/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/160916.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, September 16, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 186 Headlines ACE MOTOR: "Sprye" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to Dist. of Maryland ADIDAS AMERICA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Ruffo" Suit ALLSTATE FIRE: Faces Ambulatory Suit in District of New Jersey ALSCO INC: Must Defend Against "English" Wage and Hour Suit AMERIFACTORS FINANCIAL: Faces Career Counseling Suit in D.S.C. AMGEN INC: Oct. 25 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set APPLE INC: McCuneWright LLP Files Class Action in California AR RESOURCES: Wins Prelim. OK of "Kielbasinski" Class Settlement ARAMARK FACILITY: Saldana, et al. Seek Certification of Class AT&T SERVICES: "Walton" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class ATMOS ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Waxahachie Explosion AVVO INC: Wins Dismissal of Vrdolyak's IRPA Claims BABIES R US: "Guy" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal. BALTIMORE, MD: Settles Class Action Over Royal Farms Ticket Fees BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Sevilen" Suit in District of Arizona BASIC RESEARCH: "Spence" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to D. Utah BMW BANK: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Foley Motors Suit BRIGADOON FITNESS: Gorss Motels Suit Seeks Certification of Class BRISTOL-MYERS: Recent Plavix Ruling Favorable for Plaintiffs Bar BROTHER INT'L: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Hobbs" Suit BUCKEYE CHECK: "Saenz" Suit Seeks Certification of Class CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Class Certification Sought in "Naylor" Suit CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces "Back" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Kentucky CONAGRA FOODS: Ninth Circuit to Address "Ascertainability" Issue CONTAINER STORE: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Cadigan" Class Suit COOKING LIGHT: Appeals Decision in "Montellano-Espana" Class Suit CVB FINANCIAL: "Lloyd" Suit Seeks Certification of Class DALLAS CENTRAL: Monterra Apartments Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Nessel Development X Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Nessel Development XI Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Onemain Place Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Old Parkland Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Pavillion North Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: PC Brookfield Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: PCDF Broadmoor Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: WW Ross Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Solaris LLC Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: SPP Covington Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Texas Birchwood Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Tiburon Apartments Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Tio Milestone Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Towne North Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Villages of Addison Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: Wallis Rusty Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: West Ferris Sues Over Misappraisal DALLAS CENTRAL: WW Mosaic Sues Over Misappraisal DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Fraud Case Focuses on Process Server DONALD TRUMP: Faces "Thorne" Suit Over Campaign Sent Via SMS EVANSTON CITY, IL: Wilson, et al. Seek Certification of 2 Classes EVOLVED INC: "Perkins" Suit Seek Certification of FLSA Class FACEBOOK INC: Bid to Certify Class in Privacy Litigation Denied FINANCIAL CORPORATION: "Koval" Suit Seeks Certification of Class FORBES MEDIA: Class Certification Bid in "Hall" Suit Dismissed FRONTON HOLDINGS: "Rife" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Not to Blame for 2011 Crash GERAWAN FARMING: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Amaro" Suit GOOGLE INC: Settles Apple Browser Hacking Claims for $5.5 Million GRADUATION ALLIANCE: Court Allows Rost to File Amended Complaint HALLIBURTON ENERGY: "Guerrero" Suit Moved to E.D. of California HARRIS COUNTY: Petroquip Energy Sues Over Misappraisal HARRIS COUNTY: PPI Mechanical Sues Over Misappraisal HARRIS COUNTY: Team Industrial Sues Over Misappraisal HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Class of Purchasers Certified in "Wolf" Suit HOLLYWOOD POINTE: African-Asian Club's Bid for Class Cert. Denied HOME DEPOT: "Henry" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to E.D. Cal. HOME TEAM PEST: Garnica Seeks to Certify Customers Class INSTALLATIONS INC: "Somers" Suit Minimum Pay Under Wage Act IPAWN RODNEY: "Jones" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark. JACKSONVILLE, FL: 11th Cir. Affirms Dissolution of Consent Decree JERSEY SHORE: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Race-Based Harassment JOHN PAUL MITCHELL: Gerard Seeks Review of C.D. Cal. Ruling JOHNSTON & ARENTZ: Faces Class Action Over Robocalls KAPRAUN P.C.: "Wilburn" Suit Seeks Certification of Class KIA MOTORS: Faces "Leong" Suit in Eastern District of New York KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Faces "Ramos" Suit in District of Arizona KWICK RENTALS: Class Cert. in "Blankenship" Suit Partly Granted LA ENTERTAINMENT: Florida Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT: Appeals From Ruling in "Issa" Suit LEBO AUTOMOTIVE: Calif. Supreme Court Affirms Sandquist Decision LEE N' EDDIES: Urban Elevator Seeks Certification of Class LEROY D. BACA: Amador et al. Seek Certification of Class LINCOLN PARK CITY, MI: "Coulter" Suit Seeks Class Certification LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Class Cert. in "Roy" Suit Partly Granted LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Myers" Suit in C.D. of California MANHERTZ BAIL: "Yearby" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla. MASTERCARD: Hearing in U.K. Class Action Scheduled This Year MEDICAL BUSINESS: "Rhone" Suit Seeks Class Certification MY-TRE GLAMMA: Certification of Class Sought in "Heuberger" Suit NEW ZEALAND STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Steel Reinforcing Mesh NORTHLAND GROUP: Class Certification Bid in "Aguirre" Denied OCWEN LOAN: "Beecroft" Suit Moved from D. Minn. to N.D. Ill. PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Izze Sodas PMLRA PIZZA: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Reeves" Labor Class Suit PRODUCTION TESTING: "Brown" Suit Seeks Certification of Class PRODUCTION TESTING: Brown Seeks Permission to Issue Notice PROFESSIONAL SERVICE: Hogen Seeks Certification of Three Classes QUEEN STUCCO: Hopson Seeks to Certify Class of Hourly Employees RIVER ROCKS: Class Certification Bid in "Payne" Suit Denied SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Lam" Class Suit SANTA CLARA, CA: Certification of Class & Subclass Sought SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: Dimensions' Bid to Certify Under Advisement SCOTTRADE INC: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Kuhns" Suit SEPTRAN INC: Gets Prelim. OK of Class Settlement in "Barker" Suit SIZMEK INC: Faces Class Action Over Vector Capital Merger SIZMEK INC: "Penza" Sues Directors Over Merger with Vector ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Implanted Heart Devices STATE STREET: Nov. 2 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set SWIFTSHIPS LLC: Class Certification Bid in "Panzer" Suit Dropped SYRACUSE, NY: Court Refuses to Junk All Claims in "Winston" Suit T-MOBILE USA: Faces "Rahmany" Suit in W.D. of Washington TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Loses Bid to Derail Former Students' Fraud Suit UNITED STATES: Bid for Class Certification in "Allen" Suit Denied UNITED STATES: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Gonzalez-Aviles" Suit UV LOGISTICS: Class Certification Sought in "Griffis" Suit VALERO MARKETING: Case Management Scheduling Order Set VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces "Menichiello" Suit in C.D. Cal. VISION FINANCIAL: $2,529 in Fees Awarded to Dolemba VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Yousey" Suit Moved from W.D. Ark. to N.D. Cal. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Consent Decree Entered in California Complaint YAHOO: Judge Approves E-mail Scanning class Action Settlement * Class Action Firm Slater & Gordon Incurs $1-Bil. Loss * Electronic Class Action Settlement Notices Proposed * Recall of Faulty Products Proposed Under New Draft Bill * Role of Judges in MDL Cases Faces Increasing Scrutiny Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groupon's Bid to Amend CMO in "Mosley" Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Amend Suit to Add Asbestos Claim Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrongful Death Suit Remanded to NJ State Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Not Entitled to Coverage for Defense Costs ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYCHA's Claims vs. G-I Holdings Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Angus" to State Court Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Vega" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment OK in "Malone" Recommended ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circ. Remands "Jefferson" to District Court ASBESTOS UPDATE: Property Owners Win Summary Judgment Bid ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atwood, Carrier Win Summary Ruling in "Mitchell" ASBESTOS UPDATE: AT&T Wins Summary Judgment in "Jones" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Silver's Bid to Continue Bail Partly Granted ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Still Defends Suits at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Disposed 396K Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 4,000 Claims at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Claims Pursued Against Quaker Chemical ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Had 805 Active Cases at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $407MM Liability at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimas Corp. Had 950 Pending Cases at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Want $19MM From Asbestos Lawyers ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Unlikely to Pay for Aboriginal Kids ASBESTOS UPDATE: MPs to Move Out of "Asbestos-Riddled Parliament ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wave of Victims to Emerge From Toxic School ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Calls for Workplace Protection for All ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fears Close Hotel Development Site ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Rugby Player Fronts ICAC Over Dumping Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Additional Asbestos Found at VHS South ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sri Lanka to Take New Steps Over Asbestos Use ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Seeks to Restore Asbestos Verdict ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yuanda Under Pressure Over Asbestos Scandal ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Still Possible for 9/11 Survivors ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Blaming Asbestos in Courthouse Could End ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Holland Not To Blame for Hospital Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Netherlands Orders Removal of Asbestos Roofs ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Blames Companies for Mother's Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work Site Hit With 17 Asbestos Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Won't Be Fined for Firefighters Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Review May Trigger Chlorine Industry Probe ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Asbestos School Students "Safe" ********* ACE MOTOR: "Sprye" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to Dist. of Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jamal Sprye, For himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ace Motor Acceptance Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 423332V, was removed from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-03064-PX to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Paula Xinis. Ace Motor is engaged in the dealer financing business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin Eugene Wolf, Esq. GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTS. 102 W Pennsylvania Ave Ste 402 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 825 2300 Facsimile: (410) 825 0066 E-mail: mwolf@GWCfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Nathan Daniel Adler Neuberger, Quinn, Gielen, Rubin, and Gibber PA One South St 27th Fl Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 332 8516 Facsimile: (410) 332 8517 E-mail: nda@nqgrg.com ADIDAS AMERICA: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Ruffo" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein entered an opinion and order denying class certification in the lawsuit styled EDWARD A. RUFFO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADIDAS AMERICA INC., Case No. 15 Civ. 5989 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Edward Ruffo brought the consumer class action against Adidas, alleging violations of the New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Act, the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, and 46 similar state statutes, as well as claims for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, presumably under New York law. The Plaintiff has moved for certification of a nationwide class of purchasers of the Defendant's SpringBlade sneakers, as well as a New York Subclass consisting of all New York residents, who purchased the allegedly defective shoes. Judge Hellerstein opined that predominance is not satisfied for any of the Plaintiff's five causes of action, adding that a wide range of individualized issues will need to be established for every plaintiff. "The claim for express breach of warranty under New York law, requires a plaintiff to show reliance on advertising and marketing," Judge Hellerstein continues. "While the complaint alleges that plaintiff relied on Adidas advertising, this element would need to be established for each plaintiff in order to prevail on Count one," Judge Hellerstein noted. "Further, plaintiff has not established that the members of the class he proposes are entitled to damages, or suffered any harm," Judge Hellerstein stated. "In fact, the limited discovery carried out so far suggests that for Springblade sneakers, Adidas internal databases show a defect return rate of approximately 0.7%," Judge Hellerstein added. A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at https://goo.gl/uIlyti from Leagle.com. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Allan Hellman, Esq. Thomas Peter Giuffra, Esq. RHEINGOLD, VALET, RHEINGOLD, RUFFO & GIUFFRA LLP 113 East 37th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 684-1880 Facsimile: (212) 689-8156 E-mail: tgiuffra@rheingoldlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Francis John Earley, Esq. Michelle Gillette, Esq. MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C. Chrysler Center 666 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 935-3000 Facsimile: (212) 983-3115 E-mail: FEarley@mintz.com - and - Joshua Thomas Foust, Esq. MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY & POPEO, P.C. 44 Montgomery St., 36th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 432-6096 Facsimile: (415) 432-6001 E-mail: jtfoust@mintz.com - and - Daniel J. Herling, Esq. KELLER AND HECKMAN LLP 3 Embarcadero Center #1420 San Francisco, CA 94133 Telephone: (415) 948-2820 E-mail: herling@khlaw.com ALLSTATE FIRE: Faces Ambulatory Suit in District of New Jersey -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Fire Casualty Insurance Company. The case is styled AMBULATORY SURGICAL CENTER OF SOMERSET, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and JUAN GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE FIRE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-05378 (D.N.J., Sep. 2, 2016). Allstate Fire offers fire, marine, and casualty insurance. The Plaintiffs appear pro se. ALSCO INC: Must Defend Against "English" Wage and Hour Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ROBERT ENGLISH, ALEX RIVERA, and DANIEL JOYCE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALSCO INC., d/b/a American Linen Supply Co., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04910 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Matthew F. Kennelly entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for authorization to send notice to similarly situated persons of the pendency of the lawsuit so that they join the suit if they wish. The Court grants plaintiffs' motion for court-authorized notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and it is subject to further determinations regarding the specifics of the notice to be sent. The Court denies defendant's motion to dismiss and denies without prejudice Defendant's alternative motion to transfer venue. The Fair Labor Standards Act allows plaintiffs to bring a collective action to recover unpaid overtime compensation on behalf of "themselves and other employees similarly situated." A collective action under the FLSA requires would-be plaintiffs to opt in and binds only those plaintiffs who do so. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TkIADYaa AMERIFACTORS FINANCIAL: Faces Career Counseling Suit in D.S.C. -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Amerifactors Financial Group, LLC. The case is titled Career Counseling, Inc. doing business as Snelling Staffing Services, a South Carolina corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly- situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Amerifactors Financial Group, LLC, Gulf Coast Bank and Trust Company, and John Does 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03013-JMC (D.S.C., Sep. 2, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. J Michelle Childs. AmeriFactors, a business funding company, provides accounts receivable financing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Gressette Felder, Jr., Esq. MCGOWAN HOOD AND FELDER 1517 Hampton Street Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 779 0100 E-mail: jfelder@mcgowanhood.com AMGEN INC: Oct. 25 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION IN RE AMGEN INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Case No. CV 07-2536 PSG (PLAx) Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED AMGEN INC. PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 22, 2004 THROUGH MAY 10, 2007, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS") YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the Class Representative in the above-captioned class action (the "Action"), on behalf of itself and the certified Class, has reached a proposed Settlement of the Action with Amgen Inc. ("Amgen"), Kevin W. Sharer, Richard D. Nanula, Roger M. Perlmutter, and George J. Morrow (collectively, the "Individual Defendants" and, with Amgen, the "Defendants"). The Settlement provides for a total payment of $95,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") for the benefit of the Class that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action against Defendants and grant the releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated July 20, 2016 (the "Stipulation"). A hearing will be held on October 25, 2016 at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez in Courtroom 880 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, to determine, among other things, whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation; (3) the proposed Plan of Allocation for the distribution of the Settlement Amount and any interest thereon, less any Court-awarded attorneys' fees, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and other costs, fees, or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund") should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of litigation expenses should be granted. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") and a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator or visiting its website at: Amgen Securities Litigation c/o Epiq PO Box 4178 Portland, OR 97208-4178 (800) 462-2317 www.AmgenSecuritiesLitigation.com If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim form postmarked or received on or before December 23, 2016. If you previously submitted a valid and timely request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Notice of Pendency of Class Action ("Class Notice") and you wish to remain excluded, no further action is required. (You will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund.) However, if you previously submitted such a request for exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice and you want to opt-back into the Class now for the purpose of being eligible to receive a payment from the Net Settlement Fund, you may do so. In order to opt-back into the Class, you must submit a request to opt-back into the Class in writing such that it is received on or before October 4, 2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice. If you did not previously submit a request for exclusion but you do not want to be in the Class and be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you may exclude yourself from the Class now. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice such that it is received on or before October 4, 2016. