps, Inc. 13% Doe Run Resources Corp. 5% Duquesne Light Company 5% Honeywell International 2% AK Steel Corporation 0% Beazer East, Inc. 0% IMO Industries, Inc. 0% Ingersoll-Rand 0% Pennsylvania Electric Company 0% United States Steel Corporation 0% ______ 100% Pursuant to the Court's post-trial scheduling order, the Plaintiffs and Defendant Crane Co. filed motions with supporting memoranda and later presented oral argument on whether and how the verdict should be molded. Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a June 15, 2016, memorandum opinion denied Crane Co.'s motion to mold the verdict and award; and granted the Plaintiffs' motions to mold the verdict against Crane Co. and for delay damages. The case is ANN RABOVSKY and LYNN C. DOBRICK, Personal Representative of the Estate of VALENT RABOVSKY, Deceased Plaintiffs v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al. Defendants, Civil Action No. 10-3202 (E.D. Pa.). A full-text copy of Judge Quinones Alejandro's Decision is available at https://is.gd/p5P3l3 from Leagle.com. ANN RABOVSKY, Plaintiff, represented by CHARLES E SOECHTING, JR., SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC, BENJAMIN J. BRALY, SIMON EDDINS GREENSTONE LLP, DAVID B. HALPERN, BROOKMAN, ROSENBERG, BROWN & SANDLER, KATHRYN ANN PRYOR, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, PC, KEVIN W. PAUL, SIMON GREENSTURE PANATIER BARTLETT PC, LISA WHITE SHIRLEY, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC, RACHEL C. MOUSSA, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC & SEAN R. COX, SIMON EDDINS GREENSTONE. LYNN C. DOBRICK, Plaintiff, represented by BENJAMIN J. BRALY, SIMON EDDINS GREENSTONE LLP, CHARLES E SOECHTING, JR., SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC, DAVID B. HALPERN, BROOKMAN, ROSENBERG, BROWN & SANDLER, KATHRYN ANN PRYOR, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, PC, KEVIN W. PAUL, SIMON GREENSTURE PANATIER BARTLETT PC, LISA WHITE SHIRLEY, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC, RACHEL C. MOUSSA, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC, SAMUEL I. IOLA, pro hac vice, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC & SEAN R. COX, SIMON EDDINS GREENSTONE. CRANE CO., Defendant, represented by ERIC R.I. COTTLE, K&L GATES LLP, GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC, MICHAEL J. ROSS, pro hac vice, K&L GATES LLP, NICHOLAS P. VARI, pro hac vice, K&L GATES, G. DANIEL BRUCH, JR., SWARTZ CAMPBELL, LLC, MICHAEL J. ZUKOWSKI, K&L GATES & TARA L. PEHUSH, pro hac vice, K&L GATES. THE DOE RUN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by NORMAN L. HAASE, SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER. FLOWSERVE (US), INC., Defendant, represented by TIMOTHY D. RAU, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN. FOSTER WHEELER ENERGY CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by LEROY J. JANICZEK, REILLY, JANICZEK & MCDEVITT, PC & VINCENT F. REILLY, REILLY JANICZEK & MCDEVITT, PC. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, Defendant, represented by PETER J. NEESON, RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by CRAIG FOSTER TURET, CURTIN & HEEFNER LLP. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., Defendant, represented by DAVID L. PENNINGTON, HARVEY PENNINGTON CABOT GRIFFITH & RENNEISEN, LTD. PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOHN C. MCMEEKIN, RAWLE & HENDERSON & SUSAN M. DEAN, RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP. RILEY POWER, INC., Defendant, represented by JOAN P. DEPFER, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN. CRANE CO., Defendant, represented by GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC & GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC. THE DOE RUN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Cross Claimant, represented by NORMAN L. HAASE, SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER. THE DOE RUN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by NORMAN L. HAASE, SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER. CRANE CO., Cross Defendant, represented by GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC & GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC. ANN RABOVSKY, Cross Defendant, represented by BENJAMIN J. BRALY, SIMON EDDINS GREENSTONE LLP & KEVIN W. PAUL, SIMON GREENSTURE PANATIER BARTLETT PC. VALENT RABOVSKY, Cross Defendant, represented by BENJAMIN J. BRALY, SIMON EDDINS GREENSTONE LLP, KATHRYN ANN PRYOR, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, PC & RACHEL C. MOUSSA, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC. CRANE CO., Defendant, represented by GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by CRAIG FOSTER TURET, CURTIN & HEEFNER LLP. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by DAVID L. PENNINGTON, HARVEY PENNINGTON CABOT GRIFFITH & RENNEISEN, LTD. PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN C. MCMEEKIN, RAWLE & HENDERSON & SUSAN M. DEAN, RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP. RILEY POWER, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by JOAN P. DEPFER, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN. THE DOE RUN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by NORMAN L. HAASE, SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER. CRANE CO., Cross Claimant, represented by GREGORY M. STOKES, SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC. IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by CRAIG FOSTER TURET, CURTIN & HEEFNER LLP. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by DAVID L. PENNINGTON, HARVEY PENNINGTON CABOT GRIFFITH & RENNEISEN, LTD. PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, Cross Defendant, represented by JOHN C. MCMEEKIN, RAWLE & HENDERSON & SUSAN M. DEAN, RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP. RILEY POWER, INC., Cross Defendant, represented by JOAN P. DEPFER, MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN. THE DOE RUN RESOURCES CORPORATION, Cross Defendant, represented by NORMAN L. HAASE, SWARTZ, CAMPBELL & DETWEILER. ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Paul's Suit vs. R&Q Reinsurance Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- In September 2015, R&Q Reinsurance Company filed a declaratory judgment action against St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company in the Northern District of Illinois. The Illinois court subsequently transferred that action to the Pennsylvania Court. Prior to that transfer, in October 2015, St. Paul sued R&Q in this District for breach of contract on the same underlying claims. R&Q filed a motion to dismiss the second-filed Pennsylvania Action. The Pennsylvania Action was subsequently reassigned to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. U.S. District Judge Berle M. Schiller said R&Q's motion will be granted, and the Pennsylvania Action will be dismissed without prejudice. The Court concludes that the first-filed rule applies, and that there was no inequitable conduct justifying a departure from the rule. St. Paul may assert its claims in its answer to the surviving action. The case is ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-5528 (E.D. Pa.). A full-text copy of Judge Schiller's June 2, 2016 Memorandum is available at https://is.gd/1uzRyP from Leagle.com. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID A. ATTISANI, Esq. -- dattisani@choate.com -- CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP, pro hac vice, DIANE SEOL, Esq. -- dseol@choate.com -- CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP, pro hac vice, IRENE OBERMAN KHAGI, Esq., CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP, pro hac vice, PAOLA TRIPODI KACZYNSKI, LAW OFFICES WILLIAM J FERREN & ASSOC, ROBERT A. KOLE, Esq. -- rkole@choate.com -- CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP, pro hac vice & SAMANTHA KRASNER, Esq. -- skrasner@choate.com -- CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP, pro hac vice. R&Q REINSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by LLOYD A. GURA, MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS, MICHAEL H. GOLDSTEIN, MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS LLP, pro hac vice, MICHAEL S. HINO, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP & NICHOLAS H. HORSMON, MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS LLP, pro hac vice. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 6th Cir. Upholds Prison Term for M. Sawyer ----------------------------------------------------------- In 2006, Mark Sawyer and four co-defendants formed A&E Salvage and purchased the salvage rights to a former industrial site in eastern Tennessee in order to demolish the buildings on site and obtain salvageable material. Despite the presence of large amounts of regulated asbestos-containing material, A&E Salvage knowingly failed to comply with the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for asbestos. The Environmental Protection Agency eventually intervened and cleaned up the site, pursuant to its power under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act at a total cost of over $16 million. Sawyer eventually pled guilty to one count of conspiring to violate the Clean Air Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 371. The district court sentenced Sawyer to a 60-month prison term and held Sawyer and his co-defendants jointly and severally liable for $10,388,576.71 in restitution to the EPA. Sawyer challenges his sentence and the district court's restitution award. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in a June 3, 2016, affirmed the sentence and the restitution award. A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's Decision is available at https://is.gd/0ASbO5 from Leagle.com. The appeals case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARK C. SAWYER, Defendant-Appellant, No. 15-5181 (6th Cir.). ARGUED: Francis L. Lloyd, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS L. LLOYD, JR., Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Matthew T. Morris, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Francis L. Lloyd, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS L. LLOYD, JR., Knoxville, Tennessee, Ashley Meredith Lowe, BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellant. Matthew T. Morris, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Recommends Remand of "Wines" -------------------------------------------------------- In the case IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NEAL WINES, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of DONNIE LACEY WINES, and on behalf of all Wrongful Death beneficiaries, Plaintiff, v. ABB, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-1190-GMS-SRF (D. Del.), Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a report and recommendation on June 10, 2016, recommending that the court grant the motion to remand to state court on the grounds that the notice of removal filed by Rockwell Automation Inc., was untimely and does not meet the requirements of the federal officer removal statute. A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation is available at https://is.gd/MkMGr9 from Leagle.com. Neal Wines, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin, The deBruin Firm LLC. Alfa Laval Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason A. Cincilla, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Amaryah K. Bocchino, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Jessica L. Reno, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP & Stephanie Elizabeth Smiertka, Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. Durez Corporation, Defendant, represented by Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Katharine Lester Mowery, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA & Travis Steven Hunter, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA. Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Ana Marina McCann, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Jennifer D. Smith, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Sarah Anne Fruehauf, City Solicitor's Office. Occidental Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA, Katharine Lester Mowery, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA & Travis Steven Hunter, Richards, Layton & Finger, PA. Rockwell Automation Inc., Defendant, represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Swartz Campbell LLC, Joseph S. Naylor, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. Schneider Electric USA Inc., Defendant, represented by Neal C. Glenn, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP, Brian Tome, Reilly, Janiczek, McDevitt, Henrich & Cholden, P.C. & Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP. William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Anne Kai Seelaus, Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie and Seelaus. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Master Granted Limited Discovery in "Rhodes" ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned VICKI YOUNG, as Personal Representative of the Estate of JAMES NATHAN RHODES and PAMELA SUSAN RHODES, his Spouse, Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al., Defendants, No. 1:13CV864 (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs filed the action against several defendants seeking monetary damages for Plaintiff James Nathan Rhodes, who allegedly contracted asbestos cancer from exposure to asbestos dust while working in the mechanical and industrial employment field. Mr. Rhodes subsequently died as a result of his asbestos caused disease, Mesothelioma. An amended complaint was filed to add a claim for wrongful death, and to substitute and add parties to this action. The Plaintiffs thereafter filed a second amended complaint to add additional parties including Master and MIW. Master and MIW both filed motions to dismiss. On February 11, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the pending motion for limited jurisdictional discovery pertaining to Master and MIW. Magistrate Judge Joe L. Webster of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, in a June 2, 2016 memorandum opinion and order granted the Plaintiffs' motion for limited jurisdictional discovery regarding defendants Master Industries, Inc., and Master Industries Worldwide, LLC. In granting jurisdictional discovery, the court will limit discovery to the topic of specific jurisdiction with respect to Master and MIW. The Plaintiffs may serve eight interrogatories and requests for production of documents on both Master and MIW related solely to the issue of specific jurisdiction, according to the court. A full-text copy of Magistrate Webster's decision is available at https://is.gd/zqCFdV from Leagle.com. VICKI YOUNG, Plaintiff, represented by JOHN S. HUGHES, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A., MONA LISA WALLACE, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A., W. MARLOWE RARY, II, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A. & WILLIAM MARC GRAHAM, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A.. PAMELA SUSAN RHODES, Plaintiff, represented by JOHN S. HUGHES, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A., MONA LISA WALLACE, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A. & WILLIAM MARC GRAHAM, WALLACE AND GRAHAM, P.A.. ARMSTRONG INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, represented by TIMOTHY PECK, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP. CLEAVER-BROOKS, INC., Defendant, represented by STEPHEN B. WILLIAMSON, Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A.. CROSBY VALVE, INC., Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP. ELLIOTT COMPANY, Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP. FISHER CONTROLS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant, represented by DANIEL B. WHITE, GALLIVAN WHITE & BOYD, P.A., JAMES M. DEDMAN, IV, GALLIVAN WHITE & BOYD, P.A., JACOB M. BIBIS, VON BRIESEN & ROPER, S. C. & JOHN G. GOLLER, VON BRIESEN & ROPER, S. C.. FLOWSERVE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by DANIEL B. WHITE, GALLIVAN WHITE & BOYD, P.A., JAMES M. DEDMAN, IV, GALLIVAN WHITE & BOYD, P.A., TIMOTHY W. BOUCH, Leath Bouch & Seekings, LLP & STEPHANIE G. FLYNN, GALLIVAN WHITE & BOYD, P.A.. GARDNER DENVER, INC., Defendant, represented by AMY C. DRAYTON, DEAN & GIBSON, PLLC. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER M. TECHMAN, EVERT WEATHERSBY HOUFF. GOULDS PUMPS, INC., Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, TRAVIS ANDREW BUSTAMANTE, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP & WILLIAM MICHAEL STARR, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP. INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, Defendant, represented by TIMOTHY PECK, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP. RILEY POWER, INC., Defendant, represented by ERIN ELAINE SHOFNER, HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG, LLP & TERESA LAZZARONI, HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG, LLP. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by CHARLES M. SPRINKLE, III, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A., MOFFATT G. MCDONALD, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A., SCOTT E. FRICK, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A. & W. DAVID CONNER, HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A.. UNITED CONVEYOR CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by TIMOTHY PECK, SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP. WARREN PUMPS, LLC, Defendant, represented by JOSHUA HAMILTON BENNETT, BENNETT & GUTHRIE, P.L.L.C.. YUBA HEAT TRANSFER, LLC., Defendant, represented by WILLIAM MICHAEL STARR, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP. AURORA PUMP, Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP. CBS CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER M. TECHMAN, EVERT WEATHERSBY HOUFF. CRANE CO., Defendant, represented by RONALD A. CHARLOT, K&L GATES LLP & RICHARD A. FARRIER, K&L GATES LLP. AMERICAN TALC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP. BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP. BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES, INC., Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP. MASTER INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, represented by CHRISTOPHER CARLISLE LAM, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP. MASTER INDUSTRIES WORLDWIDE, LLC, Defendant, represented by RICHARD T. BOYETTE, CRANFILL SUMNER & HARTZOG & LAURA E. DEAN, CRANFILL SUMNER & HARTZOG LLP. MILWHITE, INC., Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by KEITH E. COLTRAIN, WALL TEMPLETON & HALDRUP, P.A.. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Corp. Junked as Defendant in "Donlon" --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division, ruled that the complaint captioned PATTI DONLON, Individually and as Succcesor-in-Interest to the Estate of PATRICK THEISEN DONLON, Decedent; SEAN DONLON; and DOES ONE through TEN, inclusive, Plaintiffs, v. AC AND S, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 3:11-03376-CRB (JSC)(N.D. Calif.), is dismissed, with prejudice, as to defendant Asbestos Corporation, Limited. A full-text copy of Judge Breyer's Order dated July 19, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/f4OtUl from Leagle.com. Patti Donlon, Plaintiff, represented by Katherine Yao Wang, Harowitz & Tigerman, Roger Edward Gold, Harowitz & Tigerman, LLP, Stephen Michael Tigerman, Esq. -- tigerman@htlawoffices.com -- Harowitz & Tigerman LLP & Steven Marc Harowitz, Esq. -- harowitz@htlawoffices.com -- Harowitz and Tigerman, LLP. Sean Donlon, Plaintiff, represented by Roger Edward Gold, Harowitz & Tigerman, LLP, Stephen Michael Tigerman, Harowitz & Tigerman LLP & Steven Marc Harowitz, Harowitz and Tigerman, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: CSX Continues to Defend Claims at June 24 ---------------------------------------------------------- CSX Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos- related personal injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 24, 2016. The Company states, "Casualty reserves of $246 million and $269 million as of June 24, 2016 and December 25, 2015, respectively, represent accruals for personal injury, asbestos and occupational injury claims. The Company's self-insured retention amount for these claims is $50 million per occurrence. Currently, no individual claim is expected to exceed the self-insured retention amount. In accordance with the Contingencies Topic in the ASC, to the extent the value of an individual claim exceeds the self- insured retention amount, the Company would present the liability on a gross basis with a corresponding receivable for insurance recoveries. These reserves fluctuate based upon the timing of payments as well as changes in estimate. Actual results may vary from estimates due to the number, type and severity of the injury, costs of medical treatments and uncertainties in litigation. Most of the Company's casualty claims relate to CSXT unless otherwise noted below. Defense and processing costs, which historically have been insignificant and are anticipated to be insignificant in the future, are not included in the recorded liabilities. "Personal injury reserves represent liabilities for employee work- related and third-party injuries. Work-related injuries for CSXT employees are primarily subject to the Federal Employers' Liability Act ("FELA"). In addition to FELA liabilities, employees of other current or former CSX subsidiaries are covered by various state workers' compensation laws, the Federal Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Program or the Maritime Jones Act. "CSXT retains an independent actuary to assist management in assessing the value of personal injury claims. An analysis is performed by the actuary quarterly and is reviewed by management. This analysis for the quarter resulted in an immaterial adjustment to the personal injury reserve. The methodology used by the actuary includes a development factor to reflect growth or reduction in the value of these personal injury claims. It is based largely on CSXT's historical claims and settlement experience. "The Company is party to a number of asbestos claims by employees alleging exposure to asbestos in the workplace. Management reviews asserted asbestos claims quarterly. Unasserted or incurred but not reported ("IBNR") asbestos claims are analyzed by a third- party specialist and reviewed by management annually. CSXT's historical claim filings, settlement amounts, and dismissal rates are analyzed to determine future anticipated claim filing rates and average settlement values for asbestos claims reserves. The potentially exposed population is estimated by using CSXT's employment records and industry data. From this analysis, the specialist estimates the IBNR claims liabilities. "Occupational claims arise from allegations of exposure to certain materials in the workplace, such as solvents, soaps, chemicals (collectively referred to as "irritants") and diesel fuels (like exhaust fumes) or allegations of chronic physical injuries resulting from work conditions, such as repetitive stress injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and hearing loss." ASBESTOS UPDATE: GMS Has 1 Case Set fro Trial This Year ------------------------------------------------------- GMS Inc. has one asbestos-related personal injury case currently scheduled for trial later this year and is in the early stages of discovery, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2016. The Company states "The building materials industry has been subject to personal injury and property damage claims arising from alleged exposure to raw materials contained in building products as well as claims for incidents of catastrophic loss, such as building fires. As a distributor of building materials, we face an inherent risk of exposure to product liability claims in the event that the use of the products we have distributed in the past or may in the future distribute is alleged to have resulted in economic loss, personal injury or property damage or violated environmental, health or safety or other laws. Such product liability claims have included and may in the future include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability or a breach of warranties. In particular, certain of our subsidiaries have been the subject of claims related to alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products they distributed prior to 1979, which have not materially impacted our financial condition or operating results. Since 2002, approximately 944 asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits have been brought and we vigorously defend against them. Of these, 855 have been dismissed without any payment by us, 21 are on deferred or inactive court dockets, 63 are pending and only 5 have been settled. In total, we have paid an aggregate of less than $300,000,000 in connection with these settlements. One of the pending cases is currently scheduled for trial later this year and is in the early stages of discovery. The complaint names one of our subsidiaries, along with multiple other parties, as a defendant and seeks unspecified damages. Despite our past experience, the amount, if any, required to resolve this matter may be significantly higher than amounts paid in prior settlements and could be material to us. We have not recorded a reserve, nor disclosed a potential range, for this matter because the amount of any exposure cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. We are exposed to product liability, warranty, casualty, construction defect, contract, tort, employment and other claims and legal proceedings related to our business, the products we distribute, the services we provide and services provided for us by third parties." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Del. Court Adopts Remand Recommendation -------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Delaware federal court has adopted a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge that suggested an asbestos case be remanded to state court, according to a recent order. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued the order on July 21; in it, the court adopted a report and recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Sherry Fallon, in which the judge concluded that there was no causal connection between "the claims and the conduct performed under color of a federal office." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Missouri Federal Court Remands Asbestos Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Missouri federal court has remanded an asbestos suit, concluding that the removing defendant had not met its burden to show that one of the defendants was fraudulently joined. In the July 22 order, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri remanded the case to the St. Louis Circuit Court. Plaintiff James Hartfield filed the underlying claims, contending that he developed mesothelioma as a result of secondhand exposure. Hartfield specifically said that his father -- a pipefitter for nearly 20 years -- brought asbestos fibers home on his work clothing. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurer's Bid for Summary Ruling Junked -------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Louisiana federal court has denied an insurer's motion for summary judgment in an asbestos case without prejudice, arguing that, since discovery has yet to take place, the motion is premature. In the July 21 order, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana said that the insurer filed the motion prior to the commencement of formal discovery and, as such, the insurance company's motion "is simply premature." Plaintiff William D. Coleman asserted the claims, contending that he was exposed to asbestos at the Libbey-Owens-Ford Plant in Louisiana. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Jury Reaches Defense Verdict in Talc Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a California jury has reached a defense verdict at the conclusion of an asbestos trial involving Colgate-Palmolive Co.'s Cashmere Bouquet talc product, rejecting the plaintiff's claims that exposure to asbestos in the talcum powder caused her to develop mesothelioma. Judge C. Edward Simpson of the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County presided over the trial, which ended in a verdict on July 21. The trial lasted nine days and the jury deliberated for three hours before reaching a defense verdict, sources told HarrisMartin. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fake Contractor Exposes Asbestos ------------------------------------------------- Fairfield City Champion reported that unlicensed contractors exposed asbestos when they used a high-pressure water hose on a house roof, causing a clean-up bill that could total tens of thousands of dollars for a Fairfield householder. Council's Environmental Management officers are investigating the incident that potentially exposed residents in the Fairfield Local Government Area to asbestos. It has prompted a warning from Fairfield City Council for residents to be asbestos aware and to be wary of "fly-by-night" operators. "Unlicensed contractors advertising and promoting roof cleaning and restoration within the Fairfield LGA were recently paid to 'clean' a residential roof," Mayor of Fairfield City Frank Carbone said. "A high-pressure water device was used, resulting in a pollution incident. The owner has been left with a substantial asbestos clean-up cost for her property as well as her adjacent neighbours' properties. "The contractors have 'disappeared' after being paid and cannot be contacted." The Asbestos Education Committee website states that if asbestos is disturbed it can release dangerous fine particles of dust containing asbestos fibres. Breathing in this dust can cause asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, which is the cancer that most often occurs in the lining of the lung. There is no cure. If you are thinking about renovating, it is important for home owners and renovators to be aware of how to safely manage asbestos in and around the home. Facts to keep in mind: * Homes built or renovated before 1987 have a high potential to contain asbestos materials (this may include the roof) * If an offer seems too good to be true -- it probably is. Before engaging contractors to do work that may involve asbestos, or if you are not sure if they are licensed, contact WorkCover NSW on 131 050. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Essex School Fined GBP46K for Asbestos Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Will Lodgewill, writing for East Anglian Daily Times, reported that a mid-Essex school has been ordered to pay GBP46,000 after a poorly-planned refurbishment exposed staff to asbestos. Managers at The Boswells School, in Chelmsford, converted an old boiler room into a cleaning store. During the work asbestos residue on the walls was disturbed and caretakers swept contaminated debris from floors. Their exposure to risk only came to light after a later asbestos survey was completed in the area, Chelmsford Crown Court heard on Friday. An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) found materials containing asbestos were also present in other areas, and school caretaking staff and contractors had disturbed the fabric of school buildings over many years without being alerted to their presence. Anyone who entered potentially contaminated areas were placed at risk of developing serious ill health conditions. The school, in Burnham Road, also failed to ensure that spread of asbestos was prevented or reduced. Boswells Academy Trust pleaded guilty to breaching two health and safety regulations. Judge David Turner QC fined the trust GBP26,000 and ordered it to pay costs of GBP20,000. Glyn Davies, HSE inspector, said after the hearing: "The Boswells Academy Trust should have controlled this potentially lethal risk by identifying the type, location and condition of any asbestos containing materials within the fabric of the school, and by implementing suitable precautions to prevent its disturbance. "It should then have ensured such information was shared with anyone liable to disturb this fabric. "This prosecution should act as a reminder, not just to schools, but to all persons in control of the repair and maintenance of non-domestic premises, of the need to ensure correct measures are put in place." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Body Powder Suits Proposed for MDL Consolidation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that with more than 1,200 talcum powder lawsuits alleging ovarian cancer risk in association with use of a heritage Johnson & Johnson product, a motion has been filed proposing consolidation by the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for pre-trial proceedings. The Motion for Transfer was officially filed July 15th, with the proposed jurisdiction identified as the Southern District of Illinois. Body powder and cancer has been in the news for some time given allegations that Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower-to- Shower products are linked to ovarian cancer. In the past several months two bellwether cases found for the plaintiffs, with substantial awards tied to the outcome. In a third Johnson & Johnson lawsuit, the jury also found for the plaintiff, although no monetary award was extended to the plaintiff involved. According to a CBS News report back in May (05/03/16) talc is a naturally-occurring mineral comprised of magnesium, silicon and oxygen. In its natural form, talc can also contain asbestos -- although CBS News is quick to point out that talcum products sold in the US have not contained asbestos since the 1970s. That's an important observation, given the prevalence of talc as a widely-used ingredient in cosmetics and personal care products. The presence of asbestos in talcum powder prior to the 1970s notwithstanding, positions on the modern-day talcum powder, and the outcomes of research are mixed -- at least, according to the American Cancer Society. As an example, Dr. Francisco Xynos of SSM Health St. Mary's Hospital in St. Louis told a CBS affiliate that scientific evidence linking talc to cancer is somewhat weak. "I think the concern for the general population should be negligible, because there is no scientific proof of that," Xynos said, in comments to KMOX in St. Louis. And yet the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an offshoot of the World Health Organization, holds that talcum-based body powder used in the genital area is "possibly carcinogenic to humans." Dr. Daniel Cramer is more forceful than that. The Director of the OB/GYN Epidemiology Center at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, has reportedly conducted his own studies and has concluded the link between genital use of talc-based body powder and ovarian cancer is very real, and the evidence is compelling. "I think the link is a persuasive one," Cramer told CBS Boston. "There have been more than 20 epidemiologic studies and a majority of these have found an elevated risk, and when you combine those risks into a single estimate, it is highly significant." During the trial associated with the body powder lawsuit brought by the family of the late Jackie Fox, it was revealed that Johnson & Johnson knew as early as 1997 that there was the potential for a link between body powder containing talc, and ovarian cancer when used on the genitals -- a common use. Talcum powder lawsuit attorneys engaged by the plaintiff introduced into evidence an internal memo from a Johnson & Johnson medical consultant suggesting to the pharmaceutical giant that denying any cancer risk associated with body powder use could result in a talc industry "perceived by the public like it perceives the cigarette industry: denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary." In other words, noted Fox's legal team, Johnson & Johnson made a conscious decision in 1997 to avoid warning consumers about the potential risk for ovarian cancer through the use of talcum powder. Jackie Fox, a woman from Birmingham, Alabama, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in March, 2013 and died in October, 2015 after living with ovarian cancer for over two years. A talcum powder lawsuit alleging wrongful death from body powder and cancer was brought by the victim's son. A jury awarded the plaintiff $72 million (Fox v. Johnson & Johnson, Case No. 1422-CC09012-01, Division 10, Missouri Circuit Court, 22nd Judicial District St. Louis). Johnson & Johnson is set to appeal the verdict. Meanwhile, with scores of women having used Johnson & Johnson body powder across decades -- over entire lifetimes, in some cases -- it is prudent to assume cases suggesting a link between body powder and cancer will grow beyond the 1,200 cases now proposed for multi district consolidation in the Southern District of Illinois. ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Superfund Site Gets Dedicated Fire Team ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Pholphiboun, writing for KPAX.com, reported that it's taken months to find firefighters willing to take on the danger of battling blazes in areas with dangerous levels of asbestos, but now, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Forest Service have put together a team ready for the challenge. EPA Superfund Project Manager Christina Progess says with the current high level of asbestos still in and around the WR Grace Superfund site, special gear will be needed when fighting fires in that area. A new team of four specially trained firefighters are now in place while fire packs, one fire engine, dozers, water tenders and a helicopter are dedicated resources to this specific area. "We find that asbestos have been in the bark and in the duff which is the litter on the forest floor and unless you disturb it, the asbestos remains where it is," Progess said. Two small test burns were conducted last year and findings showed exposure to asbestos were very high and prolonged exposure can lead to heath concerns like cancer. Handcrew Leader Jason Sunell says that the new gear changes it up a bit. "Probably working about 60% to 70% of your production rate; unlike what you'd be at your 90% to 100% as just a normal fire fighter." The fire pack can weigh up to 40 pounds while crews may take several hours hiking up to the fire site and wearing this respirator mask. Because crews are now working with a respirator, working hours are cut down by half. The funding is shared between the USFS and the EPA. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Concerns Raised ----------------------------------------- Jonathan Bell, writing for The Royal Gazette, reported that concerns of asbestos contamination have risen in the aftermath of a conflagration in Hamilton that burnt down one of the city's oldest buildings. Sources told The Royal Gazette that firefighters had flagged up the issue, given the building's age, and its proximity to restaurants. Asbestos exposure is generally only considered serious if the dust goes airborne. The material was once widely used in construction. Mayor Charles Gosling said that no worries had been communicated to City Hall. A government spokeswoman last night said the matter remained under investigation. "At this time it is not certain whether the claims are accurate or not," she said. "The Department of Health is liaising with the Bermuda Fire and Rescue Service to ascertain the facts and plan necessary steps accordingly." ASBESTOS UPDATE: College Reprimanded Over Asbestos Removal ---------------------------------------------------------- Droitwich Spa Advertiser reported that a Worcester school has been reprimanded by the health and safety executive about the way it removed an asbestos roof. Two 18-year-old workers knocked the asbestos down from the roof of a small outbuilding at Christopher Whitehead Language College during the October half term in 2013. Following an investigation, the college has received a letter of contravention of health and safety, upholding a complaint by public service union, Unison. Unison said it had complained to the HSE after becoming concerned that the removal of the asbestos breached health and safety guidelines. Charlie Sarell, Unison West Midlands regional organiser, said: "We are glad that the Health & Safety Executive have concluded their investigation into issues at the school, after concerns raised by Unison. "If it wasn't for the hard work and determination of our members, this issue would never have seen the light of day. "Serious concerns, however, remain for staff, pupils and parents." However, the school's headteacher Neil Morris denied there were serious concerns and said the school had improved its health and safety policies as a result. He said the building in question was a small lean-to with a roof "no bigger than a door" that was falling down and had to be removed. The school was given advice on how to remove the asbestos by Worcestershire County Council and opted to do so in October when the weather was damp and double bagged it as instructed. He said: "The only thing we didn't get right was two of the young lads, 18-year-old employees, were knocking it down from the roof so the asbestos was falling down. "The concern was could we have done it in a safer manner. "With hindsight, we could and should have done it in a better manner. "But have the actions we've taken made it (health and safety procedure) even safer? Not only I but the HSE think our actions are exemplary and model practice." He added: "We've had one complaint in 13 years. "This was three years ago and in our final meeting with HSE they felt we were in a better position to deal with asbestos in the future which undoubtedly we will have to do." "No pupils or staff were at risk." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Death Sees GBP228K Payout --------------------------------------------------- David Shepherd, writing for South West Business, reported that widow Mary Atkins has been awarded GBP228,000 in damages from an engineering company after her husband died from a condition related to asbestos exposure. Mrs Atkins, who lives in Wollaston, near Lydney, brought the case after her husband Richard died from mesothelioma in 2013. He was an apprentice and engineer at APE Allen, part of Queen's Engineering Works in Bedford. He was exposed to the asbestos while working there in the 1960s. Mrs Atkins' solicitor Brigitte Chandler, from Swindon law firm Charles Lucas & Marshall and one of the UK's leading legal specialists in asbestos cases, said as the exposure to the substance took place more than 50 years ago it had been initially difficult to find witnesses. "However, we were able to trace a former colleague of Mr Atkins to New Zealand who remembered the exposure to asbestos and gave a statement," she said. "This forced the company to accept liability." Mr Atkins was involved in the installation and service work on ships and at pumping stations dealing with diesel engines, turbines and pipes. He worked on ships in the Cammell Laird yard in Birkenhead, near Liverpool, and Portsmouth. "Asbestos was widely used in boiler and engine rooms on ships," said Mrs Chandler. "Quite often, the work involved removing small amounts of asbestos." Developing asbestos disease can take up to 70 years from the point of exposure. Mrs Atkins was able to bring a claim for damages due to her husband's pain and suffering and her loss of income. Mrs Chandler said: "Many people may have forgotten they were exposed to asbestos. "It can happen in the home or in work or even from people bringing it home on their clothes. If anyone develops chest pains they should seek medical advice." Mesothelioma is a type of cancer which most often starts in the covering of the lungs but can also start in the abdomen. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gov't Charged Only 2 Asbestos Importers in 8 Yrs ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Burrell, writing for The Australian, reported that federal authorities have prosecuted just two companies found to have imported asbestos-laced materials since 2008 and extracted a meagre $64,000 in fines, despite mounting evidence thousands of contaminated products are slipping past border controls. As business groups and unions call for urgent action after recent asbestos scandals at building sites in Brisbane and Perth, it has emerged that the maximum fine for illegally importing asbestos -- $180,000 -- has never been imposed. Michael Shepherd, the president of the Asbestos Industry Association which represents businesses engaged in abating the hazardous material, said asbestos was entering the country from China because Australian Border Force was checking less than 5 per cent of all products imported. He said products containing asbestos were only detected by "pure chance" and nobody knew the full extent of the problem. Mr Shepherd said companies importing cheap materials were unconcerned about being fined because of the rarity of Australian prosecutions. Companies knew they could save millions of dollars by taking a chance on importing cheaper materials from China -- where asbestos is common -- rather than sourcing them in Australia. "The maximum penalty is $180,000 but the true cost of rectifying these issues is going to be in the multi-millions if we have to pull out asbestos and shut down buildings," he said. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection told a Senate inquiry this year that the total amount of fines, penalties and costs imposed for asbestos importation offences since 2009 stood at $64,000. It is believed that authorities have prosecuted only two cases of importing asbestos-contaminated material since 2008: one involving Chinese machinery, the other industrial equipment from Vietnam. There have been no prosecutions for the importation of building products containing asbestos, despite rising fear of contamination at construction sites around the country. In its interim report handed down in May, the Senate committee raised "major concerns" about the ability of Australia's enforcement agencies to effectively police borders so that products containing asbestos were detected. "At the moment, this area of enforcement appears to require substantial strengthening and should be a high priority for government," the committee said. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection did not respond to questions from The Weekend Australian about prosecutions it had overseen. It emerged that the $1.2 billion Perth Children's Hospital project and the 1 William Street tower in Brisbane were contaminated by asbestos in products supplied by Chinese company Yuanda. The Perth site had white asbestos, or chrysotile, in some Yuanda- made roof panels; the Brisbane tower was found to have asbestos- tainted gaskets. Border Force has halted 21 Yuanda containers at various ports and executed warrants at company offices in Sydney and Brisbane. Mr Shepherd called for compulsory asbestos testing of all materials imported from China. "That will be a cost to industry but it's a fraction of the cost in the long term in terms of health impacts and managing the asbestos," he said. "The other thing we need to do is gather intelligence in China -- we need to understand their asbestos industry and their manufacturing processes over there, so we can get a better handle on where the asbestos is being put into these products." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Boswells School Ordered to Pay GBP46K ------------------------------------------------------ Joe Sturdy, writing for Essex Chronicle, reported that a Chelmsford school with asbestos residue in its ceilings and walls has been ordered to pay a total of GBP46,000. Staff failings, ineffective recording and training and an insufficient survey at Boswells School led to maintenance workers and contractors being potentially exposed to the deadly material between February 1, 2012 and July 21, 2014. At a sentencing hearing at Chelmsford Crown Court on July 22, Tom Forster, prosecuting for the Health & Safety Executive said: "On inspection there was obvious residue of asbestos in walls and ceiling voids. "There was also dust and debris on the window sills, in a box in block A. Tom Forster, barrister for the Health & Safety Executive "There was no [written, official] record of asbestos in the school and the only asbestos survey the school had was totally historic, dating back to 2004. "There was a historical management plan dating back to 2009. "It was generally ignored by the school. "There was a general failure of the school to manage asbestos. "In that mix there was no training of staff and contractors and a general lack of awareness of asbestos in the school. "When the school became an academy this continued unabated. It was the same ship but the deckchairs had been slightly rearranged." The court heard that the issue first came to light back in July 2014 when a contractor was asked to do some work and replace a heating element and ran their own survey. It found that C block contained asbestos. The site manager then promptly informed the previous head teacher in July 2014. He reported the incident, which then saw the Health and Safety Executive investigation begin. "The maintenance staff were very concerned by the report because it found in a paint store residue of asbestos," said Mr Forster. "They had cleaned out that store in 2013 and they said they were covered in dust from head to toe and had no idea that there was asbestos in school." The areas had been cleaned of asbestos around 2000, but the health and safety investigation found there was also 'overspray residue' in ceiling voids where staff had run cables through. The A block also had 28 findings of 'asbestos-containing material' with a 'medium' potential to release the fibres, a further 80 with a low risk and 40 with a 'very low' capacity to do so. "There was dust and debris on a window ledge, and in other timber boxes in a classroom, A17, and store sheds," continued Mr Forster. "There's debris in all of these places, not just where maintenance staff go, but unfortunately also pupils." The court heard that a plan to deal with the asbestos issue was made as far back as January 17, 2004 but it lacked detail -- but nevertheless required action because of the material detected. But that plan was locked in the cupboard of one of the members of staff and there was a "lack of communication between staff about the issue" of asbestos. Lack of training of staff A separate asbestos management plan was also sent round in 2009. But a note was sent around with it by an employee at the school by email saying: "Fear not, nothing time-consuming for you to do. If you have any trouble sleeping you will be asleep by page four". Mr Forster said: "In all circumstances there was a simple lack of training of staff. Staff did not have any training at all. "Not only was that a problem but so were electrical contractors untrained or made unaware of problems." Defending, Angus Withington said that the school had spent over half a million pounds in sorting out the issue once it was made aware. He said that the current headteacher, Paul Banks who has been at the school since September 2014, was left to clear up the "failures of his predecessors" did not take any annual leave and began to take steps to sort the problem even before he was officially in post. He added that the school expressed 'deep, sincere regret' An expert doctor had said that "he couldn't detect any discernible increase of exposure to children in school" and "no direct exposure to children from maintenance activities". He added: "The real risk was to the maintenance people and contractors". A separate report by Southend Borough Council after the incident said that "Boswells manage asbestos exceptionally well" and a number of the staff are now health & safety trained. Speaking of Mr Banks, Mr Withington said: "He has fully taken ownership of this issue and there is no doubt that there have been comprehensive steps taken in order to address this matter and Southend Borough Council is happy on that basis." Speaking of the possible financial ramifications, he said: "When schools become an academy, it has a pot [of money] which was given to them in understanding they could use that to provide on-going services. "I think it was about GBP1m. "The benefit of being an academy has been effectively wiped by having to clear up the failures of his predecessors." The school was ordered to pay a fine of GBP26,000, costs of GBP20,000 and a statutory surcharge within 18 months. The judge presiding over the case, Judge David Turner QC, added: "Mercifully no-one appears to have been injured or is reported to have developed diseases. "None of the current 1,500 or so pupils or their predecessors is thought to be have been exposed directly to dust and there is argument by all experts that there is a low likelihood of any harm to children or students at the school." 'The case was deeply regrettable' Mr Banks said: "Today's judgement relates to a historical case which occurred prior to my joining The Boswells School in 2014 and was the result of inadequate health and safety procedures in place at the time. The case was deeply regrettable and The Boswells Academy Trust has accepted full responsibility. "Immediately following the incident, the school established a robust asbestos management system, overseen by a dedicated Premises Committee, which has been diligently implemented ever since. This includes monthly premises surveys which have shown the school to be compliant with all relevant regulations. "We remain entirely committed to protecting the health and safety of all children, staff and visitors to the school, now and in the future, and the procedures we now have in place are thorough and reliable." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shelby County Workers Claim Exposure to Asbestos ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tish Clark, writing for Local Memphis, reported that the Local I- Team spoke with Shelby County workers who said they are concerned that they were potentially exposed to asbestos during renovations of several Shelby County buildings. One of those buildings is the old Shelby County Morgue on Madison Avenue in Midtown. Work there has been stopped several times because of workers concerns. The county hired experts to come in and clean up the asbestos, but as construction continued, county workers have found areas of additional concern. The fibers were found in the Old County Morgue where crews have recently been doing construction. Other buildings on Poplar Avenue, Main Street and Mississippi Boulevard also contained the fibers. County workers hired attorney Bruce Kramer and claimed that nothing is being done to remove asbestos. Kramer sent this letter to the county which states in part: "It is my understanding that the health department and Human Relations Department of Shelby County are aware of this situation but have neglected to rectify the situation which has put our clients, and their families, at and medical exposure and risk." Local 24 contacted the Shelby County government to find out what's being done. They sent us this statement. "Shelby County Government is committed to providing safe workplaces for its employees. Facts and information about the interior renovation work at Shelby County-owned buildings are being reviewed." Dr. Tyler Zerwekh is Shelby County's administrator of environmental health services. He said the county is aware of the concerns and they are looking into it. "Part of our responsibility is to check the companies as they remove it so if they tend to find more asbestos we're out there weekly, daily, on a regular basis to ensure that they're taking the proper precautions under federal law to remove it safely and not expose the employees or people are kind the asbestos area," Zerwekh said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Stripped from Tenants' Homes ------------------------------------------------------ Scunthorpe Telegraph reported that contractors have finished their work in removing asbestos from the properties of hundreds of tenants of Ongo Homes in Crowle and Scunthorpe. The asbestos is said to be commonly found in the communal areas of properties built or refurbished prior to 2000. The work has seen asbestos-lined cupboards in 55 communal areas replaced with news doors and frames. An Ongo spokeswoman stressed asbestos posed no risk to human health unless it was damaged resulting in the release of fibres. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bases Deny Disposing Asbestos in Cyprus -------------------------------------------------------- Cyprus Mail reported that the British Bases denied media reports that they had disposed of asbestos waste in Cyprus. The announcement follows an extensive article in Phileleftheros, which, citing sources, said that the government gave permission to the Bases to bury asbestos waste at the mine where the mineral was extracted from, in Amiandos. According to confirmed sources, the daily said, the agreement made with the government was for the burial of 50 containers filled with asbestos material which was removed from the territory of the SBA. "It seems the permission was given by the Geological Survey Department, which arbitrarily determined the price for the materials which will be transported for burial in the mining crater at the Asbestos mine," it said. It added that the price set was at EUR16 per cubic metre. The standard practice of the Bases has been, the article said, to ship the containers with asbestos waste to the UK. The Bases, it said, produce 70 to 90 containers of asbestos waste each year. "The management costs paid by the Bases today are too high," the article said, and for this reason they opted for disposing of the asbestos waste in Cyprus. It added that Agriculture Minister Nicos Kouyialis told the paper he was not aware of such an agreement. In the past asbestos was widely used worldwide for the construction of buildings. It is however considered today as highly hazardous for human health, and its removal from old buildings is not uncommon. "Reports in today's media that the Bases have disposed of asbestos waste in Cyprus are untrue," spokesman Sean Tully said in an announcement. "We investigated the possibility of disposing of asbestos waste in Cyprus. However, following discussions with the department of the environment we decided to continue to ship all of our asbestos waste to the UK," he said. Tully told the Cyprus Mail that part of the asbestos waste is from old barracks that are gradually being demolished. In a statement released later on Thursday, the Geological Survey Department (GSD) confirmed that the British Bases had queried them on the possibility of burying asbestos waste at the Amiantos mine. The initial query was made on September 2, 2015. Following that, the department sought advice from the foreign ministry, "due to the potential political dimensions." The foreign ministry responded that it saw no political issues, advising that the British Bases' query "be handled as a technical matter." According to the GSD, it subsequently put the matter to the Technical Committee for the Amiantos Asbestos Mine which, after a thorough consideration decided to accept the British Bases' request. The technical committee comprises the GSD, the Water Development Department, the Department of Forests, the Town and Housing Department, the Department of Environment, the Department of Labour Inspection, and the Ministry of Health. The British Bases were also informed of the standard disposal tariff per cubic metre (EUR16). In its statement, the department noted that the burial of asbestos-containing materials at the Amiantos mine was authorized by the cabinet on November 26, 2009. The decision concerned the asbestos waste generated during the period 2009-2019. Following the agreement of the Technical Committee for the Amiantos Asbestos Mine, the GSD asked the British Bases to provide further details on the total amount of waste it would seek to bury on an annual basis. On May 5, 2016, the bases responded with an estimate of around 30 to 40 containers. The GSD said it subsequently requested precise numbers so as to be able to properly evaluate the matter. To date, however, the British Bases have not filed a formal disposal request, the GSD said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allens Pay Out Over Asbestos-related Death ----------------------------------------------------------- Bedford Today reported that a widow has finally gained compensation of GBP228K for her late husband's asbestos-related death, 50 years after he was exposed to the substance. Richard Atkins was an apprentice and engineer at APE Allen, part of Queens Engineering Works, when he was exposed to the asbestos in the 1960s. Decades later he died from mesothelioma, a condition related to asbestos exposure. And his wife Mary's struggle for compensation meant tracing a former colleague all the way to New Zealand who remembered the exposure to asbestos and gave a statement. Mary Atkins' solicitor Brigitte Chandler, said: "As the exposure to asbestos took place more than 50 years ago it had been initially difficult to find witnesses. "However we were able to trace a former colleague of Mr Atkins to New Zealand who remembered the exposure to asbestos and gave a statement. This forced the company to accept liability." Mr Atkins was involved in the installation and service work on ships and at pumping stations dealing with diesel engines, turbines and pipes. He worked on ships at Camellaird, Birkenhead and in Portsmouth. WH Allen Sons and Company first came to Bedford in 1893, and was a major employer as well as one of the most recognisable parts of the Queens Park landscape. Although the company no longer exists in its current form its name can still be found throughout town, not least Allen Park which was previously owned by the firm and ran as a sports facility for staff. Ms Chandler, who works for Swindon law firm Charles Lucas & Marshall, added: "Asbestos was widely used in boiler and engine rooms on ships. "Quite often the work involved removing small amounts of asbestos. "Developing asbestos disease can take up to 70 years from the point of exposure. Mrs Atkins was able to bring a claim for damages due to her husband's pain and suffering and her loss of income. "Many people may have forgotten they were exposed to asbestos," said Brigitte Chandler. "If anyone develops chest pains they should seek medical advice." Asbestos claims relating to the former works are the responsibility of Rolls Royce. The company was not available for comment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Business Group Joins Union in Asbestos Alarm ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Burrell, writing for The Australian, reported that a major business group has joined trade unions to demand the Turnbull government act urgently to stop Chinese building products laced with deadly asbestos entering the country. As Immigration Minister Peter Dutton prepares to release an independent review of the government's management of asbestos imports, the Australian Industry Group called for a strong enforcement regime that extends from border control to points of sale and building sites. The call for action came after the Australian Border Force halted 21 containers from Chinese-owned company Yuanda Australia at the border after its building materials at two major construction sites were found to contain asbestos. The ABF also executed warrants at Yuanda's offices in Sydney and Brisbane and seized digital and physical evidence. It emerged that the incomplete $1.2 billion Perth Children's Hospital and the 1 William Street office tower in Brisbane had been contaminated with asbestos because of products supplied by Yuanda. The Perth site had white asbestos, or chrysotile, in some of its Yuanda-made roof panels, while the Brisbane tower was found to have asbestos-tainted gaskets. Yuanda Australia managing director Paul Dawson said the company's products had been tested for asbestos at 11 of the 67 other sites it has supplied in Australia. All of the tests conducted by an independent company had been negative. Mr Dawson said Yuanda would soon test the remaining sites. Ai Group chief executive Innes Wilcox said the discovery of asbestos in Perth and Brisbane highlighted the inadequacy of the approach to ensuring the safety and quality of goods sold in Australia. He said the group complained in 2013 of big shortcomings in the surveillance, audit checking, testing and conformance of building products in Australia. "There is a clear need for adequately resourced, highly visible and effective enforcement that extends from border controls, to points of sale and to building sites. The Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union has called for the ABF to conduct more inspections on all imported cargo. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ausgrid, Union Spar Over Asbestos Claim -------------------------------------------------------- Anna Hitchings, writing for The Australian Associated Press, reported that Ausgrid has hit back at claims that it has failed to remove asbestos from its power substations after dozens of workers and union officials staged a protest at its head office in Sydney. The Electrical Trades Union argues the electricity distributor has reduced resources from its asbestos removal team and stalled the removal of the carcinogenic substance from several substations across the city. Workers clad in protective suits, carrying banners and chanting "shame, Ausgrid, shame" staged a protest outside Ausgrid's head office in Sydney on Friday, slamming the company for breaching a 2013 agreement to get rid of the asbestos. Ausgrid said it responded to the ETU shortly before the planned protest began on Friday, stating the claims were untrue. "We have investigated these matters and on the information available to us have found they cannot be substantiated," Ausgrid acting CEO Trevor Armstrong said. "Over the past 12 months alone, we have audited 231 substations and conducted asbestos surveys of 944 network sites." Ausgrid entered into an agreement with the ETU in 2013, stating it would remove asbestos from identified substations and audit others with a lower risk level. "We continue to remediate and remove asbestos from our network where it is identified and independent expert licensed assessors deem a risk to be present," Mr Armstrong said. Yet ETU organiser Mark Buttigieg said this response was not good enough and that all asbestos should be removed from substations no matter the risk level. "In any standard hazard assessment and risk assessment, your first option is to engineer the hazard out, which means take it out altogether," Mr Buttigieg said. "In 20-30 years' time, when this (asbestos) deteriorates it remains being a hazard in perpetuity so we want it removed from the network altogether." An Ausgrid spokesman told AAP that experts recommended the distributor not remove bonded asbestos from some sites where disturbing the substance would create a greater risk. "We regularly test in our facilities over a five-year period and we also do specific testing if we think there is a heightened risk," the spokesman said. The union says documents it has obtained reveal that between 2002 and 2012 seven electricity workers died due to asbestos and 42 were diagnosed with asbestos-related diseases, 29 of whom were Ausgrid workers. Mr Armstrong said the presence of asbestos in the electricity industry continues to be Ausgrid's highest priority. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Postal Service Exposes Workers to Asbestos ----------------------------------------------------------- Postal Service employees are exposed to asbestos, mold and other "sanitary issues" in agency buildings where birds and squirrels sometimes run amuck, which could result in nearly $19 million in fines, a government watchdog reported. Most of the 20 Postal Service facilities examined by the agency's inspector general (IG) had safety issues, security lapses or potential Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) violations, which threaten employee and customer safety and risk lawsuits and worker compensation fees. "The Postal Service must improve adherence to building maintenance, safety and security standards, and employee working condition requirements at its retail facilities," the report said. Management neglected "cleaning and general maintenance and repairs" and "concerns for health, safety and security." Such lapses could result in "OSHA fines and penalties; poor employee morale and increased turnover; risk of injuries to customers and employees; and related costs such as workers' compensation claims, loss of work and productivity, and lawsuits," the report continued. Specifically, 90 percent of the inspected facilities had potential OSHA violations, such as "locked or blocked emergency exits, asbestos and mold, improper storage of flammable materials, insect infestation, trip hazards, and exposed electrical outlets and switches," as well as "sanitary issues," the report said. The IG found 51 potential OSHA infractions across the inspected buildings. "Fines typically range from $3,000 to $7,000 per violation," but can increase up to $70,000 in certain situations, the report said. OSHA levied $1.4 million in fines in 2015, according to the IG, which also predicted that the Postal Service could face up to $18.6 million in violation fines in just one region. Postal Service managers disagreed with that estimate and "questioned the qualifications of [IG] personnel who performed the audits," the report said. Additionally, at least half the inspected facilities had lighting or appearance issues, while another 40 percent had security issues "such as unlocked doors and vehicles" and non-functioning safes," the report said. Meanwhile, two buildings "had issues with birds and squirrels accessing facility work areas through damaged roofs," the report continued. The Postal Service leases or owns more than 30,000 retail facilities across the U.S. This audit was the first in a series focusing on Postal Service buildings' appearance, safety and security. ********* 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 * * *