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or the application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses must be mailed to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received on or before October 4, 2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice. Inquiries, other than requests for copies of the Settlement Notice and Proof of Claim form, may be directed to Class Counsel: Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq. Christopher J. McDonald, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com (888) 219-6877 Dated: September 8, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA APPLE INC: McCuneWright LLP Files Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Wehner, writing for The Daily Dot, reports that Apple's iPhone has generally been a pretty reliable device over the course of its existence, but because of its popularity, when a defect rears its ugly head, it can affect thousands or even millions of users. The "touch disease" that has recently been blamed for countless user-reported iPhone 6 failures has gained enough attention that there are now lawyers involved. A class-action lawsuit has been filed in California over the issue, and you can join it, too. McCuneWright LLP has filed the suit on behalf of three individuals, citing alleged design defects that make the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus unusable. The suit specifically mentions the "touch disease" video from troubleshooting and repair website iFixit, noting that the defect causes a gray flickering at the top of the display. As iPhone repair experts discovered, the problem isn't due to the screen itself, but a faulty connection on the device's logic board. The suit also mentions that a metal shield, like the one on the iPhone 5s logic board, could have prevented the defect in the first place. If you have an iPhone 6 or 6 Plus that has suffered from the "touch disease" defect, you can potentially join McCuneWright's class-action lawsuit by getting in contact with the group's office. A consultation form is available on the official page of the class-action suit, where you can input your name and contact information and explain exactly why you believe you would qualify to be included as a plaintiff. At present, Apple doesn't officially recognize the defect as being a widespread problem, so if nothing else, this lawsuit could help draw some broader attention to what appears to be a real problem for many users. AR RESOURCES: Wins Prelim. OK of "Kielbasinski" Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Kim R. Gibson entered an order in the lawsuit captioned THOMAS KIELBASINSKI; an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. A.R. RESOURCES, INC., Case No. 3:15- cv-00066-KRG (W.D. Pa.), granting preliminary approval to the Class Settlement Agreement between the Plaintiff, individually, and as representative of the class and the Defendant. The Court defines the "Settlement Class" as: All consumers in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to whom A.R. Resources, Inc. mailed a written communication, in connection with its attempt to collect a debt, which written communications included a statement that a $5 convenience fee would be added to all credit transactions, and which resulted in the consumer being charged such a fee, during a period beginning March 13, 2014, and ending October 31, 2015. Judge Gibson defines the "Class Claims" as those claims arising from ARR's collection letters, which seek to collect a $5 "convenience fee" when using a credit card to pay for a debt is not expressly authorized by the agreement creating the Plaintiff's debt or permitted by law. The Court appoints the Plaintiff as the Class Representative; his counsel, Andrew T. Thomasson, Philip D. Stem, and Craig Thor Kimmel, as Class Counsel; and Heffler Claims Group as the Settlement Administrator to administer notice to Settlement Class Members and administer the Settlement. Judge Gibson approves the Parties' proposed Class Notice and directs that it be mailed to the last known address of each member of the Settlement Class as shown in ARR's business records. Judge Gibson set this schedule: -- Class Counsel will cause the Class Notice to be mailed to Settlement Class Members on or before September 29, 2016; -- Settlement Class Members will have until November 14, 2016, to submit a claim form, exclude themselves from, or object to, the Settlement; -- Any lawyer, who intends to appear at the Final Fairness Hearing also must enter a written Notice of Appearance of Counsel with the Clerk of the Court no later than November 14, 2016; -- To be effective, any claim form, request for exclusion, or objection must be postmarked by November 14, 2016; and -- A final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the Agreement and whether final approval will be given to it and the requests for fees and expenses by Class Counsel will be held on December 12, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N4HFnoC5 ARAMARK FACILITY: Saldana, et al. Seek Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MARIA IMELDA SALDANA, LUCIA GONZALEZ BALDERAS and MARIA CARDENAS DE MORA Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons, the Plaintiffs, v. ARAMARK FACILITY SERVICES, LLC, ARAMARK FACILITY SERVICES, INC., OPTIMUM SOURCE, INC., JOANNA OGILVIE and MEGAN OGILVIE, the Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-02855 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs move for conditional certification of their minimum wage and overtime claims against Defendants as a collective action, and seek a judicially approved notice to a class consisting of: "all individuals who are employed by or have been employed by Aramark Facility Services, LLC, Aramark Facility Services, Inc., Optimum Source Inc., Joanna Ogilvie, and/or Megan Ogilvie at any time since September 30, 2012 as janitors and/or maintenance workers (Putative Class Members)." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yjO4j8aO The Plaintiff is represented by: Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq. Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Telephone: (713) 868 3388 Facsimile: (713) 683 9940 AT&T SERVICES: "Walton" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled WENDELL WALTON and MICHAEL MANTONYA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. AT&T SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:15- cv-03653-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act: "of a small group of AT&T employees asserting overtime misclassification claims." According to the complaint, there are only approximately 301 of them nationwide, according to AT&T's records. The employees at issue work in two job titles: "Senior Training Manager Design" (Designers) and "Senior Training Manager Delivery" (Deliverers) (collectively, Training Specialists). The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to order AT&T to produce an updated class list to Plaintiffs' counsel; direct the dissemination of notice of the pendency of the action by mail and e-mail using the proposed Notice; permit potential Collective Members to file Consent to Join Forms, by mail, fax, e-mail, or website submission, until 90 days after the date of an order granting this motion; and permit the dissemination of a reminder postcard by mail and e-mail. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=m1i3uRsu The Plaintiff is represented by: Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. Relic Sun, Esq. Michael N. Litrownik, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638 8800 Facsimile: (415) 638 8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com mlitrownik@outtengolden.com - and - Jason C. Marsili, Esq. Brianna M. Primozic, Esq POSNER & ROSEN LLP 3600 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1800 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 389 6050 Facsimile: (213) 389 0663 E-mail: jmarsili@posner-rosen.com bprimozic@posner-rosen.com ATMOS ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Waxahachie Explosion ---------------------------------------------------------- L.P. Phillips, writing for 1080 KRLD, reports that Atmos Energy has been hit with a huge lawsuit over last year's explosion that damaged a neighborhood in Waxahachie, and nearly 30 plaintiffs have signed-on. The lawsuit blames Atmos for not monitoring Metrobore, the contractor that allegedly cut through both gas and sewer lines. Attorney Tom Carse tells KRLD news the leak went unnoticed for four days -- until Adele Chavez turned on her stove and ignited the leaking gas in September of last year. Ms. Chavez's home exploded, burning her and her brother. Several other homes in the immediate neighborhood were also damaged. Ms. Chavez and the other 26 plaintiffs are seeking more than $1 million in damages. A separate suit was filed against Metrobore last year. Atmos could not be reached for comment. AVVO INC: Wins Dismissal of Vrdolyak's IRPA Claims -------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman entered an order in the lawsuit captioned JOHN VRDOLYAK, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AVVO, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02833 (N.D. Ill.), granting Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant violated the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (IRPA), by using Plaintiff's identity for commercial purposes without Plaintiff's consent. The Defendant has moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, arguing that its allegedly wrongful conduct is fully protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and, even if not, Defendant's use of Plaintiff's name is for a non- commercial purpose exempted under the IRPA. The Defendant operates the website Avvo.com on which it promotes certain legal services, and publishes a directory of attorneys in the United States. The court views what defendant does as more akin to the yellow pages directory, which receives First Amendment protection. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WK6QJLJ9 BABIES R US: "Guy" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- Darrick M. Guy, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. Babies "R" Us, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-02016-00025048-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16- cv-02224-AJB-JMA to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia. Babies "R" Us retails baby registry of strollers, car seats, cribs, bedding, diapers, and formula. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason E Baker, Esq. KEEGAN AND BAKER LLP 6255 Lusk Boulevard, Suite 140 San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (858) 558 9400 Facsimile: (858) 558 9401 E-mail: jbaker@keeganbaker.com The Defendants are represented by: Mia Farber, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS LLP 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689 0404 Facsimile: (213) 689 0430 E-mail: farberm@jacksonlewis.com BALTIMORE, MD: Settles Class Action Over Royal Farms Ticket Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Munshaw, writing for Baltimore Business Journal, reports that over $420,000 will come out of profits Baltimore reaps from Royal Farms Arena to settle a class-action lawsuit regarding fees applied to tickets sold at the venue. John Bourgeois, the plaintiff in the case, filed a lawsuit in 2014 alleging that the city received illegal convenience and service fees on tickets sold through Ticketmaster and SMG, the company that manages the arena. The suit alleges the fees were collected between Aug. 1, 2011 and March 14, 2013. The city owns Royal Farms Arena. Mr. Bourgeois and his lawyer, Benjamin Carney from the Towson law firm Gordon, Wolf & Carney, were initially seeking a payout of $4.3 million for Mr. Bourgeois and other customers who were a part of the class-action suit. Mr. Carney could not be reached for comment. As part of the settlement, the city's Board of Estimates on is expected to approve a payout of $420,000 in legal fees to Bourgeois, a Perry Hall resident, as well as an additional $3,000 in damages. The city has also agreed to award a $3 voucher to each member of the lawsuit who purchased a ticket during that time period. The lawsuit states that as many as 920,621 tickets may have been subject to the disputed fees, according to the Board of Estimates agenda. The settlement will be paid out from the arena's profits. In 2013, the city passed an ordinance that allowed Ticketmaster, the city and other online ticket sellers to charge unlimited fees. Prior to that, sellers could not charge anything more than face value for tickets to any events held in the city. Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake signed the bill in August 2013. The Board of Estimates agenda states that another class-action lawsuit in the past regarding ticket fees at Rams Head was also settled. BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Sevilen" Suit in District of Arizona ---------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Banner Health. The case is captioned Suzan Sevilen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Banner Health, an Arizona corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02972-JZB (D. Ariz., Sep. 2, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. John Z Boyle. Banner Health is a non-profit health system in the United States, based in Phoenix, Arizona. It operates 23 hospitals as well as specialized facilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D Samson, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP - PHOENIX, AZ National Bank Plaza 3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 900 Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600 Telephone: (602) 230 6323 Facsimile: (602) 248 2822 E-mail: msamson@kellerrohrback.com BASIC RESEARCH: "Spence" Suit Moved from S.D.N.Y. to D. Utah ------------------------------------------------------------ Adelaide Spence, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mitchell K. Friedlander, Basic Research, Bremenn Research Labs, doing business as Bremenn, Clinical, Dennis Gay, and Tiffany Strobel, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-04945, was transferred from the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the US District Court for the District of Utah (Central). The Utah District Court Clerk assigned Case no. 2:16-cv-00925-CW to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Clark Waddoups. Basic Research distributes innovative formulations that address the specific needs of consumers -- from weight loss to bodybuilding, anti-aging, joint health, skin care, and cosmetics. The Defendants are represented by: Christopher B. Sullivan, Esq. David R. Parkinson, Esq. Jason M. Kerr, Esq. Ronald F. Price, Esq. PRICE PARKINSON & KERR PLLC 5742 W HAROLD GATTY DR Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Telephone: (801) 530 2900 E-mail: sullivan@ppktrial.com davidparkinson@ppktrial.com jasonkerr@ppktrial.com ronprice@ppktrial.com BMW BANK: Court Denies Bid to Certify Class in Foley Motors Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Joe Billy McDade denied without prejudice to refiling at a later time after adequate discovery has been completed the Plaintiff's motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit titled FOLEY MOTORS, INC., an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. BMW BANK OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, CREDITSMARTS CORP. and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv- 01044-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.). The Motion was filed on the same day that the Action was initiated, pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011). The Court finds that filing a premature motion to certify class before any discovery has even taken place is unnecessary and serves no useful purpose. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ypvEMkyV BRIGADOON FITNESS: Gorss Motels Suit Seeks Certification of Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled GORSS MOTELS, INC., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. BRIGADOON FITNESS INC., BRIGADOON FINANCIAL, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00330-JD-SLC (N.D, Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants did not have prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not display a proper opt-out notice." To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vUlqID97 The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com BRISTOL-MYERS: Recent Plavix Ruling Favorable for Plaintiffs Bar ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that in a defeat for the product liability defense bar, the California Supreme Court on Aug. 29 ruled that both local and out-of-state residents can sue drug maker Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. in California state courts over claims that the blood thinning medication Plavix seriously harmed or killed patients. The 4-3 decision cracks the door open to nationwide product liability cases in California, three years after the U.S. Supreme Court placed new restrictions on when courts may assert jurisdiction over a company that is headquartered outside the borders of its state. Companies have been keen to keep mass tort litigation out of venues like California that are perceived to be more plaintiff- friendly, preferring to tackle liability cases either en masse in federal court or by picking them off one by one when smaller suits are scattered around the country. Hunter Shkolnik of New York-based mass tort specialty firm Napoli Shkolnik, who has spearheaded the Plavix litigation in California, called the decision "huge" for the plaintiffs bar. Although other jurisdictions like Pennsylvania and New Jersey have typically been open to mass tort cases, he explained, the ruling ensures that California will also remain an open door to plaintiffs. That gives plaintiffs more options, and helps avoid having cases simply get routed to a federal multidistrict proceeding where they can get hung up by defense motions. "They will litigate us to death if we're all in one place," Mr. Shkolnik said. Bristol-Myers is headquartered in New York and has most of its other major operations in New Jersey. In 2013, it sought to quash suits brought on behalf of more than 600 individuals -- the bulk of whom reside outside California -- that were filed in state court in San Francisco alleging that Plavix causes internal bleeding that sometimes leads to death. Lawyers for Bristol-Myers argued that the court lacked jurisdiction. Writing for the majority on Aug. 29 in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Anderson, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye rejected that contention. Although California courts lack general jurisdiction over Bristol-Myers, they may exercise specific jurisdiction in the Plavix litigation because the company conducted significant research, sales and marketing activities within the state, Justice Cantil-Sakauye ruled. Moreover, she wrote, because the claims of the California plaintiffs pertain to a single, nationwide marketing campaign for the drug, the claims of out-of-state residents are sufficiently related to the claims of in-state residents that California courts may also hear them. "Both the resident and nonresident plaintiffs' claims are based on the same allegedly defective product and the assertedly misleading marketing and promotion of that product, which allegedly caused injuries in and outside the state," Justice Cantil-Sakauye wrote. "Thus, the nonresident plaintiffs' claims bear a substantial connection to" California. Bristol-Myers is represented by Arnold & Porter's Anand Agneshwar -- anand.agneshwar@aporter.com -- who deferred a request for comment to the company. A spokeswoman for the company did not respond to an inquiry about the court's ruling. Defense lawyers said the ruling broadens the types of cases that can proceed in California, although it doesn't give plaintiffs carte blanche. "It's a multidimensional chess match, and this is defining the chess board and making sure California is still a place where plaintiffs' lawyers can at least consider filing a mass tort," said Aton Arbisser -- aton.arbisser@kayescholer.com -- a partner at Kaye Scholer in Los Angeles. The decision split the court almost along ideological lines. Justice Cantil-Sakauye, the Republican-appointed chief justice, was joined by more liberal-leaning Justices Goodwin Liu, Mariano-Florentino Cuellar and Leondra Kruger in the majority. Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote in dissent and was backed by Justices Carol Corrigan and Ming Chin, two of the bench's more conservative jurists. Justice Werdegar complained that the majority's opinion undercut the U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 ruling in Daimler AG v. Bauman, which held that courts cannot exercise general jurisdiction over entities simply because they have "continuous and systematic" commercial contact with a state. Instead, general jurisdiction is conferred only when the entity is "at home" -- in other words, has its headquarters or major business operations -- in the same state, the high court ruled. BROTHER INT'L: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Hobbs" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez denied the Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification after considering the arguments in the moving, opposing, and reply papers filed in the lawsuit titled Kenneth Hobbs v. Brother International Corporation, Case No. 2:15- cv-01866-PSG-MRW (C.D. Cal.). Mr. Hobbs filed the Lawsuit on January 21, 2015, believing that BIC misrepresented its printer's capabilities on its Web site. The Court finds that individual questions predominate over common questions regarding all of the Plaintiff's remaining claims for the proposed class. Judge Gutierrez opines that the evidence does not show that consumers were exposed to different variations of the alleged misrepresentations. Rather, Judge Gutierrez says, it shows that many class members never even encountered the representations, given that they were only available on the Defendant's Web site and on some printer cartons. Because substantial evidence shows that consumers were exposed to different information from different sources, the Plaintiff cannot claim a class-wide presumption of reliance, Judge Gutierrez adds. Having failed to demonstrate that the Defendant's representations were uniform, the Plaintiff also fails to provide any evidence that a significant portion of consumers would have behaved differently if the Defendant excised the alleged misrepresentations from its materials, Judge Gutierrez also explains. Judge Gutierrez adds that the Plaintiff's petition for class certification fails not only for lack of a damages model but also because calculating damages would require individualized inquiry. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IMQr68us BUCKEYE CHECK: "Saenz" Suit Seeks Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JUAN SAENZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING OF ILLINOIS, LLC, CHECKSMART FINANCIAL, LLC, and COMMUNITY CHOICE FINANCIAL, INC., the DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:16-cv-06052 (N.D. Ill.,), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class: "(1) all persons in Illinois (2) to whom Defendant sent a letter to collect a debt (3) of Plaintiff's Complaint (4) which letter stated in part that "your debt has now been transferred to our office for collection action" or in any other way suggests the new involvement of a third party in attempting to collect an alleged debt (5) which fails to provide any notices of consumers' rights listed in the FDCPA (6) within 1 year of the complaint." The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint him as class representative, to appoint his lawyers as counsel for the class and, to allow himself to file a memorandum in support of the motion after taking class discovery. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GLJmURpQ The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Wood, Esq. Celetha Chatman, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757 1880 Facsimile: (312) 476 1362 E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Class Certification Sought in "Naylor" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned NAYLOR FARMS, INC. and HARREL'S LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CHAPARRAL ENERGY, LLC, An Oklahoma Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 5:11-cv-00634-HE (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class and to grant all other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are the putative Class Representatives for more than 10,000 royalty owners. Other than Plaintiffs, these 10,000 royalty owners are "clueless" about the lawsuit, and the facts and law giving rise to it. The Class is owed in excess of $150,000,000 in unpaid royalty. Those monies were appropriated by Defendant Chaparral Energy, LLC for its use and benefit and to the detriment of the Class. The Plaintiffs have alleged causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, actual and constructive fraud, unjust enrichment and an accounting. Chaparral Energy is an independent oil and gas producer and operator with headquarters in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and field offices throughout the South Central United States. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JIYoIsQ1 The Plaintiff is represented by: Conner L. Helms, OBA No. 12115 Gary R. Underwood, OBA No. 9154 Erin M. Moore, OBA No. 20787 HELMS & UNDERWOOD One NE Second Street, Suite 202 Oklahoma City, OK 73104 Telephone: (405) 319-0700 Facsimile: (405) 319-9292 The Defendant is represented by: John J. Griffin, Jr., Esq. Christopher M. Staine, Esq. CROWE & DUNLEVY 20 North Broadway Avenue, Suite 1800 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 E-mail: john.griffin@crowedunlevy.com Christopher.staine@crowedunlevy.com - and - Christopher A. Chrisman, Esq. Anthony J. Shaheen, Esq. HOLLARD & HART - DENVER 555 17th St., Suite 3200 Denver, CO 80201-8749 E-mail: cachrisman@hollarndhart.com ajshaheen@hollarndhart.com CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces "Back" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Kentucky ----------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Chesapeake Energy Corp. The case is captioned Thomas R. Back, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated states, the Plaintiff, v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., Chesapeake Operating, LLC, and Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-00192-ART-EBA (E.D. Ken., Sep. 2, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Amul R. Thapar. Chesapeake Energy is a petroleum and natural gas exploration and production company headquartered in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clark C. Johnson, Esq. Jeffrey Steven Moad, Esq. Marjorie Ann Farris, Esq. STITES & HARBISON, PLLC 400 W. Market Street, Suite 1800 Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 681 0349 Facsimile: (502) 779 8249 E-mail: cjohnson@stites.com jmoad@stites.com mfarris@stites.com CONAGRA FOODS: Ninth Circuit to Address "Ascertainability" Issue ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a pair of food labeling cases set to be heard this month by the Ninth Circuit could carve out some much-needed guidance on the increasingly critical issue of how to identify members of a class action. Ascertainability, a term coined by the class action bar, has become the subject of rising debate in the courts as more cases get filed over cheap consumer goods. Despite calls for reform, the U.S. Judicial Conference's Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure declined to include ascertainability in its proposed changes to Rule 23 this month, and the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected at least two petitions this year on the issue. That has left the debate swirling in the circuit courts, which have split on what standards need to be met to identify class members. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit could add to that debate on Sept. 12 with a pair of appeals set for oral arguments. One case involves "100% Natural" Wesson cooking oils, the other "All Natural Fruit" labels on Dole fruit. "This is the first time that the current dispute over the scope and purpose of the 'ascertainability' doctrine is going to be meaningfully argued before the Ninth Circuit," said Adam Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- director at Grant & Eisenhofer, plaintiffs attorney in the Wesson case. Though not an explicit requirement, ascertainability is among the issues courts consider in certifying class actions. It's particularly an issue for defendants, who raise concerns that class members might not remember whether they bought the product or, in some cases, could have fraudulent claims. In cases involving food labels, most consumers don't have receipts, leaving plaintiffs attorneys to rely on retailer records and signed affidavits. "This issue really becomes very significant in low-value consumer class actions where the amount of the product is relatively low," said David Sellinger -- sellingerd@gtlaw.com -- a shareholder in Greenberg Traurig's Florham Park, New Jersey, office who is following both Ninth Circuit cases. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit raised the bar to achieve ascertainability with rulings in several cases requiring that plaintiffs had to provide a "reliable and administratively feasible" method to identify class members. In other words, Mr. Sellinger said: "It's not enough that the consumer says he or she is in the class. There has to be a way for the defendant and for the court to verify that that person is actually in the class." Some circuit courts have followed, while others have taken a more liberal view that affidavits are enough. On Jan. 14, the Ninth Circuit agreed to assign the Wesson and Dole cases to the same merits panel. In moving to combine the cases, lawyers wrote: "The court's decisions on these cases will define the contours of the 'ascertainability' doctrine in this Circuit, particularly as applied to cases involving low-priced consumer goods." In the Wesson case, ConAgra Foods Inc., represented by A. Brooks Gresham -- bgresham@mcguirewoods.com -- a Los Angeles partner at McGuireWoods, is challenging certification of classes in 11 states. The case alleges that all bottles labeled as "100% Natural" were false and misleading because the cooking oils contained genetically modified organisms. In a March 2 brief, Gresham wrote that upholding the district judge's order, which required no plan to identify the class apart from sworn claim forms, "would dramatically lower the bar for class certification in the Ninth Circuit." But adopting ConAgra's view that affidavits aren't enough "would effectively eliminate the entire category of low-dollar value consumer class actions," countered Levitt in a Dec. 18 brief. In the case against Dole Packaged Foods LLC, plaintiffs are appealing the decertification of a class of consumers who bought 10 products with "All Natural Fruit" labels. The plaintiffs seek damages in a case alleging that the labels are misleading because the fruit cups and cans contain citric acid and ascorbic acid. Yet both appeals raise other issues that the Ninth Circuit could prioritize over ascertainability. In fact, on Aug. 31, the Ninth Circuit asked lawyers in the Dole case to address at oral arguments what impact their case would have on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's review of how "natural" should be defined in food labels. CONTAINER STORE: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Cadigan" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant The Container Store, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in lawsuit styled Cadigan, et al. v. The Container Store, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-12984-NMG, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 12, 2016, District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton accepted and adopted the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge M. Paige Kelley and denied the Defendant's motion to enforce arbitration and class action waivers and stay the action. The case is a putative class action alleging discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the discrimination laws of Massachusetts, New York, Texas, and California. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that blind individuals, who shop at Defendant The Container Store's locations across the country should have equal access to Defendant's payment methods and loyalty programs. The appellate case is captioned as Cadigan, et al. v. The Container Store, Inc., Case No. 16-2112, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Appellate Court ordered that Transcript Report/Order form and Appearance form are due on September 16, 2016. Plaintiffs-Appellees MARK CADIGAN, MIKA PYYHKALA, LISA IRVING, HEATHER ALBRIGHT, JEANINE KAY LINEBACK, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, and ARTHUR JACOBS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jana Eisinger, Esq. MARTINEZ LAW GROUP, P.C. 720 South Colorado Blvd. South Tower, Suite 1020 Denver, CO 80246 Telephone: (303) 597-4000 E-mail: eisinger@mlgrouppc.com - and - Timothy Elder, Esq. TRE LAW PRACTICE 4226 Castanos St. Fairmont, CA 94536 Telephone: (410) 415-3493 E-mail: telder@trelegal.com - and - Scott C. LaBarre, Esq. LABARRE LAW OFFICE, P.C. 1660 S. Albion St., Suite 918 Denver, CO 80222 Telephone: (303) 504-5979 Facsimile: (303) 757-3640 E-mail: slabarre@labarrelaw.com - and - Jeremy Y. Weltman, Esq. CLARK HUNT AHERN & EMBRY 55 Cambridge Parkway Cambridge, MA 02142-0000 Telephone: (781) 997-1600 E-mail: jweltman@kcl-law.com Defendant-Appellant THE CONTAINER STORE, INC., is represented by: Michael J. Chilleen, Esq. Gregory Francis Hurley, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Dr., 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 428-5981 E-mail: mchilleen@sheppardmullin.com ghurley@sheppardmullin.com - and - Howard E. Stempler, Esq. SEDER & CHANDLER 339 Main Street, Suite 300 Worcester, MA 01608-0000 Telephone: (508) 575-7721 E-mail: hstempler@sederlaw.com COOKING LIGHT: Appeals Decision in "Montellano-Espana" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Cooking Light Inc. and Gus Karasakalides filed an appeal from a District Court decision and order, dated August 4, 2016, entered in the lawsuit titled Montellano-Espana v. Cooking Light Inc., Case No. 14-cv-1433, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The Case is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Montellano-Espana v. Cooking Light Inc., Case No. 16-3088, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellee Panfilo Montellano-Espana, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, is represented by: Brandon David Sherr, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com Defendants-Appellants Cooking Light Inc. and Gus Karasakalides are represented by: Arthur H. Forman, Esq. 98-20 Metropolitan Avenue Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 268-2616 E-mail: ahf@ahforman.com CVB FINANCIAL: "Lloyd" Suit Seeks Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled BARRY R. LLOYD, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CVB FINANCIAL CORP., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:10-cv-06256-CAS-PJW (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class, appoint Lead Plaintiff Jacksonville P&F as class representative, and appoint Bernstein Litowitz as counsel for the class. The Class is defined as: "all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of CVB Financial Corp. (CVB or the Company) between March 4, 2010, and August 9, 2010, inclusive, and were damaged thereby (the Class)." CVB Financial is the bank holding company for Citizens Business Bank. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WpFftDyM The Plaintiff is represented by: Blair A. Nicholas, Esq. Timothy A. Delange, Esq. Niki L. Mendoza, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 793 0070 Facsimile: (858) 793 0323 E-mail: blairn@blbglaw.com timothyd@blbglaw.com nikim@blbglaw.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Monterra Apartments Sues Over Misappraisal ---------------------------------------------------------- MONTERRA APARTMENTS, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11037 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Nessel Development X Sues Over Misappraisal ----------------------------------------------------------- NESSEL DEVELOPMENT X, LLC., (dba LaVita Apartments), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11059 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Nessel Development XI Sues Over Misappraisal ------------------------------------------------------------ NESSEL DEVELOPMENT XI, LLC., (dba Cityscape), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16- 11060 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Onemain Place Sues Over Misappraisal ---------------------------------------------------- ONEMAIN PLACE OFFICE, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11049 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Old Parkland Sues Over Misappraisal --------------------------------------------------- OLD PARKLAND UNIT F, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11081 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Pavillion North Sues Over Misappraisal ------------------------------------------------------ PAVILLION NORTH HOLDING, LTD., the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11069 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: PC Brookfield Sues Over Misappraisal ---------------------------------------------------- PC BROOKFIELD, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11063 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: PCDF Broadmoor Sues Over Misappraisal ----------------------------------------------------- PCDF BROADMOOR, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11042 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: WW Ross Sues Over Misappraisal ---------------------------------------------- WW ROSS AVENUE, LP., (dba Olympus at Ross), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16- 11062 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Solaris LLC Sues Over Misappraisal -------------------------------------------------- SOLARIS, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11058 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: SPP Covington Sues Over Misappraisal ---------------------------------------------------- SPP COVINGTON POINTE, LTD., the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11068 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Texas Birchwood Sues Over Misappraisal ------------------------------------------------------ TEXAS BIRCHWOOD APARTMENTS, LP, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11079 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Tiburon Apartments Sues Over Misappraisal --------------------------------------------------------- TIBURON APARTMENTS, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11065 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Tio Milestone Sues Over Misappraisal ---------------------------------------------------- TIO MILESTONE SPRINGFIELD APARTMENTS INVESTORS, L.P. (Springfield Apartments), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11093 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiffs property). In May, 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised the value of the Property at $12,800,000, an amount in excess of the appraised value required by law. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com mkrasoff@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Towne North Sues Over Misappraisal -------------------------------------------------- TOWNE NORTH SC PTNR, LTD., the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11075 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Villages of Addison Sues Over Misappraisal ---------------------------------------------------------- VILLAGES OF ADDISON LLC & VILLAGES OF ADDISON ORCHARD LLC (The Villages of Addison), the Plaintiffs, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11126 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non- monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiff's property). In May, 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised the value of the Property at $4,496,510, an amount in excess of the appraised value required by law. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel P. Donovan, Esq. Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq. Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq. GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C. One Bent Tree Tower 16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400 Addison, TX 75001-6837 Telephone: (972) 931 9901 Facsimile: (972) 931 9208 E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com jtobin@gpd.com mkrasoff@gpd.com DALLAS CENTRAL: Wallis Rusty Sues Over Misappraisal --------------------------------------------------- WALLIS RUSTY FAM, LP., the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11047 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: West Ferris Sues Over Misappraisal -------------------------------------------------- WEST FERRIS BRANCH, LLC, (dba The Lex), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11061 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DALLAS CENTRAL: WW Mosaic Sues Over Misappraisal ------------------------------------------------ WW MOSAIC DALLAS, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11053 (Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks all relief resulting from Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property under the Property Tax Code. The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i) assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016, (ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods' and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in the appraisal district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or character as, the Property. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason C. Marshall, Esq. THE MARSHALL FIRM PC 302 N. Market St., Ste. 510 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 742 4800 Facsimile: (214) 452 9064 E-mail: Admin@Marshall-firm.com JMarshall@Marshall-firm.com DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Fraud Case Focuses on Process Server --------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Stockman, writing for LawNewz.com, reports that there is a very strange twist in the class action fraud lawsuit filed against the Democratic National Committee and former Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The recent developments haven't gotten much mainstream media attention, but they are all documented in federal court. They involve a lawsuit process server -- who "served" the DNC with the class action paperwork -- and then suddenly died. The lawsuit, which was actually filed before the Wikileaks document dump, claims that the DNC "actively concealed its bias" from its donors and supporters backing Bernie Sanders. Hundreds of Sanders supporters have reportedly signed up to be part of the class. They have even started a very active Facebook page. The plaintiffs say the recent Wikileaks emails only give them more evidence that the Democratic National Committee was on board with Hillary Clinton from the very start. A guy named Shawn Lucas "served" the DNC and Debbie Wassermann Schultz with a lawsuit back in July. He was a lawsuit process server. He even posted a YouTube video of him serving the lawsuit which can been seen below. The video has garnered nearly a half a million views. That's partly because about a month after he served the lawsuit and amidst the Wikileaks scandal, Lucas suddenly died. Online conspiracy theorists have said the two must be related. There is absolutely no evidence of that so far. The police report says he was found unconscious laying on the bathroom floor of his Washington D.C. home. The D.C. Metropolitan Police tell LawNewz.com that the investigation is still ongoing. But the video has become the subject of a court fight. The question is whether the plaintiffs (the Bernie Sanders supporters) properly served the the defendants (Wasserman and the DNC). That actually matters because, according to the federal rules, if you don't serve the lawsuit properly to the opposing side, you can't move forward with the case. Lawyers for the DNC contend they weren't properly served. If you watch to the video, you will see Lucas served the lawsuit to a woman named Rebecca Herries. She was apparently an assistant to one of the DNC executives. DNC lawyers are trying to derail the case by saying that that even though she works for the DNC, "she doesn't have authority" to accept the lawsuit. If you read the transcript, you will see that she certainly made it seem like she had authority to deal with the legal matter. Here's how the conversation went down, according to the video: Ms. Herries: "Shawn hi, Becca" Process Server: [Inaudible question to Becca] Ms. Herries: "I'm just with the DNC upstairs" Process Server: "You're with the DNC" Ms. Herries: "Yes" Process Server: "All right, well this is going to be a service to the DNC" Ms. Herries: "to the DNC- okay" Process Server: "And this is for Debbie Wasserman Shultz" Ms. Herries: "Perfect" Process Server: "You guys have been served." Ms. Herries: "Okay" Process Server: "Thank you so much, we'll see you in court" Of course, Lucas could not testify about what happened because he is dead. In an order that came out on Aug. 30, Judge William Zloch sided with the DNC -- but did chastise the DNC lawyers for their apparent shenanigans over being served. "No evidence at the hearing explains Ms. Herries's conduct; however, the Court hereby advises Defendant DNC that will not tolerate the conduct in which Defendant DNC engaged in this instance," Judge Zloch wrote in his order. The judge ordered the plaintiffs to re-serve the case on the defendants. This lawsuit will be an interesting one to follow -- especially when the judge actually gets into the meat of the allegations. DONALD TRUMP: Faces "Thorne" Suit Over Campaign Sent Via SMS ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled JOSHUA THORNE and DAVID ROBERTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT, INC., a principal campaign committee, Case No. 1:16-cv-04603 (N.D. Ill.), move for entry of an order certifying this class: All individuals: (a) to whom, within the last four years of the filing of this action, Defendant Donald J. Trump For President, Inc. ("Defendant") sent a non-emergency telephone SMS message to the individuals' cellular telephones through the use of an automatic dialing system; and (b) who did not voluntarily provide their cellular numbers to Defendant for it to send them SMS messages regarding Donald J. Trump's political campaign. The Case involves common fact questions about the Defendant's SMS text campaign and common legal questions under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Messrs. Thorne and Roberts inform the Court that they file the Motion soon after filing their consolidated complaint in order to avoid an attempt by the Defendant to moot their individual claims. However, the Plaintiffs contend, in this case, additional discovery is necessary for the Court to determine whether to certify the class they seek to represent. As a result, Plaintiffs say they will seek leave to pursue class discovery as soon as practicable. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4uVfvF5w Plaintiff David Roberts is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. David M. Oppenheim, Esq. Todd A. Lewis, Esq. Julia L. Titolo, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com david@classlawyers.com tod@classlawyers.com julia@bockhatchllc.com Plaintiff Joshua Thorne is represented by: Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. Richard L. Miller II, Esq. Ke Liu, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 North State St., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com rmiller@siprut.com kliu@siprut.com EVANSTON CITY, IL: Wilson, et al. Seek Certification of 2 Classes ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Jermaine Wilson and Dameon Sanders, the Plaintiffs, v. City of Evanston, Illinois, Case No. 1:14-cv-08347 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify two classes: Class I, Substantive Due Process: "all persons whose property, following an arrest on and after October 23, 2012, was held at the Evanston Police Department and destroyed or otherwise disposed of before the conclusion of court proceedings in connection with which such property was seized or otherwise taken possession of"; and Class II, Procedural Due Process: "all persons whose property, following an arrest on and after October 23, 2012, was held at the Evanston Police Department and destroyed or otherwise disposed of while that person remained in the custody of a jail or penitentiary." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z9fGoOpW The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth N. Flaxman, Esq. Joel A. Flaxman, Esq. 200 S Michigan Ave, Ste 201 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 427 3200 EVOLVED INC: "Perkins" Suit Seek Certification of FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled Brittany Perkins, et al., Individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Evolved, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00724-JLG-KAJ (E.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs move the Court pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to certify a class of: "all current and former hourly employees enrolled in Defendants' "Apprenticeship Program," including both piercing and tattoo apprentices, that worked at the Evolved Stores from three years preceding the filing of the Complaint through the final disposition of this case who were not paid minimum wage for all hours worked in a workweek, and or who had 20 hours automatically deducted from their pay each week." The Plaintiffs further move the Court for an order: 1) implementing a procedure, whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claims can be promptly sent to all potential opt-in plaintiffs via U.S. Mail; and 2) requiring Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendants at any time from approximately July 22, 2013 through and including the present and until the final resolution of the case. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qwtgzcZT The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 949 1181 Facsimile: (614) 386 9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Jason C. Cox, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221 4221 Facsimile: (614) 744 2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com jcox@barkanmeizlish.com FACEBOOK INC: Bid to Certify Class in Privacy Litigation Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Ronald M. Whyte denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit titled In re Facebook Privacy Litigation, Case No. 10-cv-02389-RMW(N.D. Cal.). Judge Whyte also: -- denied as moot Facebook's motion to strike the expert opinion of Edward Pscheidt because the Plaintiffs do not rely on Mr. Pscheidt's opinions; -- denied the Plaintiffs' motion to strike the testimony of Matt Jones; and -- denied as moot Facebook's motion to strike the expert opinions of Forrest Vickery, as the Court does not reach the parties' arguments with respect to damages. "Because the court finds that individualized questions will predominate with respect to Facebook's alleged breach and misrepresentation, the court denies plaintiffs' motion for class certification," Judge Whyte explained. Judge Whyte also stated that the Court has also filed an unredacted copy of the Order that is accessible to case participants only. If either party believes that the redacted portions of the Order disclose confidential information, the party must file an administrative motion to file under seal within 14 days of the Order. The motion must be accompanied by an unredacted version of the Order, filed under seal, highlighting the portions of the Order that the party seeks to seal. The motion must also be accompanied by a declaration establishing that such portions of the Order are sealable. No proposed order or redacted version of the order need be filed. If neither party moves to seal any part of the Order within 14 days, the Order will be made public in its entirety. According to plaintiffs, Facebook's business model represents a bargain between Facebook and its users. They contend that Facebook users provide their valuable personally identifiable information ("PII") to Facebook in exchange for access to facebook.com and for Facebook's promises not to disclose their PII to third parties without consent. Plaintiffs claim that Facebook violated its own policies and promises by disclosing users' "sensitive personally identifiable information" to advertisers. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that when users clicked on Facebook ads, Facebook sent "referer headers" to the advertisers that would allow the advertiser to identify the user who clicked the ad. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at https://goo.gl/wlRSur from Leagle.com. Plaintiff David Gould is represented by: Charles Hyunchul Jung, Esq. Kassra Powell Nassiri, Esq. NASSIRI & JUNG LLP 47 Kearny Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 762-3100 E-mail: cjung@nassiri-jung.com knassiri@nassiri-jung.com Plaintiffs Karen Bryant and Christopher Brock are represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com Plaintiff Barbara Moskowitz is represented by: Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 712-8155 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com Plaintiff Howard L. Schreiber is represented by: Eric David Freed, Esq. COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP LLC 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 543-8700 Facsimile: (415) 391-8269 E-mail: eric@freedweiss.com Plaintiff Katherine Pohl and Consol Plaintiff Wendy Marfeo are represented by: Kassra Powell Nassiri, Esq. NASSIRI & JUNG LLP 47 Kearny Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 762-3100 E-mail: knassiri@nassiri-jung.com Consol Plaintiff Wendy Marfeo is represented by: Matthew Joseph Zevin, Esq. STANLEY LAW GROUP 10021 Willow Creek Rd., Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (619) 235-5306 Facsimile: (815) 377-8419 E-mail: mzevin@stanleylawgroup.com Consol Plaintiffs Valerie Gudac and Richard Beiles are represented by: Francis M. Gregorek, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP Symphony Towers 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 E-mail: Gregorek@whafh.com Consol Plaintiff Zetha Noble is represented by: Donald Amamgbo, Esq. AMAMGBO & ASSOCIATES PLC 2355 Westwood Blvd., Suite 755 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 337-1137 Facsimile: (310) 337-1157 E-mail: donald@amamgbolaw.com - and - Reginald Von Terrell, Esq. THE TERRELL LAW GROUP PO Box 13315 Oakland, CA 94661 Telephone: (510) 237-9700 Facsimile: (510) 237-4616 E-mail: ReggieT2@aol.com - and - Sydney Jay Hall, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SYDNEY JAY HALL 1308 Bayshore Highway, Suite 220 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 342-1830 Facsimile: (650) 342-6344 E-mail: sydneyhalllawoffice@yahoo.com Defendant Facebook, Inc., is represented by: Jeffrey Gutkin, Esq. Matthew Dean Brown, Esq. COOLEY LLP 101 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 Telephone: (415) 693-2026 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: jgutkin@cooley.com brownmd@cooley.com Interested Party Zynga Game Network Inc. is represented by: Richard L. Seabolt, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP Spear Tower One Market Plaza, Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-1127 Telephone: (415) 957-3212 Facsimile: (415) 354-3317 E-mail: RLSeabolt@duanemorris.com FINANCIAL CORPORATION: "Koval" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled KATE KOVAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA, CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 04093 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "all persons in Illinois (2) to whom Defendant sent a letter to collect a debt (3) which letter threatened to collect a service fee for paying by credit card or electronic payment (4) within 1 year of the complaint." The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the FDCPA by threatening to collect a convenience fee from consumers who opted to pay an alleged debt using a credit card when such a fee is unlawful in the state of Illinois. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tIXt8D9y The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Wood, Esq. Celetha Chatman, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757 1880 Facsimile: (312) 476 1362 E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com FORBES MEDIA: Class Certification Bid in "Hall" Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge George Caram Steeh entered an order dismissing Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice in the lawsuit styled BRIAN HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FORBES MEDIA LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-13844-GCS-DRG (E.D. Mich.). Mr. Brian Hall filed the putative class action alleging that the Defendant violated Michigan's Preservation of Personal Privacy Act, popularly referred to as the Video Rental Privacy Act (VRPA), by unlawfully disclosing subscribers' information to data miners and other third party companies. The Plaintiff also alleges a state law claim of unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on October 30, 2015, which has been stayed pending discovery. On this date, the court entered a stay of the case pending a ruling by the Sixth Circuit on a motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing in the case of Coulter-Owens v. Time, Inc., No. 16-1321. For administrative and statistical reasons, the court now dismisses Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice. The motion may be reopened after the stay has been lifted by the court. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gX5ZuRMU FRONTON HOLDINGS: "Rife" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled RUDY RIFE, the Plaintiff, v. FRONTON HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a CASINO MIAMI and DAVE JONAS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21570-JAL (S.D, Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting conditional certification of a Collective Action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a putative class defined as follows: "all persons who are currently, or who were, employed by Fronton Holdings, LLC d/b/a Casino Miami and/or Dave Jonas from May 3, 2013 to the present as a "manager", "supervisor", or other similarly titled position, either directly by Defendants or through any of their subsidiaries or affiliated companies." The Plaintiff further asks the Court for an order: 1. appointing Plaintiff as representative of the Collective Action with authority to appear at any mediation/settlement conference on behalf of and to bind the Collective. 2. expediting production by Defendants, within 10 days from the entry of an Order from the Court, of a complete list of each person -- including his/her last known home address, telephone number, fax number, and email address -- who worked with a title containing "manager" or "supervisor" for Defendants at any time between May 3, 2013 and the present; and 3. requiring Defendants to format and produce, on an expedited basis, a list both in hard copy and electronically in an Excel spreadsheet, of each such person listed alphabetically, and with each person's last known home address, cellular number, fax number, and email addresses in a separate field corresponding with each name to facilitate the preparation and sending of notice. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zxUWi2Kx The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian H. Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408 Miami, FL 33143 Telephone: (305) 230 4884 Facsimile: (305) 230 4844 GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Not to Blame for 2011 Crash ----------------------------------------------------------- Juan A. Lozano, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a Texas jury on Aug. 25 found that a General Motors Co. ignition switch was not to blame for a 2011 accident that killed one driver and injured another, handing the carmaker its third courtroom win this year in a series of trials designed to help attorneys settle dozens of similar claims. The jury deliberated less than two hours in reaching its verdict in a trial that began Aug. 9. Zachary Stevens and his parents had sued GM, claiming a faulty ignition switch in Stevens' Saturn Sky jostled off, causing him to lose control of his car and hit another vehicle, killing its driver. Mr. Stevens' attorneys say he suffered a traumatic brain injury and a skull fracture in the accident. The switches can slip out of the on position, causing the cars to stall, knocking out power steering and turning off air bags. GM says it has fixed the problem. Josh Davis, Mr. Stevens' attorney, said that while his client never hid the fact that he was speeding before the accident, Stevens and his family still maintain the ignition switch was the main cause. "It's obviously very disappointing," Mr. Davis said after the verdict . He had asked jurors to award the Stevens family more than $14.5 million. Attorneys for GM told jurors in Houston the accident was caused by Mr. Stevens' reckless speeding on a rain-slick road. "As a result, an innocent man was killed. The accident had nothing to do with either General Motors or the ignition switch," GM spokesman Jim Cain said in a statement after the verdict. Mr. Stevens, who was 19 at the time, had been driving westbound on a road northeast of Houston near the town of New Caney when his car began to act erratically and he was unable to control it, according to his attorneys. Mr. Stevens' car hit a guardrail and went into the eastbound lane, where it struck a vehicle driven by Mariano Landaverde, who died at the scene. Mr. Landaverde's family had also been part of the lawsuit but settled out of court with GM. In a videotaped deposition played for jurors earlier in the trial, GM Chief Executive Officer Mary Barra said the automaker failed to designate the flawed ignition switch as a safety concern, instead misdiagnosing the problem as a customer satisfaction issue. Mr. Stevens was charged with manslaughter, but a grand jury declined to indict and the charges were eventually dropped after GM began its recall related to the ignition switch. In 2014, GM recalled 2.6 million older small cars worldwide to replace the faulty switches. Those included the Saturn Sky, as well as the Chevrolet Cobalt and others. GM also reviewed a backlog of safety problems and ordered a record 84 recalls that year covering more than 30 million vehicles, including 27 million in the U.S. GM won two other ignition cases tried earlier this year. In January, a trial in New York ended abruptly after the judge raised questions about the plaintiff's truthfulness. In March, a New York jury found that an ignition switch was not to blame in a 2014 accident on an icy New Orleans bridge. These cases have been part of a series of bellwether trials that are testing the legal boundaries of hundreds of claims remaining against GM. In September, GM announced it had settled 1,385 death and injury cases for $275 million and a class-action shareholders' lawsuit for $300 million. The company paid nearly $600 million to settle 399 claims made to a fund it established. Those claims covered 124 deaths and 275 injuries. GM's fund rejected more than 90 percent of the 4,343 claims it received, according to figures the company released in December. After the Aug. 25verdict, several jurors said that while they were upset about GM's failure to let consumers know about the ignition switch problems sooner, they didn't see any proof in this case that the switch was at fault. "I held my nose and I did my job," said Walter Kimble, 58, one of the jurors. "I wanted so desperately to make that young man a millionaire, but they didn't give me anything I could work with." GERAWAN FARMING: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Amaro" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Gerawan Farming, Inc., and Gerawan Farming Partners, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Rafael Amaro, et al. v. Gerawan Farming, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00147-DAD-SAB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Fresno. The appellate case is captioned as Rafael Amaro, et al. v. Gerawan Farming, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-80120, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District Judge Dale A. Drozd granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On February 3, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendants alleging violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), as well as various California labor laws. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants. Plaintiffs-Respondents RAFAEL MARQUEZ AMARO and JESUS ALARCON URZUA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by: Marcos Camacho, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARCOS CAMACHO 1227 California Ave. Bakersfield, CA 93304 Telephone: (661) 324-8100 - and - Liane Lara Katzenstein Ly, Esq. Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Boulevard Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 E-mail: liane@kingsleykingsley.com eric@kingsleykingsley.com - and - Mario G. Martinez, Esq. MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH APLC P.O. Box 11208 Bakersfield, CA 93389 Telephone: (661) 859-1174 E-mail: mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com Defendants-Petitioners GERAWAN FARMING, INC., a California Corporation, and GERAWAN FARMING PARTNERS, INC., a California Corporation, are represented by: Daniel Lewis Allender, Esq. Victor Hao-Jan Jih, Esq. David Schwarz, Esq. IRELL & MANELLA LLP 1800 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276 Telephone: (310) 203-7003 Facsimile: (310) 203-7199 E-mail: dallender@irell.com VJih@irell.com dschwarz@irell.com GOOGLE INC: Settles Apple Browser Hacking Claims for $5.5 Million ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff John Roberts, writing for Fortune, reports that Google agreed to a settlement on Aug. 29 that could finally end the legal fall- out from a scheme by the search giant to circumvent privacy settings on Apple's Safari browser. The tactic, discovered by security researchers in 2012, involved Google tricking consumers' browsers into accepting ad-tracking software. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, filed in Delaware federal court, Google will pay $5.5 million to resolve a long-running class action lawsuit -- but affected consumers will see none of that money. Instead, some of the cash will go to legal fees and settlement expenses while the rest will go to a handful of privacy groups. The deal will also permit Google to deny any fault over the browser hacking, which caused a major controversy when it was discovered, and raised questions about the extent to which tech companies track consumers' online behavior. The hack itself involved a default setting on Apple's desktop and mobile Safari browser that rejected so-called "cookies" -- small bits of software code that keep track of the websites a consumers visits in order to serve them ads. Google got around the setting by disguising their cookies in a way that qualified for a loophole in the Safari settings. After Google's practice came to light, the company agreed to pay $17 million to state attorneys general over privacy violations, and another $22.5 million to the Federal Trade Commission for violating the terms of an earlier settlement. In both cases, Google denied any wrong-doing -- an outcome an FTC Commissioner then described as "inexplicable." The effect of the Aug. 29 deal is that it could put an end to the related class action litigation, which has bounced around the courts for years. Last year, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals revived parts of a case a lower court judge had dismissed, leading the parties to ask Supreme Court earlier this year to review parts of the appeal. The proposed settlement, however, must be approved by a judge and that outcome is not a sure thing. While judges are typically quick to bless class action settlements, some have decided to reject arrangements -- like the one involving Google -- in which the settlement money is paid to outside groups rather than consumers. Google declined to comment about the settlement, and lawyers for the plaintiffs did not respond to a request for comment. News of the settlement came in June, but its details were only filed recently. GRADUATION ALLIANCE: Court Allows Rost to File Amended Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Paul C. Huck granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint in the lawsuit styled SHIRLEY ROST v. GRADUATION ALLIANCE, Inc., a Utah corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv- 24296-PCH (S.D. Fla.). As explained in the Motion, the Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add detail learned during discovery and development of the factual record, and to revise the class allegations and definition by, for example, removing the "Replied Stop Class" and amending the "Consent Class." Judge Huck also denied without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification as it is rendered moot by the Plaintiff's proposed amendments to the complaint. As previously ordered, the Plaintiff may move for class certification by October 3, 2016. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QzzMOLBg HALLIBURTON ENERGY: "Guerrero" Suit Moved to E.D. of California --------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Guerrero, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. BCV-16-101645, was removed from Kern County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California - Live (Fresno). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-01300-LJO- JLT to the proceeding. The assigned Chief Judge is Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill. Halliburton Energy provides products, services, and integrated solutions for oil and gas exploration, development, and production. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Thomas Mara, Esq. Jamie Kathryn Serb, Esq. William Turley, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234 2833 Facsimile: (619) 234 4048 E-mail: dmara@turleylawfirm.com jkserb@gmail.com kcorzine@turleylawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. MCGUIRE WOODS LLP (LOS ANGELES) 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 315 8295 Facsimile: (310) 310 8210 E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com HARRIS COUNTY: Petroquip Energy Sues Over Misappraisal ------------------------------------------------------ PETROQUIP ENERGY SERVICES, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59292 (Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks relief from District's levying of a tax on Plaintiff's property based on a higher valuation, pursuant to Texas Property Tax Code. According to the complaint, the District placed a January 1, 2016 assessed value on the Plaintiff's property. This assessed value is grossly in excess of its actual fair market value. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Montgomery Briscoe, Esq. EGGLESTON & BRISCOE, LLP 4800 Three Allen Center 333 Clay Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 659 5100 Facsimile: (713) 951 9920 E-mail: wmb@eggstonbriscoe.com HARRIS COUNTY: PPI Mechanical Sues Over Misappraisal ---------------------------------------------------- PPI MECHANICAL TESTING SERVICES LLC, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59282 (Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), asks the Court to fix the excessive valuation of the property owned by the Plaintiff for property tax purposes for the year 2016. According to the complaint, the District placed a January 1, 2016 assessed value on the Plaintiff's property. This assessed value is grossly in excess of its actual fair market value. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Montgomery Briscoe, Esq. EGGLESTON & BRISCOE, LLP 4800 Three Allen Center 333 Clay Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 659 5100 Facsimile: (713) 951 9920 E-mail: wmb@eggstonbriscoe.com HARRIS COUNTY: Team Industrial Sues Over Misappraisal ----------------------------------------------------- TEAM INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-59170 (Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, Sep. 2, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $200,000-1,000,000 resulting from the Defendant's excess appraised value of Plaintiff's property. The Plaintiff alleges that the 2016 value of the Property constitutes an unequal appraisal of the Property in that the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds, by at least 10%, the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties or a sample of other properties. The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond Gray, Esq. Lorri Michel, Esq. Shane Rogers, Esq. Natalie A. Maloney, Esq. MICHELLE & GRAY, LLP 812 W. 11th Street, Suite 301 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 477 0200 Facsimile: (512) 477 6636 E-mail: raymond@michelgray.com lorri@michelgray.com shane@michelgray.com natalie@michelgray.com HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Class of Purchasers Certified in "Wolf" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Beverly Reid O'Connell granted the Defendant's motion to strike the declaration of William Buckley, and granted in part the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit styled ANNE WOLF v. HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY, Case No. 5:15-cv-01221-BRO- GJS (C.D. Cal.). In view of Mazza v. American Honda Motor Co., and the questions regarding online purchasers' reliance on the advertisement in question, the Court exercises its discretion to revise the class definition, according to the civil minutes. In particular, the Court (1) declines to certify the proposed nationwide class and (2) limits the California subclass to those consumers, who purchased their Printer at a physical, retail location in California. The certified class description will read as follows: Class 1: All consumers, who, between in or about April 2014, and the present, purchased one or more HP Laserjet P1102 printers at a physical, retail location in the state of California, and whose printer was advertised to include the HP Smart Install feature, but was in fact subject to HP's disablement of the Smart Install Feature. The putative class action is brought under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiff asserts a claim against HP. HP engages in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of computers and related equipment and services. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rLvurejP HOLLYWOOD POINTE: African-Asian Club's Bid for Class Cert. Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In light of certain significant concerns, the Hon. James Otero denies without prejudice the Club's motion for class action certification in the lawsuit captioned United African-Asian Abilities Club v. Hollywood Pointe, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16- cv-01117-SJO-FFM (C.D. Cal.). The Court grants the Club leave to file a renewed motion for class certification, with a memorandum totaling no more than 25 pages, which addresses each of the issues noted in the Court's civil minutes within 45 days of the issuance of the Order. The Club is encouraged to seek leave to amend its operative pleading, and to redefine its proposed classes and subclasses in a manner that might make class-wide adjudication feasible. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SgaWJbVn HOME DEPOT: "Henry" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to E.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Henry, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-04858, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California - (Sacramento). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02102-MCE to the proceeding. The assigned District Judge is Hon. Morrison C. England, Jr. Home Depot is a home improvement supplies superstore that sells tools, construction products and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SHAUN SETAREH 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888 7771 Facsimile: (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com - and - Arnab Banerjee, Esq. Melissa Grant, Esq. Raul Perez, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1840 Century Park East, Suite 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556 4811 Facsimile: (310) 943 0396 E-mail: arnab.banerjee@capstonelawyers.com melissa.grant@capstonelawyers.com raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com - and - Neil Michael Larsen, Esq. Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888 7771 Facsimile: (310) 888 0109 E-mail: neil@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com - and - Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 E. Maple Ave. El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2353 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Donna Marie Mezias, Esq. Joel M. Cohn, Esq. Liz Kathryn Bertko, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 580 California Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 765 9500 Facsimile: (415) 765 9501 E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com jcohn@akingump.com lbertko@akingump.com HOME TEAM PEST: Garnica Seeks to Certify Customers Class -------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Jose Garnica, Cora Potter, individuals; on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated consumers v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-05243-VC (N.D. Cal.), move the Court to grant class certification in favor of this class of persons: All individuals who lived in a home with a tube-in-the-wall pest control system serviced by HomeTeam Pest Defense, Inc. ("HomeTeam") at any time from November 26, 2010 to the date of trial of this action. The claims in the Case are each based upon the Defendants' alleged monopolization and attempt to monopolize in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. As a result of HomeTeam's monopolistic behavior, Plaintiffs argue that they and members of the Class paid more for serving of tube-in-the-wall pest control systems. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Howarth & Smith, and Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield LLP as Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on November 17, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=g0iYqPGw The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Rex Parris, Esq. Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq. Patricia K. Oliver, Esq. R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM 43364 10th Street West Lancaster, CA 93534 Telephone: (661) 949-2595 Facsimile: (661) 949-7524 E-mail: rrparris@rrexparris.com awheeler@rrexparris.com poliver@rrexparris.com - and - Don Howarth, Esq. Suzelle M. Smith, Esq. Elizabeth Skorcz Anthony, Esq. HOWARTH & SMITH 523 West Sixth Street, Suite 728 Los Angeles, CA, 90014 Telephone: (213) 955-9400 Facsimile: (213) 622-0791 E-mail: dhowarth@howarth-smith.com ssmith@howarth-smith.com eanthony@howarth-smith.com - and - David S. Casey, Jr., Esq. Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. Jeremy Robinson, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 Facsimile: (619) 544-9232 E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com gmb@cglaw.com jrobinson@cglaw.com INSTALLATIONS INC: "Somers" Suit Minimum Pay Under Wage Act ----------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD (CHIP) SOMERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. INSTALLATIONS, INC. d/b/a GOCONFIGURE, the Defendant, Case No. 16-2530 (Mass. Super. Ct., Sep. 2, 2016), seeks damages sustained by Plaintiff and the Class Members as a result of the Defendants' unlawful conduct, and for the Court to award those damages, trebled for those representing violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act and the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Statute, against the Defendants and in favor of the Plaintiff and the Class Members. According to the complaint, all of GoConfigure's installers, service and repair personnel have been/are misclassified as independent contractors, have been denied minimum wages, and have had unlawful deductions taken from their compensation. Specifically, the Defendant allegedly failed to pay the minimum wage rate to Plaintiff and the Class Members for all of their work time. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gordon, Esq. Kristen M. Hurley, Esq. GORDON LAW GROUP LLP 585 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 536 1800 IPAWN RODNEY: "Jones" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark. ----------------------------------------------------------- Vincient Jones, Individually and o/b/o a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. iPawn Rodney Parham LLC, iPawn Baseline LLC, iPawn Arkansas LLC, and Steven Landers, Jr., the Defendant, Case No. 60-CV-16-03326, was removed from the Pulaski County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The Eastern District clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00644-KGB (Sep. 6, 2016) to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Kristine G. Baker. iPawn provides quick and easy loans to customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Walker, Esq. Omavi Shukur, Esq. John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206-1220 Telephone: (501) 374 3758 E-mail: johnwalkeratty@aol.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel R. Carter, Esq. JAMES & CARTER Post Office Box 907 Little Rock, AR 72203 Telephone: (501) 372 1414 Facsimile: (501) 372 1659 E-mail: dcarter@jamescarterlaw.com JACKSONVILLE, FL: 11th Cir. Affirms Dissolution of Consent Decree ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and Alex W. Karasik, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that after the City of Jacksonville stopped following a class action consent decree that required it to hire a proportionate number of black and white firefighters, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the motion and dissolution of the consent decree on the grounds that the plaintiffs waiting fifteen years to bring their show cause motion. Following a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all past, present and future black firefighters in in the City of Jacksonville, Florida ("the City") in 1971, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered a consent decree that required the City to hire a proportionate number of black and white firefighters. The consent decree was modified in 1982 and effective until 1992, when the City unilaterally and without legal authorization stopped following the decree. Fifteen years later, in 2007, the plaintiffs brought a motion to show cause as to why the City should not be held in contempt for violation of the 1982 consent decree. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion on grounds of laches, and dissolved the consent decree. On appeal, in Coffey, et al. v. Braddy, et al., No. 15-11112 (11th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016), the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the plaintiffs' motion to show cause and dissolving the consent decree. This ruling illustrates that if an employer abandons its obligations under a consent decree, legal inaction by plaintiffs over a long period of time could potentially render the consent decree dissolved. Case Background In 1982, the district court modified a 1971 consent decree requiring the City of Jacksonville to hire in its fire department "an equal number of blacks and whites until the ratio of black fire fighters to white fire fighters reflects the ratio of black citizens to white citizens in the City of Jacksonville." Id. at 2. The City complied for ten years until it unilaterally and without the district court's approval stopped following the decree in 1992. Id. In 2007, fifteen years after the City had stopped complying with the consent decree, the plaintiffs brought a motion to show cause as to why the City should not be held in contempt for violation of the 1982 consent decree. The district court denied the plaintiffs' motion on grounds of laches and dissolved the decree. Id. at 2-3. Further, the district court explained that if the plaintiffs had sued in 1992 or the years immediately following, "the City would have had a lot of explaining to do." Id. at 10. Citing incomplete memories, the fact that several key City personnel had passed away or moved, the spottiness of the paper trail, ambiguities in the documents that were in the record, and the fact that the City had been operating under a different hiring procedure since 1999, the district court concluded that the "plaintiffs['] waiting until fifteen years later is simply too prejudicial to the City." Id. In addition, the district court granted the City's motion to dissolve the consent decree. Id. The district court refused to reinstate the consent decree as written because its racial quotas were not constitutional under the modern standard for affirmative action, and because adapting the 1982 decree to the new hiring practices that began in 1999 "could be problematic." Id. The district court also cited a different successor lawsuit in support of its decision to decline to modify the consent decree. The Decision On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order denying the plaintiffs' motion to show cause and dissolving the consent decree. In support of its holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that laches barred the plaintiffs' motion, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the plaintiffs' fifteen-year delay in bringing their motion to show cause was not excusable and unduly prejudiced the City's ability to defend itself. Id. at 11. The Eleventh Circuit instructed that to assert a successful defense of laches, a defendant must show a delay in asserting a right or claim, that the delay was not excusable, and that there was undue prejudice to the party against whom the claim is asserted. Id. The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the plaintiffs' inexcusable delay unduly prejudiced the City's ability to defend itself, because unclear memories and incomplete documents made it impossible to determine whether the City was, in fact, in contempt when it ended compliance in 1992. The Court opined that due to "undeniable ambiguities in the record, the district court was well within its discretion in holding that the City was unduly prejudiced by the delay because the passage of time has made it impossible to make the required findings to determine whether or not the City was in contempt of the decree." Id. at 15. The Court rejected the plaintiffs argument that the City was at fault for failing to maintain records that would show that the terms of the decree had been met, noting that plaintiffs produced no evidence that the City destroyed the records in bad faith, and that "[u]ltimately, the fact that records were lost or destroyed in the interim fifteen years is more a product of the plaintiffs' delay than of the City's malfeasance." Id. at 17. Finally, the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court's dissolving of the consent decree (as opposed to leaving the decree in place or modifying the decree) was not an abuse of discretion. The Court found that "the district court correctly reasoned that the consent decree as written could not be reinstated, because, as the Supreme Court has explained, '[a] consent decree must of course be modified if, as it later turns out, one or more of the obligations placed upon the parties has become impermissible under federal law.'" Id. at 20 (quoting Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 388 (1992)). Finally, the Court found that it was in the public's interest to allow a currently pending lawsuit regarding the same issue to address the situation. Id. Accordingly, because the plaintiffs' fifteen-year delay prejudiced the City's ability to defend itself and because a new lawsuit had taken up the cause of fighting racial discrimination in the City's firefighting department, the Eleventh Circuit held that neither the district court's application of laches nor its dissolution of the 1982 consent decree was an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's dissolution of the consent decree. Implication For Employers Employers should not view this ruling as a license to abandon their obligations under a consent decree that resolves a workplace class action. Rather, this ruling serves as a wake-up call to plaintiffs who obtain consent decrees against employers for discriminatory practices, and thereafter sleep on the rights they expended resources to obtain. Should an employer choose to abandon its duties under a consent decree, and the plaintiffs thereafter fail to address this abandonment for an extended period of time, employers can use this ruling to argue how such inactivity by the allegedly aggrieved plaintiffs nullifies the employer's obligation to abide by the dated consent decree. JERSEY SHORE: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Race-Based Harassment ---------------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA SCOTT, RENEE PRINCE and LINDA RICE, the Plaintiffs, v. JERSEY SHORE UNIVERSITY MEDICA CENTER FOUNDATION, INC., MERIDIAN HEALTH SYSTEM ASSISTANCE CORPORATION and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants, Case No. L3224-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., Sep. 2, 2016), seeks to recover compensatory damages, including for emotional distress and personal hardship, punitive damages, interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, equitable back pay, equitable front pay, equitable instatement or promotion, and any other relief the Court deems equitable and just resulting from Defendants' violations of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination's (LAD) prohibition against race-based harassment. Specifically, starting as early as 2012, the Assistant Nurse Manager, Kim Aufiero, who is white, began making racially discriminatory comments toward and about non-white employees, and non-white individuals who visited the medical center. Furthermore, Lori Messer, a Nurse Educator, and Colleen Berner, who were also white, made racially discriminatory comments about non-white employees and individuals who used the medical center's services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mount Laurel, NJ 08054 Telephone: (856) 727 9700 JOHN PAUL MITCHELL: Gerard Seeks Review of C.D. Cal. Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Claire Gerard, Frances Handcock, Melody Northrop, Berenisa Cortes Palominos and Dylan Thomas filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Claire Gerard, et al. v. John Paul Mitchell Systems, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-04999-DSF-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Defendant John Paul Mitchell Systems removed the class action lawsuit titled Gerard, et al. v. John Paul Mitchell Systems, et al., Case No. BC543275, from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The Case seeks unpaid wages and interest thereon for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay for all hours worked at least at minimum wage and failure to pay overtime premium wages for overtime hours worked, among other allegations. The Plaintiffs brought claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The appellate case is captioned as Claire Gerard, et al. v. John Paul Mitchell Systems, et al., Case No. 16-56281, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by October 6, 2016; -- Transcript is due on January 4, 2017; -- Opening brief of Appellants Claire Gerard, Frances Handcock, Melody Northrop, Berenisa Cortes Palominos and Dylan Thomas is due on February 13, 2017; -- Answering brief of Appellees Winn Claybaugh, John Paul DeJoria, Does, D'Ann Evans, John Paul Mitchell Systems, Paul Mantea, P.M. Advanced Education Inc., P2W Learning Systems LLC, PMCA Bakersfield LLC, PMHBW LLC, PMV Las Vegas LLC, Paul Mitchell Advanced Education LLC, Paul Mitchell The School, Ann Marie Safadi and Von Curtis, Inc., is due on March 15, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Plaintiffs-Appellants CLAIRE GERARD, MELODY NORTHROP, BERENISA CORTES PALOMINOS, DYLAN THOMAS and FRANCES HANDCOCK are represented by: Lee R. Feldman, Esq. Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Esq. Alicia Olivares, Esq. FELDMAN BROWNE OLIVARES, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 12400 Wilshire Boulvard, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-8500 E-mail: lee@leefeldmanlaw.com leonard@leefeldmanlaw.com alicia@leefeldmanlaw.com - and - Leon Greenberg, Esq. Dana Sniegocki, Esq. 2965 S. Jones Boulevard, E-4 Las Vegas, NV 89146 Telephone: (702) 383-6085 Facsimile: (702) 385-1827 E-mail: leongreenberg@overtimelaw.com dana@overtimelaw.com - and - David A. Lowe, Esq. Chaya M. Mandelbaum, Esq. RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF& LOWE, LLP 351 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 434-9800 Facsimile: (415) 434-0513 E-mail: dal@rezlaw.com cmm@rezlaw.com - and - Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz, Esq. BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW 1330 Broadway Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 444-9300 Facsimile: (510) 444-9301 E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com Defendants-Appellees JOHN PAUL MITCHELL SYSTEMS, a California Corporation; PAUL MITCHELL THE SCHOOL, a business entity of unknown form; VON CURTIS, INC., a Utah corporation; P.M. ADVANCED EDUCATION INC.; PAUL MITCHELL ADVANCED EDUCATION LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PMV LAS VEGAS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PMCA BAKERSFIELD LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; PMHBW LLC, a Delaware limited liability; D'ANN EVANS; ANN MARIE SAFADI; WINN CLAYBAUGH; and JOHN PAUL DEJORIA, doing business as Paul Mitchell The School, are represented by: Courtney L. Baird, Esq. Julie A. Vogelzang, Esq. Bryce A. Young, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 750 B Street San Diego, CA 92101-4681 Telephone: (619) 744-2200 Facsimile: (619) 923-3115 E-mail: CLBaird@duanemorris.com jvogelzang@duanemorris.com byoung@duanemorris.com Defendant-Appellee PAUL MANTEA is represented by: Courtney L. Baird, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 750 B Street San Diego, CA 92101-4681 Telephone: (619) 744-2200 Facsimile: (619) 923-3115 E-mail: CLBaird@duanemorris.com - and - Gina Haggerty Lindell, Esq. Susanna Ryan Matingou, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 101 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 696-6700 Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 E-mail: glindell@gordonrees.com smatingou@gordonrees.com Defendant-Appellee P2W LEARNING SYSTEMS LLC is represented by: Gina Haggerty Lindell, Esq. Susanna Ryan Matingou, Esq. GORDON & REES LLP 101 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 696-6700 Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 E-mail: glindell@gordonrees.com smatingou@gordonrees.com - and - Julie A. Vogelzang, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 750 B Street San Diego, CA 92101-4681 Telephone: (619) 744-2200 Facsimile: (619) 923-3115 E-mail: jvogelzang@duanemorris.com JOHNSTON & ARENTZ: Faces Class Action Over Robocalls ---------------------------------------------------- Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that the blessing and curse of automated dialing is that robocallers operate without human assistance. That's great if the goal of the call is, say, to tell parents of schoolkids about a snow day. But a new class action in federal court in Ft. Worth, Texas, suggests that robocalls just might not be the best way to drum up clients in mass tort litigation. The lead plaintiff in the class action, a Texan named John "Scotty" MacLean, alleges that he received a phone call on July 16 from a number identified as belonging to the "IVC Claims Center." When Mr. MacLean answered the call, according to the complaint, an automated voice advised him to push a particular button if he or anyone he knew had been harmed by an IVC filter. (IVC stands for inferior vena cava; IVC filters are tiny cone-shaped medical devices intended to prevent blood clots from reaching a patient's heart or lungs.) Scotty MacLean, as you shall see, had a particular interest in personal injuries caused by IVC filters. He pushed the designated button and was connected to a live representative. Mr. MacLean asked some questions and was eventually informed that if he wanted to file a lawsuit, his claim would be handled by Christopher Johnston of the Johnston Law Group. According to his complaint, Mr. MacLean told the live rep that he wanted to talk to his wife before moving forward. He requested a callback number, and was given an 800 number for the Arentz Law Group, a law firm that specializes in generating personal injury cases through advertising. Unfortunately for the Johnston and Arentz firms, Scotty MacLean just happens to be one of the plaintiffs' lawyers on the steering committee in multidistrict litigation against Cook Medical, one of the makers of IVC filters. (Lead plaintiffs' counsel in the case are Ben Martin, David Matthews and Matthew Heaviside.) Mr. MacLean was none too pleased about what he considered to be improper solicitation in a high-profile case he is helping to direct. And as a Texas resident, he had a powerful way to express his displeasure: State laws entitle the recipients of improper solicitations to file a lawsuit -- otherwise known as barratry -- to $10,000 for every violation. So Mr. MacLean filed a class action on behalf of all Texans who received robocalls from the marketers working on behalf of Johnston and Arentz. "The marketing cost associated with 'mass tort' litigation is significant but most attorneys and firms abide by the rules and laws established by the courts, their bar associations and state statutes regarding barratry," his complaint said. "Sadly, there are attorneys and law firms that ignore ethical rules and barratry laws and use any means necessary in the mad dash to grab as many clients as they can. These firms blatantly and with complete disregard for the law (and at any cost) unethically and illegally solicit clients." Mass torts case generation has increasingly become the province of professional marketers who use tactics developed outside of the litigation arena. Occasionally that leads to incidents that are, at best, embarrassing for the marketers, such as when the wife of a defense lawyer for Johnson & Johnson received an unsolicited phone call asking if she had been implanted with pelvic mesh and wanted to file a suit. Johnson & Johnson cited that call and other solicitations in a 2015 motion for discovery on the origin of cases in the sprawling transvaginal mesh litigation; the company subsequently withdrew the motion when leading plaintiffs' lawyers in the case pointed out that they had previously cited their own concerns about improper solicitation to the West Virginia federal judge overseeing the multidistrict mesh litigation. KAPRAUN P.C.: "Wilburn" Suit Seeks Certification of Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned LOLITA A. WILBURN, D.C., P.C. d/b/a BACK TO HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC MEDICAL CENTER, an Illinois Professional Corporation, and RUSSELL HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER, S.C., individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly- situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. KAPRAUN, P.C. and DR. MICHAEL KAPRAUN, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08816 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify this class: "all persons successfully sent one or more facsimiles on March 2 or 3, 2006 or September 23, 2006 advertising "The World's Most Powerful Anti-Aging Supplement" Eniva Vibe and listing a phone number of 612-382-1628 or 612-605-4477." The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint themselves as the class representatives, and appoint Plaintiffs' attorneys as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EuRFbrQ2 The Plaintiffs are represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. James M. Smith, Esq. Kimberly M. Watt, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658 5500 - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 KIA MOTORS: Faces "Leong" Suit in Eastern District of New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Kia Motors America, Inc. The case is styled Sean Leong, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kia Motors America, Inc., and Kia Motors Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-04953-JFB-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 6, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Joseph F. Bianco. Kia Motors markets and distributes vehicles. It offers mid-size and luxury sedans, crossovers and minivans, and compact vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 32 East 57 Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 421 6492 Facsimile: (212) 421 6553 E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Faces "Ramos" Suit in District of Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Kohl's Department Stores Incorporated. The case is entitled Jennifer Ramos, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kohl's Department Stores Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv- 02965-DLR (D. Ariz., Sep. 2, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Douglas L. Rayes. Kohl's operates department stores in the United States. The company offers apparel, footwear, accessories, and home products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L Greenwald, Esq. Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC 5550 des Rd., Ste. 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826 5477 Facsimile: (561) 961 5684 E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com KWICK RENTALS: Class Cert. in "Blankenship" Suit Partly Granted --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DYLAN BLANKENSHIP, MARCO GONZALEZ, and ARMANDO VEGA, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. KWICK RENTALS, LLC and K&L RENTALS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-01057-D (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Timothy DeGiusti granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of: "all current and former employees of K&L Rentals, LLC and Kwick Rentals, LLC, employed during the past three (3) years who received a salary or a salary plus mileage and/or a per diem, and who were employed as "Field Hands" (collectively, "Putative Class Members." The Plaintiffs shall submit for the Court's approval within 21 days from the date of the order, a jointly proposed order granting conditional class certification and approving a notice and opt-in consent forms. If an agreement cannot be reached, Plaintiffs shall file a motion by that same date seeking approval of their proposed forms and informing the Court of the nature of the parties' disagreement. If a motion is filed, Defendants shall respond within 14 days thereafter. The Plaintiffs brought suit against their former employers to recover unpaid overtime wages allegedly due under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=olg7mXPc LA ENTERTAINMENT: Florida Court Certifies FLSA Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, Esq. -- Stephanie.Adler- Paindiris@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis PC, in an article for Lexology, reports that in a case for overtime compensation, the Middle District of Florida (Fort Myers Division) held that plaintiffs' claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 were "mutually exclusive and irreconcilable." Tamera Goers, et. al. v. L.A. Entertainment Group and Amer Salameh, No. 15-cv-412-FtM-99CM (Aug. 25, 2016). Contending they were due overtime pay, adult entertainers sought certification of their FLSA claims as a collective action and certification of their state claims under the Florida Minimum Wage Act as a class action under Rule 23. Rule 23 exists to determine the propriety of bringing a matter as a class action and requires such an action to be superior to other methods of adjudication. By way of background, courts across the nation are split on whether a representative plaintiff can bring a Rule 23 class action concurrently with a collective action under the FLSA. The circuits that have permitted the claims to proceed together have found that the underlying factual bases for the claims are identical and thus it would be neither convenient nor economical to relitigate the state law claims in state court. The Middle District of Florida even recognized that some district courts within the Eleventh Circuit adopt this philosophy. The plaintiffs in this case relied on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S. Ct. 1036 (2016), which addressed a dual certified class from an Iowa District Court dealing with an Iowa wage payment statute along with the FLSA. The Middle District of Florida, however, interpreted the Supreme Court decision as limiting its ruling so as to not rule on the propriety of a Rule 23 class proceeding simultaneously with a FLSA collective action when it stated: The parties do not dispute that the standard for certifying a collective action under the FLSA is no more stringent than the standard for certifying a class under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This opinion assumes, without deciding, that this is correct. For purposes of this case then, if certification of respondents' class action under the Federal Rules was proper, certification of the collective action was proper as well. The Middle District dismissed this as mere dicta by the Supreme Court. Instead, the Middle District ruled that until the Eleventh Circuit holds otherwise, it would not permit class certification of a Rule 23 class action based on state wage statutes as well as a collective action based on overlapping FLSA claims, because the two were "mutually exclusive and irreconcilable" and would create confusion. The future of dual filed class and collective actions is uncertain. Nevertheless, it appears that circuits around the country will start pushing the Supreme Court to review a decision on this issue and resolve the split among the circuits. LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT: Appeals From Ruling in "Issa" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Lancaster School District in District filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Khadidja Issa, et al. v. Lancaster School District, Case No. 5-16-cv-03881, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Khadidja Issa, Q.M.H., a minor, individually by and through his parent Faisa Ahmed Abdalla, Alembe Dunia, V.N.L. a minor individually by and through her parent, Mar Ki, Sui Hnem Sung and all others similarly situated, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated sued the Defendant over alleged discrimination and violation of civil rights. The School District of Lancaster allegedly refused to enroll older immigrant students with limited English proficiency rather than allowing them to attend the district's regular high school. The Plaintiffs include six refugees aged 17-21 from Somalia, Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo and Burma. The appellate case is captioned as Khadidja Issa, et al. v. Lancaster School District, Case No. 16-3528, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Plaintiffs-Appellees KHADIDJA ISSA; Q. M. H, A MINOR, INDIVIDUALLY BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT, FAISA AHMED ABDALLA; ALEMBE DUNIA; ANYEMU DUNIA; V. N. L.; and SUI HNEM SUNG, AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, are represented by: Hedya Aryani, Esq. Eric J. Rothschild, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 18th & Arch Streets 3000 Two Logan Square Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 981-4011 Facsimile: (215) 981-4750 E-mail: aryanih@pepperlaw.com rothsche@pepperlaw.com - and - Kathleen A. Mullen, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 100 Market Street, Suite 200 P.O. Box 1181 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Telephone: (717) 255-1162 E-mail: mullenk@pepperlaw.com - and - Seth Kreimer, Esq. UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (215) 898-7447 Facsimile: (215) 573-2025 E-mail: skreimer@law.upenn.edu - and - Maura I. McInerney, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 30 South 17th Street United Plaza Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 979-1188 E-mail: mmcinerney@elc-pa.org - and - Kristina Moon, Esq. EDUCATION LAW CENTER 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-6970 E-mail: kmoon@elc-pa.org - and - Molly M. Tack-Hooper, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA P.O. Box 60173 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1513 E-mail: mtack-hooper@aclupa.org - and - Witold J. Walczak, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 313 Atwood Street Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Telephone: (412) 681-7864 E-mail: vwalczak@aclupa.org Defendant-Appellant LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT is represented by: Sharon M. O'Donnell, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Telephone: (717) 651-3503 Facsimile: (717) 651-3707 E-mail: smodonnell@mdwcg.com LEBO AUTOMOTIVE: Calif. Supreme Court Affirms Sandquist Decision ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey S. Ranen, Esq. -- Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com -- and Catherine Blumenfield, Esq. -- Catherine.Blumenfeld@lewisbrisbois.com -- of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that companies and other business entities often use arbitration agreements to protect themselves from class action liability. While these agreements may contain explicit class action waivers that state the parties agree not to pursue class claims in arbitration, an arbitration agreement may also contain an implicit or "silent" class action waiver. When presented with an agreement that contains such a provision, case law supports granting a motion to compel individual arbitration and dismissal of the class claims. See Kinecta Alternative Fin. Solutions, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 205 Cal.App.4th 506, 517 (2012) (dismissing class action allegations from complaint in light of bilateral arbitration agreement, which identified only two parties to the agreement and referred specifically to those parties). However, an additional wrinkle to this analysis is the question of whether the court or the arbitrator decides whether the matter is subject to class arbitration when an arbitration agreement does not contain an express waiver of class claims. Prior case law has fluctuated on this issue. In Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 65 (Sandquist I), the Court of Appeal held that whether the parties to an arbitration agreed to class arbitration is a question for the arbitrator, not the trial court. The court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's plurality opinion in Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle (2003) 539 U.S. 444, and reasoned that whether parties could pursue class claims in arbitration was a controversy arising from or relating to the subject arbitration agreement, which is within the arbitrator's purview to decide. On November 10, 2014, the California Supreme Court granted the petition for review filed in Sandquist I, which meant that the Court of Appeal's decision was de-published and no longer citable. This left a contrasting Court of Appeal decision as the sole citable authority on this issue. In Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 678, the Court of Appeal reasoned that the determination of which forum decides if class arbitration may be had when the subject agreement does not contain an express waiver of class claims is a gateway question for a court to decide. The court further explained that if this issue was left for an arbitrator to decide, unwilling parties might too often be forced to arbitrate a matter they had not agreed to arbitrate. However, on July 28, 2016, in a 4-3 decision the California Supreme Court affirmed the Sandquist I Court of Appeal's decision and held that, in this particular instance whether class-wide arbitration is permitted was a question for the arbitrator. Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc., et al. (July 28, 2016) No. S220812, 2016 Cal. LEXIS 6246, at *1. The California Supreme Court's Decision The Court began its analysis by assessing the terms of the arbitration agreements at issue, which the Court reasoned indicated that the parties intended for an arbitrator to decide the class arbitration issue because: -- The agreement to submit any claim, dispute, or controversy to an arbitrator suggested a choice to have an arbitrator decide the class arbitration issue; -- The potential class arbitration involved claims that were specifically included in the definition of arbitrable disputes; and -- Other types of disputes were specifically excluded from the arbitration agreement. The Court then cited two state-law rules of contractual interpretation that further suggested that the arbitrator should decide class-wide arbitrability: (1) any ambiguities in the arbitration agreements should be construed against the drafter; and (2) uncertainties regarding the allocation of a matter to arbitration or the court, should be resolved in favor of arbitration. Once it determined that the arbitration agreements, interpreted under state law, designated the class-arbitration question to an arbitrator, the Court considered whether the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") altered the conclusion state law would otherwise reach here. The Court reasoned that the FAA supported a presumption that the arbitrator has the power to decide procedural questions arising from the dispute. The Court determined that the question at issue is one such procedural matter to be decided by the arbitrator after resolution of the much narrower gateway question of arbitrability, which is reserved for the court. Consequently, although the Court determined that there was no universally applicable rule of who should decide the issue of whether or not class arbitration is available, the Court's rationale for its decision makes it difficult to imagine a scenario where a court would be given the authority to decide this issue absent express contractual language. This presents a significant risk to employer-defendants, as there is a strong chance that, if a defendant successfully compels a class action matter to arbitration, it will proceed therein on a class-wide basis rather than an individual basis. First, there are fewer checks and balances on arbitrators, which mean that an arbitrator's decision regarding individual versus class-wide arbitration may not be entirely consistent with the law on silent class action waivers, and the defendant likely would not be able to appeal that decision until after the conclusion of a class-wide arbitration. Second, judicial review of arbitration awards are extremely limited. The California Arbitration Act ("CAA") provides only limited grounds for judicial review of an arbitration award, such as fraud, corruption, misconduct, or that the award exceeded the arbitrators' powers. Cal. Civ. Proc. Sec. 1286.2. Third, class-wide arbitration does not include the same procedural protections afforded to defendants in class action litigation. Next Steps Employers should review and consider revising their arbitration agreements to specify that the court decides whether class arbitration is permissible, particularly if they do not include an express class action waiver. LEE N' EDDIES: Urban Elevator Seeks Certification of Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned URBAN ELEVATOR SERVICE, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. LEE N' EDDIES LLC, JOHN KENNEY, and JOHN DOES 1-12, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-07788 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for entry of an order certifying the following class: "all persons who were sent one or more telephone facsimile messages on or after four years prior to the filing of the action, that advertised the commercial availability of property, goods, or services offered by "Lee n' Eddies", that did not contain an opt-out notice that complied with federal law." Lee N Eddies provides catering services. The Company offers breakfast, church, corporate, holiday, bbq, lunch, school, wedding, and special events catering services. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kCaK3Y60 The Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Smith, Esq. Christopher P.T. Tourek, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658 5500 LEROY D. BACA: Amador et al. Seek Certification of Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled MARY AMADOR et al., individually and as class representatives, the Plaintiffs, v. SHERIFF LEROY D. BACA, Individually and in his official capacity, et al, the Defendants, Case No. 2:10-cv-01649-SVW-JEM (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a class and subclasses. The class is defined as: "Female LASD inmates, who, upon their admission or return to CRDF, were visual body cavity searched in groups, and without individual privacy, between March 2008 and January 1, 2015." The subclasses are defined as: Subclass No. 1 (Bus Bay, 3/5/08 - 1/31/14) "Female LASD inmates who, upon their admission or return to CRDF, were visual body cavity searched in groups in Bus Bay 3, without individual privacy in the search conditions that existed commonly between March 2008 and January 1, 2014." Weather Subclass No. 1: "Members of Subclass No. 1 searched in temperatures below 77 degrees Celsius, or such other temperature as is determined to be unreasonably cold, or in precipitation." Subclass No. 2 (Bus Bay, 3/5/08 - 3/31/13) "Female LASD inmates who, upon their admission or return to CRDF, were visual body cavity searched in groups in Bus Bay 3, without individual privacy in the search conditions that existed commonly between March 2008 and March 31, 2013." Weather Subclass No. 2: No. Members of Subclass No. 2 searched in temperatures below 77 degrees Celsius, or such other temperature as is determined to be unreasonably cold, or in precipitation." Subclass No. 3 (Bus Bay, 3/5/08 - 6/30/11) "Female LASD inmates who, upon their admission or return to CRDF, were visual body cavity searched in groups in Bus Bay 3, without individual privacy in the search conditions that existed commonly between March 2008 and June 30, 2011. Weather Subclass No. 3 "Members of Subclass No. 3 searched in temperatures below 77 degrees Celsius, or such other temperature as is determined to be unreasonably cold, or in precipitation." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KLVvi6zS The Plaintiff is represented by: Barrett S. Litt, Esq. Lindsay Battles, Esq. E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP 234 COLORADO BOULEVARD, SUITE 230 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 844 7660 Facsimile: (626) 844 7670 - and - Donald W. Cook, Esq. 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 252-9444 Facsimile: (213) 252-0091 E-mail: manncook@earthlink.net - and - Cynthia Anderson-Barker, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON - BARKER 3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2910 Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: (213) 252 9444 Facsimile: (213) 252 0091 E-mail: cablaw@hotmail.com LINCOLN PARK CITY, MI: "Coulter" Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Charles N. Kaminski, Lincoln Park Police And Fire Retirees Association, Inc., Michael J. Moulios, Lincoln Park Municipal Employees Retirees Association, Inc., the Plaintiffs, v. Brad L. Coulter, R. Kevin Clinton, Nick A. Khouri, Thomas E. Karnes, Mark Kandes, Frank Vaslo, Lisa Griggs, Elliot Zelenak, Mario Desanto, Christopher Dardzinski, The City Of Lincoln Park, Michigan, Joint And Several, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-12810-GAD-RSW (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to: 1. certify a class of members and dependents of the Lincoln Park Police and Fire Retirees Association, and the Lincoln Park Municipal Employees-Retirees Association; 2. declare lead Plaintiffs Charles N. Kaminski [Police-Fire retirees], and Michael J. Moulios [retired Municipal Employees] as representatives of their respective subclasses; 3. appoint attorney Mark A. Porter as lead class counsel, with attorney Jamil Akhtar as co-counsel; and 4. take other actions at law, equity, and by Court Rule as the Court deems appropriate. According to the complaint, the relief sought by retirees is the reinstatement of health insurance. Although the current and individual, out-of-pocket expenses are severe to each retiree -- the remedy is for the Defendants to simply return to an insurance carrier-based coverage through either group policies or third party administration. The payments for that insurance are to an outside entity, restoring the retirees as third party beneficiaries to the insurance coverage. The remedy is simple and straightforward -- and far superior to individual claims from well over 200 retirees, plus spouses and dependents. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=C5LLMPdD The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark A. Porter, Esq. MARK A. PORTER & ASSOCIATES PLLC 551 East 11-Mile Road, Suite 3-D P. O. Box 71527 Madison Heights, Michigan Telephone: (248) 071 0527 Facsimile: (248) 547-1911 E-mail: mporter@map-law.com - and - Jamil Akhtar, Esq. JAMIL AKHTAR P.C. 7577 US Highway 12 - Suite B Onsted, MI 49265-9834 Telephone: (517) 467 7373 Facsimile: (517) 858 0190 E-mail: jimakhtar@att.net Attorneys for Defendants Brad Coulter Thomas Murphy, Elliott Zelenak, Mario DeSanto, Christopher Dardzinski Lisa Griggs and City of Lincoln Park: John C. Clark, Esq. John T. Mihelick, Esq. Stephen J. Hitchcock, Esq. GIAMARCO MULLINS & HORTON P.C. 101 West Big Beaver Road - Floor 10 Troy, MI 48084-5253 Telephone: (248) 457 7023 Facsimile: (248) 404 6323 E-mail: jclark@gmhlaw.com tmihelick@gmhlaw.com sjh@gmhlaw.com Attorneys for Defendants Frank Vaslo and Mark Kandes: Thomas J McGraw, Esq. Stacy J. Belisle, Esq. MCGRAW MORRIS P.C. 2075 West Big Beaver Road, Suite 750 Troy, Michigan 48084-3433 Telephone: (248) 502 4000 Facsimile: (248) 502 4001 E-mail: tmcgraw@mcgrawmorris.com sbelisle@mcgrawmorris.com Attorneys for Defendants Nick A. Khouri and R. Kevin Clinton: Erik A. Graney, Esq. Michael F. Murphy, Esq. MICHIGAN DEPT. OF ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OPERATIONS DIVISION P. O. Box 30754 Lansing, Michigan 48933-1067 Telephone: (517) 373 1162 Facsimile: (517) 373 2060 E-mail: Graneye@michigan.gov Murphym2@michigan.gov LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Class Cert. in "Roy" Suit Partly Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled DUNCAN ROY ET AL. V. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL. GERARDO GONZALEZ, the Plaintiff v. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ET AL., the Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-09012-BRO-FFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Specifically, the Court certifies these Roy Plaintiffs' classes: (1) false imprisonment equitable relief class; (2) gerstein equitable relief class; (3) false imprisonment damages class (and the included state law subclass); (4) post-48 hour Gerstein subclass (and the included state law subclass); (5) investigative detainer class (and the included state law subclass); (6) no-bail notation class (and the included state law subclass); and, (7) no-money bail subclass (and the included state law subclass). The Court certifies these Gonzalez Plaintiffs' proposed classes: (1) judicial determination class (limited to those who were detained for more than forty-eight hours without receiving a judicial determination of probable cause); (2) probable cause subclass; and (3) statutory subclass. The Court declines to certify the proposed Gerstein class. There were two Motions in this case: one arises from Duncan Roy et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al., No. 12-cv-09012-BRO-FFM, while the other arises from the related action Gonzalez v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement et al., No. 13-cv-04416-BRO-FFM. On July 28, 2015, the two cases were consolidated. The Plaintiffs are a group of individuals who were or are currently in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and who were denied either bail or release from custody on the basis of an immigration hold. Plaintiffs challenge the legality of the LASD's practice of detaining individuals solely on the basis of immigration holds placed by ICE. The named Plaintiffs in the Roy action are Duncan Roy, Alain Martinez-Perez, Annika Alliksoo, and Clemente De La Cerda. The named Plaintiffs in the Gonzalez action are Geraldo Gonzalez and Simon Chinivizyan. Defendants in the Roy action are the County of Los Angeles and Leroy Baca, the Sheriff of Los Angeles County. Defendants in the Gonzalez action are Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Thomas Winkowski, Acting Director of ICE, David Marin, Acting Field Office Director for the Los Angeles District of ICE, and David Palmatier, the Unit Chief for the Law Enforcement Service Center of ICE. The Roy Defendants argued that the Roy Plaintiffs "have not articulated how this case can manageably be litigated while preserving County Defendants' due process and fair trial rights." According to the Roy Defendants, the only way in which the Roy Plaintiffs will be able to proceed is to put on evidence from a certain number of inmates to allow the jury to extrapolate liability to the rest of the class. The Court is not persuaded by the Roy Defendants' argument. The Court agrees with the Gonzalez Plaintiffs that their claims are suitable to be decided on a class-wide basis as the policies challenged equally affected all members of the class. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cTKiBQk1 LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Myers" Suit in C.D. of California ------------------------------------------------------------ A lawsuit has been filed against Lumber Liquidators Inc. The case is titled Allen Myers, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06698- PSG-AJW (C.D. Cal., Sep. 6, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez. Lumber Liquidators is specialty retailer of hardwood flooring including shop laminate flooring, handscraped and engineered hardwood. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark J. Uyeno, Esq. Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq. ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851 3850 Facsimile: (818) 851 3851 E-mail: muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474 9111 Facsimile: (310) 474 8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com MANHERTZ BAIL: "Yearby" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------- Shatisha Yearby, and other similarly situated individuals v. Manhertz Bail Bonds Inc., a Florida profit corporation, Oniel E. Manhertz, and Carrie E. Manhertz, Case No. 16-019513 CA 01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-23820-JAL to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Joan A. Lenard. Manhertz Bail is doing business in bail bonding services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Gary Andrew Costales, Esq. GARY A. COSTALES 1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1230 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375 9510 Facsimile: (305) 375 9511 E-mail: costalesgary@hotmail.com MASTERCARD: Hearing in U.K. Class Action Scheduled This Year ------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Johnson, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.K.'s largest ever damages claim was filed on Sept. 8 in the first step of a landmark class action. The 14 billion pound ($18.6 billion) claim was brought against MasterCard on behalf of 46 million British debit and credit card holders over the company's charging of illegal payment fees. It is the first major U.S.-style class action in the English courts following the U.K.'s introduction of new legislation allowing "opt out" collective damages claims last year. It's a fascinating case. MasterCard, which has hired magic circle firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, has over the past decade been embroiled in a series of legal battles over the level of so-called "interchange" fees it charged businesses on transactions between 1992 and 2007, which were found by European authorities to be unlawfully high. The plaintiffs, represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, argue that part of the cost of these fees were passed on to consumers in the form of increased prices for goods and services. Because MasterCard's interchange fees have already been found to be illegal -- the company's long-running challenge to the European Commission's decision was finally put to bed by the Europe's highest court in 2014 -- Quinn Emanuel only need to prove that consumers suffered damages as a result. This is where it gets really interesting. Earlier this summer, U.K. retailer J Sainsbury successfully sued MasterCard over its interchange fees and was awarded 68.5 million pounds ($91 million) in damages. MasterCard said in a statement that while it "disappointed to see liability as part of the finding," it noted that "the court concluded that Sainsbury's did not pass through interchange costs to consumers in the form of higher prices." That finding appears prejudicial to the consumer claim. It is therefore perhaps unsurprising that Sainsbury's appears to have chosen not to appeal the Sainsbury's decision, despite it facing more than 1.2 billion pounds ($1.6 billion) of similar claims from other retailers, which it will surely now have to settle. But Quinn Emmanuel's U.K. head of EU and competition litigation Boris Bronfentrinker, who is handling the dispute for the firm, says that MasterCard itself argued during the Sainsbury's case that interchange costs were passed on to consumers. "The consumer claim is completely consistent with what MasterCard has been saying about who paid those unlawful fees," he says. "It is not clear how MasterCard can now turn around and argue the opposite to prevent our case from succeeding." The new action also has a much broader claim period -- the Sainsbury's claim looked at fees charged between 2006 and 2015, whereas the consumer claim goes back to 1992 -- and with the Sainsbury's findings a first instance decision, the consumer claim tribunal can come to its own conclusion anyway. Quinn Emmanuel will get paid either way. The suit is backed by up to 40 million pounds ($53 million) in financing from Chicago-based commercial litigation funder Gerchen Keller Capital -- its largest ever investment in non-U.S. litigation. (It isn't the first time Quinn Emanuel has essentially had its hourly fees underwritten by third-party funding: Australia-listed funder IMF Bentham's European arm is covering the U.S. law firm's tab in a $44 billion German investor claim against Volkswagen AG related to "Dieselgate.") A first hearing is expected to take place later this year, with the case then heading to trial in mid-2018. Unless it is settled, of course. Going to trial when there is almost $20 billion at stake . . . There will no doubt be some sweaty palms in the MasterCard board room. MEDICAL BUSINESS: "Rhone" Suit Seeks Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DIANE RHONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MEDICAL BUSINESS BUREAU, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05215 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class: "(1) all persons in Illinois (2) from whom Defendant attempted to collect a debt (3) by placing 2 or more tradelines on a credit report provided by Experian, Equifax, or Transunion (the Credit Bureaus) (5) for a debt owed to the same medical provider (6) within 1 year of the filing of the complaint." The Plaintiff further requests that the Court order that briefing as to class certification be stayed pending discovery as to class issues. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=T9Gj2YRE The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Wood, Esq. Celetha Chatman, Esq. COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD. 73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 757 1880 Facsimile: (312) 476 1362 E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com MY-TRE GLAMMA: Certification of Class Sought in "Heuberger" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JASON HEUBERGER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HARRY L. SMITH d/b/a "MY-TRE GLAMMA MANAGEMENT," DESTINY MGT, INC., and DIAMOND PROPERTIES MGMT., INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00386-JD-JEM (N.D. Ind.), moves the Court for an order conditionally certifying Counts I and II of his complaint as a collective action. Mr. Heuberger also seeks an order authorizing notice under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Indiana's Minimum Wage Law to all current and former hourly-paid workers, who worked at the Defendants' McDonald's restaurants within the prior three years. He asks that the Court directs the Defendants to produce a computer-readable data file containing the name, last known address, social security numbers and dates of employment for each such employee and to conspicuously post notice of the Case in the break rooms of the Defendants' McDonald's restaurants. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EnmiQ1bP The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 E-mail: markp@wpattorneys.com - and - Eli Karsh, Esq. LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH 230 South Bemiston Ave., Suite 1200 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 862-3333 Facsimile: (314) 862-0605 E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com - and - Charles Hayes, Esq. SWEENEY HAYES LLC 141 E. Washington St., Suite 225 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 491-1050 Facsimile: (317) 491-1043 E-mail: charleshayes.atty@gmail.com NEW ZEALAND STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Steel Reinforcing Mesh ----------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Edmunds, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that a specialist construction litigation law firm is hoping to deliver financial compensation to the owners of recently-built buildings, with a new class action suit. Adina Thorn is inviting registrations of interest for what it expects to be a fully-funded class action on behalf of the owners of buildings that have been built in the past four years with steel reinforcing mesh that does not meet earthquake standards. The mesh is used in multi-storey buildings to make them more resilient in an earthquake. It is meant to be able to stretch by at least 10 per cent. The standard was increased from 2 per cent after the Christchurch earthquake. Lack of stretch was a reason the CTV building collapsed. Adina Thorn, principal of the firm, said the Commerce Commission investigation under way might result in fines for the companies that supplied the non-complying mesh, but would not likely deliver any financial reinstatement for the owners of affected buildings. "This is a problem because, in the advent of a natural disaster, the use of non-complying steel mesh could compromise insurance claims, pose a risk to life and cause widespread financial losses. Its existence could also affect the future and present market value of the buildings concerned." She said the issue emerged in March this year when it was revealed that hundreds of thousands of non-complying steel mesh sheets had been supplied to builders throughout New Zealand from mid-2012. The Ministry then said it was investigating companies that had supplied steel reinforcing mesh to builders and construction firms that did not meet the grade 500E requirement, which relates to the ductility or flexibility of the steel concerned. One supplier, NZX-Listed New Zealand Steel & Tube, is being investigated by the Commerce Commission for making claims that its products had been certified as complying with standard 500E by using the logo of an independent testing laboratory, which had in fact not tested or certified the product. It put supplies on hold in April. Importers Euro Corp and Brilliance Steel also failed tests. Ms. Thorn said a number of other companies might also named in the proposed class action. Four had supplies of the product put on hold earlier in the year. Ms. Thorn said the proposed class action was to be funded by funds managed by London-based Harbour Litigation Funding, the UK's largest litigation funder. Harbour is also funding the current $250 million class action against the James Hardie group of companies in respect of plaster cladding products. This action is also being led by Adina Thorn Lawyers. The existence of funding means owners of affected buildings can join the class action without incurring any out-of-pocket expenses, as Harbour will cover legal, expert, research, litigation, communication and administration costs, in return for a share of any proceeds recovered in the action. The website to register is www.steelclassaction.co.nz The class action will proceed if there is sufficient interest from owners with viable claims. Steel & Tube has been approached for comment. NORTHLAND GROUP: Class Certification Bid in "Aguirre" Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ Honorable Amy J. St. Eve entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice as premature, in the lawsuit captioned Carmen Aguirre, the Plaintiff, v. Northland Group, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05003 (N.D. Ill.), According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 13, 2016, the Defendant is on notice that the case is a putative class action. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xQwE4lbC OCWEN LOAN: "Beecroft" Suit Moved from D. Minn. to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------ Tracee A. Beecroft, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-00094, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-08677 to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. James B. Zagel. Ocwen Loan offers and services residential mortgage loans. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 729 5288 E-mail: ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com - and - Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 N. 34th St., Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Telephone: (206) 816 6603 Facsimile: (206) 319 5450 E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com - and - Mark L Heaney, Esq. HEANEY LAW FIRM, LLC 601 Carlson Parkway, Ste 1050 Minnetonka, MN 55305 Telephone: (952) 933 9655 Facsimile: (952) 487 0189 E-mail: mark@heaneylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian Melendez, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 4000 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901 Telephone: (612) 486 1589 E-mail: bmelendez@dykema.com - and - Brian Vincent Otero, Esq. HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 309 1000 E-mail: botero@hunton.com - and - Chethan G. Shetty, Esq. David F Standa, Esq. Simon A. Fleischmann, Esq. Thomas Justin Cunningham, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP 111th Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 443 1887 E-mail: cshetty@lockelord.com dstanda@lockelord.com sfleischmann@lockelord.com tcunningham@lockelord.com - and - Christina M Snow, Esq. Michael R Sauer, Esq. WILFORD, GESKE & COOK, PA 7616 Currell Boulevard, Suite 200 Woodbury, MN 55125 Telephone: (651) 209 3337 Facsimile: (651) 209 3339 E-mail: csnow@wgcmn.com msauer@wgcmn.com - and - Jared D Kemper, Esq. DYKEMA GOSSETT, PLLC 4000 Wells Fargo Center 90 South Seventh Street Mpls, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 486 1900 Facsimile: (855) 230 2516 E-mail: jkemper@dykema.com - and - Ryan Andrew Becker, Esq. Stephen Roy Blacklocks, Esq. HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 309 1000 E-mail: rbecker@hunton.com sblacklocks@hunton.com PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Action Over False Claims on Izze Sodas --------------------------------------------------------------- Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a California woman is suing PepsiCo, alleging false claims that a soda did not contain preservatives. Lisa Lindberg of Redlands, California, filed a class action lawsuit, individually and on behalf of the Proposed Rule 23 class, Aug. 19 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against PepsiCo, Inc., and Izze Beverage Co., alleging negligent misrepresentation and unfair competition. According to the complaint, Ms. Lindberg suffered financial damages from being misled into purchasing a falsely advertised product. The plaintiff alleges the defendants said Izze sodas contain no preservatives even though they contain citric acid or absorbic acid, and that the defendants falsely allege each bottle delivers two servings of fruit. Lindberg seeks a trial by jury, injunctive and equitable relief, enjoin the defendant from continuing false advertising, actual, statutory and punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement, all legal fees and interest, plus all relief the court deems just. She is represented by attorneys Michele R. Fisher -- fisher@nka.com -- Anna P. Prakash and Eleanor E. Frisch of Nichols Kaster PLLP in Minneapolis, and by Amanda M. Williams and Joseph C. Bourne -- jbourne@gustafsongluek.com -- of Gustafson Gluek PLLC, also in Minneapolis. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Case number 1:16-cv-06569-LAP PMLRA PIZZA: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Reeves" Labor Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Henry Askew and PMLRA Pizza, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Reeves v. PMLRA Pizza, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10474-WGY, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Tylor Reeves, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated sued the Defendants on January 7, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of Massachusetts, County of Middlesex. The State Case was assigned Case No. 16-0047 (Mass. Super Ct.), and sought to recover service charges, minimum wage, relief, statutory and trebling damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant Massachusetts General Laws. The State Case was subsequently removed from the State Court to the District Court. PMLRA Pizza is a Massachusetts corporation. PMLRA is a Domino's franchisee and operates one or more Domino's restaurants in Massachusetts. The appellate case is captioned as Reeves v. PMLRA Pizza, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-2126, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The Appeals Court ordered that Docketing Statement, Transcript Report/Order form, and Appearance form are due on September 16, 2016. Plaintiff-Appellee TYLOR REEVES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Brant Casavant, Esq. Stephen S. Churchill, Esq. FAIR WORK PC 192 South St., Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 231-6777 E-mail: brant@fairworklaw.com steve@fairworklaw.com Defendants-Appellants PMLRA PIZZA, INC., and HENRY ASKEW are represented by: Todd J. Bennett, Esq. Eric Raymond LeBlanc, Esq. BENNETT & BELFORT PC 24 Thorndike St., Suite 300 Cambridge, MA 02141-0000 Telephone: (617) 577-8800 E-mail: tbennett@bennettandbelfort.com eleblanc@bennettandbelfort.com PRODUCTION TESTING: "Brown" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled SHELBY BROWN, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRODUCTION TESTING SERVICES INC. and ROBERT A. HOFF, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16- cv-01152 (S.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of: "all current and former employees of Defendant Production Testing Services, Inc. and/or predecessor companies of said entity, that held positions as field operators and field supervisors who performed surface well operations, including frack flowback and exploration well testing or similar job positions that included similar job duties, from April 28, 2013, through the present." The Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint Mr. John David Hart as counsel for the proposed Class, and appoint Brown and Tommy Britt as the representatives for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ov6BxOlR The Plaintiff is represented by: John David Hart, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN DAVID HART Wells Fargo Tower 201 Main Street, Suite 1720 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 870 2102 Facsimile: (817) 332 5858 E-mail: johnhart@hartlaw.com PRODUCTION TESTING: Brown Seeks Permission to Issue Notice ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SHELBY BROWN, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRODUCTION TESTING SERVICES INC. and ROBERT A. HOFF, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16- cv-01152 (S.D. Tex.), Plaintiffs request the Court for permission to issue notice to: "all current and former employees of Defendant Production Testing Services, Inc. and/or predecessor companies of the entity, that held positions as field operators and field supervisors who performed surface well operations, including frack flowback and exploration well testing or similar job positions that included similar job duties, from April 28, 2013, through the present." The Plaintiffs ask the Court to order the Defendants to produce the information within ten days of granting the motion. The Plaintiffs propose mailing and e-mailing of the notice and request an opt-in period of 45 days. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oVUQz6OL The Plaintiff is represented by: John David Hart, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN DAVID HART Wells Fargo Tower 201 Main Street, Suite 1720 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 870 2102 Facsimile: (817) 332 5858 E-mail: johnhart@hartlaw.com PROFESSIONAL SERVICE: Hogen Seeks Certification of Three Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Elise Hogen and Todd Hogen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional Service Bureau, Inc., Mayo Clinic, and Mayo Clinic Health System-Eau Claire Clinic, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00602-slc (W.D. Wisc.), ask the Court to certify that the claims set forth in their Complaint may proceed on behalf of the proposed classes, appoint them as class representatives, appoint their lawyers as counsel for the classes, and allow them to file a memorandum in support of the Motion after discovery. The Hogens bring the Action against the Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiffs' complaint defines the classes, subject to amendment, as follows: The PSB Class consists of: (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) PSB made a non-emergency telephone call (4) using substantially the same system(s) it used to call Plaintiffs (5) within four years of the original complaint filed in this matter (6) where PSB did not have consent to place such calls. The PSB Revocation Sub-Class consists of: (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) PSB made a non-emergency telephone call (4) using substantially the same system(s) it used to call Plaintiffs (5) within four years of the original complaint filed in this matter and (6) where the called person had revoked consent to receive such calls. The PSB Mayo Class consists of: (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) PSB made a non-emergency telephone call (4) using substantially the same system(s) it used to call Plaintiffs (5) within four years of the original complaint filed in this matter about a Mayo-related debt (6) where PSB did not have consent to place such calls. The PSB Mayo Revocation Sub-Class consists of: (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) PSB made a non-emergency telephone call (4) using substantially the same system(s) it used to call Plaintiffs (5) within four years of the original complaint filed in this matter about a Mayo-related debt and (6) where the called person had revoked consent to receive such calls. The Mayo Class consists of: (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) Mayo made a non-emergency telephone call (4) using substantially the same system(s) it used to call Plaintiffs (5) within four years of the original complaint filed in this matter and (6) where Mayo did not have consent to place such calls. The Mayo Revocation Sub-Class consists of: (1) All persons in the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) Mayo made a non-emergency telephone call (4) using substantially the same system(s) it used to call Plaintiffs (5) within four years of the original complaint filed in this matter and (6) where the called person had revoked consent to receive such calls. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zpKMBFYf The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew C. Lein, Esq. LEIN LAW OFFICES 15692 Highway 63 North P.O. Box 761 Hayward, WI 54843 Telephone: (715) 634-4273 E-mail: mlein@leinlawoffices.com - and - Keith J. Keogh, Esq. Michael Hilicki, Esq. KEOGH LAW, LTD. 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3390 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 726-1092 Facsimile: (312) 726-1093 E-mail: Keith@KeoghLaw.com MHilicki@KeoghLaw.com QUEEN STUCCO: Hopson Seeks to Certify Class of Hourly Employees --------------------------------------------------------------- Shane Hopson moves the Court for an order conditionally certifying the lawsuit captioned Shane Hopson, et al., for himself and others similarly situated v. Queen Stucco, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16- cv-00782-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio), as a class action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Hopson also seeks authority to implement a procedure whereby Court-approved notice of his FLSA claims is sent to: All current and former hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendants QSI and Queen who during the previous three (3) years worked over 40 hours in any workweek but were not properly paid time and a half for the hours they worked over 40. The Plaintiff further asks the Court to require the Defendants to, within 14 days of the Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs, who worked for the Defendants at any time from approximately August 11, 2013, through the present. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M8kPAYMN The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Peter A. Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC PO Box 215 Amlin, OH 43002 Telephone: (614) 787-4878 Facsimile: (614) 923-7369 E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com RIVER ROCKS: Class Certification Bid in "Payne" Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned BRENDON PAYNE, the Plaintiff, v. RIVER ROCKS LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-01727-PGB-DAB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order: 1. sustaining in part and overruling in part Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate's report and recommendation; 2. adopting in part and rejecting in part the Magistrate Judge's May 18, 2016 report and recommendation (the report and recommendation is made a part of the Order to the extent it is adopted); 3. denying Plaintiff's motion for certification of collective action and permission to send court supervised notice to employees of the Opt-In Rights; and 4. denying Defendants' motion for summary judgment. According to the complaint, while the evidence Payne presents may indeed indicate that other employees exist who suffered the same wage violations, there is no evidence demonstrating that any other employee wishes to join the litigation. Although Payne states that he knows other employees who would join this action were the Court to grant conditional certification, none of them have appeared in the case or have submitted affidavits to Payne's counsel to file with the Court. Moreover, Payne's statement takes the form of an unsworn declaration not made under penalty of perjury. The Court therefore affords Payne's assertion no weight, especially in the complete absence of any other evidence to support his claim. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZkwnY09I SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Lam" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Alfredo Lam and Paula Leiato filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit entitled Alfredo Lam, et al. v. The City and County of San Francisco, et al., Case No. 4:10-cv- 04641-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland. The Case is brought by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and of Asian Pacific American employees and representative of the class of the same or similarly situated CCSF employees. The appellate case is captioned as Alfredo Lam, et al. v. The City and County of San Francisco, et al., Case No. 16-16559, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by October 3, 2016; -- Transcript is due on November 1, 2016; -- Appellants' opening brief is due on December 12, 2016; -- Answering brief of Appellees Timothy Diestel, Dennis Doyle, Alfred Fleck, Charles Lewis, Toni Ratcliff Powell, John Radongo, Tamara Ratcliff, Mildred Singh, Robert Taylor, The City and County of San Francisco and Barry Young is due on January 10, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief. Defendant-Appellee THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO is represented by: Jenica D. Maldonado, Esq. Boris Reznikov, Esq. SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1390 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 554-3915 E-mail: jenica.maldonado@sfgov.org boris.reznikov@sfgov.org Defendants-Appellees THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, TIMOTHY DIESTEL, DENNIS DOYLE, ALFRED FLECK, CHARLES LEWIS, TONI RATCLIFF POWELL, JOHN RADONGO, TAMARA RATCLIFF, ROBERT TAYLOR and BARRY YOUNG are represented by: Rafal Ofierski, Esq. SAN FRANCISCO CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 1390 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 554-4244 E-mail: rafal.ofierski@sfgov.org SANTA CLARA, CA: Certification of Class & Subclass Sought --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled BRIAN CHAVEZ and BRANDON BRACAMONTE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-NJV (N.D. Cal.), the parties request that the Court enter an order certifying class and subclass defined as: "all people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the Santa Clara County jails"; and "all people who are now, or in the future will be, incarcerated in the Santa Clara County jails and who have a psychiatric and/or intellectual disability, as defined under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act." The Plaintiffs further request that they be certified as the representatives of the class and subclass, and that their counsel be certified as counsel for the class and subclass. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gEgcKJpG The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald Specter, Esq. Margot Mendelson, Esq. PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 E-mail: dspecter@prisonlaw.com mmendelson@prisonlaw.com - and - Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria, Esq. Jeffrey W. Walker, Esq. ADDISON M. LITTON (SBN 305374) COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 843-5000 E-mail: jsantamaria@cooley.com jwalker@cooley.com alitton@cooley.com and Kendall Dawson Wasley, Esq. PMB 233 1520 E. Covell Blvd. Davis, CA 95615 Telephone: (408) 827 5024 E-mail: kendall@dawsonwasleylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: James R. Williams, Esq. Aryn Paige Harris, Esq. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, Ninth Floor San Jose, CA 95110 1770 Telephone: (408) 299 5900 Facsimile: (408) 292 7240 SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: Dimensions' Bid to Certify Under Advisement ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on September 8, 2016, in the case entitled Dimensions Medical Center, Ltd., et al. v. Saratoga Diagnostics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-05608 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman. The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion to certify class is taken under advisement. The Motion hearing set for September 20, 2016, is stricken and no appearance is required. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ikoIYuUW SCOTTRADE INC: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Kuhns" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scottrade, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Matthew Kuhns v. Scottrade, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv- 01537-SPM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis. The appellate case is captioned as Matthew Kuhns v. Scottrade, Inc., Case No. 16-3542, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appendix is due on October 17, 2016; -- Brief of Appellant Matthew Kuhns is due on October 17, 2016; and -- Appellee/Cross Appellant brief due 30 days from the date the Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellant's brief. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Mr. Kuhns filed an appeal in the Eighth Circuit from a court ruling in the Case. That appellate case is captioned as Matthew Kuhns v. Scottrade, Inc., Case No. 16-3426. In his original case, he sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary damages, statutory damages for the Defendant's alleged breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, bailment, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff-Appellee Matthew Kuhns, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Paula R. Brown, Esq. Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com pbrown@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com - and - Anthony G. Simon, Esq. John G. Simon, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com jsimon@simonlawpc.com - and - Joseph Siprut, Esq. SIPRUT, P.C. 17 N. State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 296-0000 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com Defendant-Appellant Scottrade, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, is represented by: Brandi L. Burke, Esq. Thomas Edward Douglass, Esq. Christopher Martin Hohn, Esq. David M. Mangian, Esq. THOMPSON & COBURN LLP One US Bank Plaza 505 N. Seventh Street Saint Louis, MO 63101-1693 Telephone: (314) 552-6000 Facsimile: (314) 552-7000 E-mail: bburke@thompsoncoburn.com tdouglass@thompsoncoburn.com chohn@thompsoncoburn.com dmangian@thompsoncoburn.com SEPTRAN INC: Gets Prelim. OK of Class Settlement in "Barker" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on September 7, 2016, in the case captioned Sandra Barker, et al. v. Septran, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-09270 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang. The minute entry states that as detailed during the hearing, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the collective and class action settlement. Objections from class members are due by October 11, 2016. The fees and expenses motion is due by October 17, 2016. A separate order will be entered with other deadlines and the schedule moving forward. A fairness hearing will be held on October 24, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=irVCmjWQ SIZMEK INC: Faces Class Action Over Vector Capital Merger --------------------------------------------------------- Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, on Aug. 30 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another law firm on behalf of stockholders of Sizmek, Inc. ("Sizmek" or the "Company") seeking to challenge the Company's recently announced merger. If you would like to join the class action, please visit our website or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423- 6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn - www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter - www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook - www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. On August 3, 2016, Sizmek and private equity firm Vector Capital ("Vector Capital") announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Vector Capital will acquire Sizmek in an all-cash merger worth approximately $122 million. As a result of the merger, Sizmek shareholders are only expected to receive $3.90 per share. In particular, our firm is investigating the inadequate consideration that shareholders are anticipated to receive. The deal is $3.84 lower than Sizmek's 52-week high of $7.74. Notably, the merger has been highly criticized by Sizmek shareholders. For example, on August 15, 2016, Sabra Capital Partners ("Sabra"), wrote a letter to Sizmek's Board of Directors objecting to the Company's merger with Vector Capital (which can be accessed here). Specifically, Sabra believes that the "timing of the sales process was ill-advised, poorly constructed and negligent in maximizing shareholder value" and that "[w]e believe the stock could be worth up to $8.00." On August 11, 2016, a Sizmek shareholder represented by another law firm filed a class action complaint challenging Sizmek's merger with Vector Capital. The complaint was filed in the County Court for Dallas County, Texas captioned MSS 12-09 Trust v. Sizmek, Inc., et al, Case No. CC-16-04043-D. If you own shares of Sizmek and want to receive additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases- investigations/sizmek-class-action-investigation or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn - www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter - www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook - www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates. Andrews & Springer -- http://www.andrewsspringer.com-- is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. SIZMEK INC: "Penza" Sues Directors Over Merger with Vector ---------------------------------------------------------- STEVEN PENZA, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of SIZMEK, INC., the Plaintiff, v. JOHN R. HARRIS, NEIL H. NGUYEN, SCOTT K. GINSBURG, ADAM KLEIN, CECIL H. MOORE JR. and STEPHEN E. RECHT, the Defendants, Case No. 12718 (Del. Chancery. Ct., Sep. 2, 2016), asks the Court to find the Director Defendants in breach of their fiduciary duties. On August 3, 2016, Vector Capital and Sizmek issued a joint press release announcing that they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (Merger Agreement) whereby Vector Capital will acquire Sizmek through an all-cash tender offer valued at approximately $122 million (Tender Offer). The Tender Offer is governed by Delaware General Corporation Law (DGCL), permitting the offer to close as early as twenty business days after it has been commenced. The Tender Offer is expected to end on September 26, 2016 and the transaction is expected to close by the end of 2016. The Director Defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties in connection with the Proposed Transaction by failing to disclose all material information necessary to allow Sizmek stockholders to make a fully informed decision whether to tender their shares of stock in the Tender Offer. Sizmek fuels digital advertising campaigns for advertisers and agencies around the world with the most cutting-edge technology. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504 4957 ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Implanted Heart Devices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Blake, writing for The Washington Times, reports that concerns raised by the release of a report highlighting supposed security vulnerabilities affecting pacemakers, defibrillators and other medical devices have prompted attorneys to pursue a class-action lawsuit against their manufacturer, St. Jude Medical. Lawyers for defibrillator patient Clinton W. Ross Jr. filed the class-action complaint on Aug. 26 in Los Angeles federal court, one day after short-selling firm Muddy Waters accused St. Jude of selling implanted heart devices that are vulnerable to cyberattack. Mr. Ross would not have undergone surgery last November to be implanted with a St. Jude device had he been aware of the "severe security vulnerabilities" detailed in the recent report, his attorneys wrote in the Aug. 26 court filing. The complaint lists 30 different St. Jude devices that are believed to have serious security flaws and claims that potentially hundreds of thousands of similarly situated heart patients have grounds to sue the manufacturer for fraud and negligence, among other charges. In its report, Muddy Waters said researchers at cybersecurity firm MedSec Holdings demonstrated how attackers could hijack home- monitored cardiac devices made by St. Jude with potentially catastrophic consequences. Notably, the firm claimed that implanted devices that use radiofrequency ("RF") telemetry to broadcast personal medical data from the insides of patients to in-home transmitters were prone to attack because standard security defenses such as strong authentication and encryption were largely absent. As a result, hackers could potentially force an implanted cardiac device to "pace" at a dangerous rate, or rapidly drain power from an implanted device's battery, the report said. "The lack of even the most basic security defenses allowed MedSec -- with relatively little effort -- to develop and demonstrate two types of potentially catastrophic attacks that could be used against St. Jude's cardiac devices with RF telemetry capabilities," attorneys for Mr. Ross wrote in the court filing. "Given the lack of even the most basic security defenses . . . it is doubtless that a malicious attacker could find numerous other attacks." St. Jude's chief technology officer, Phil Ebeling, denounced the short-selling firm's allegations as "absolutely untrue" and said his company has several layers of security in place, such as conducting routine assessments on all of its devices. Nonetheless, attorneys for Mr. Ross said in the Aug. 26 filing that St. Jude patients should be allowed to sue the manufacturer for breach of expressed warranty, fraudulent concealment, negligence and unjust enrichment. Mr. Ross' lead attorney, Mike Arias, did not immediately respond to a request for comment when contacted by Courthouse News, where the complaint was first reported. The case has been assigned to District Judge Dolly M. Gee and Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. STATE STREET: Nov. 2 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS ARKANSAS TEACHER RETIREMENT SYSTEM, et al. v. STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY No. 11-cv-10230 MLW ARNOLD HENRIQUEZ, et al. v. STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, et al. No. 11-cv-12049 MLW THE ANDOVER COMPANIES EMPLOYEE SAVINGS AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN, et al. v. STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY No. 12-cv-11698 MLW SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTIONS, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT HEARING, PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND ANY MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS TO: ALL CUSTODY AND TRUST CUSTOMERS OF STATE STREET BANK AND TRUST COMPANY ("SSBT") (INCLUDING CUSTOMERS FOR WHICH SSBT SERVED AS DIRECTED TRUSTEE, ERISA PLANS, AND GROUP TRUSTS), REFLECTED IN SSBT'S RECORDS AS HAVING A UNITED STATES TAX ADDRESS AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 2, 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2009, INCLUSIVE, AND THAT EXECUTED ONE OR MORE INDIRECT FX TRANSACTIONS WITH SSBT AND/OR ITS SUBCUSTODIANS DURING THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 2, 1998 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2009, INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS") YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, that Plaintiffs Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Arnold Henriquez, Michael T. Cohn, William R. Taylor, Richard A. Sutherland, The Andover Companies Employees Savings and Profit Sharing Plan, and James Pehoushek- Stangeland (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and each Settlement Class Member, by and through their counsel, and State Street Bank and Trust Company have reached a proposed settlement of the above-captioned actions (the "Class Actions") in the amount of $300,000,000 in cash (the "Class Settlement Amount") that, if approved by the Court, will resolve the Class Actions in their entirety (the "Class Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Mark L. Wolf of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Eastern Division in Courtroom 10 of the John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, Massachusetts 02210 at 2:00 p.m. on November 2, 2016 to, among other things, determine whether: (1) the proposed Class Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Class Actions should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of July 26, 2016; (3) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Class Settlement Amount, and any accrued interest, less Court-awarded attorneys' fees, Litigation Expenses, Service Awards, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, Tax Expenses and any other costs, fees, or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Class Settlement Fund") should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) Lead Counsel's application, on behalf of ERISA Counsel and Customer Counsel, for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of Litigation Expenses and Service Awards should be approved. The Court may change the date and/or time of the Final Approval Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Class Settlement Fund. Additionally, the Court has the authority to change any of the deadlines below for good cause shown. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET CLASS SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full mailed Notice of Pendency of Class Actions, Proposed Class Settlement, Settlement Hearing, Plan of Allocation, and any Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Service Awards (the "Notice"), you may obtain a copy by contacting the Claims Administrator or visiting the settlement website: State Street Indirect FX Trading Class Action Claims Administrator c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173000 Milwaukee, WI 53217 877-240-3540 www.StateStreetIndirectFXClassSettlement.com info@StateStreetIndirectFXClassSettlement.com Inquiries may also be made to Lead Counsel: LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Lawrence A. Sucharow, Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Tel: (888) 219-6877 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com Settlement Class Members do not need to submit a claim form in order to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Class Settlement Fund. Your recovery will be calculated by the Claims Administrator as part of the implementation of the Class Settlement, and will be based on information obtained from SSBT. However, as explained in the Notice, if you represent a Group Trust, you must provide a certification postmarked or received on or before December 20, 2016 in order to receive a portion of the ERISA Settlement Allocation, rather than a portion of the balance of the Net Class Settlement Fund. To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the Notice such that it is received on or before October 7, 2016. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by all judgments and orders entered in the Class Actions. Any objection to the proposed Class Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or application for attorneys' fees and payment of Litigation Expenses and/or Service Awards must be filed with the Court in accordance with the instructions in the Notice such that it is received on or before October 7, 2016. If you submit an objection, you have the right, but are not required, to attend the Final Approval Hearing; if you wish to speak at the Final Approval Hearing, you must include in your written objection a statement that you intend to appear and speak at the Final Approval Hearing. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: September 6, 2016 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS SWIFTSHIPS LLC: Class Certification Bid in "Panzer" Suit Dropped ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned PAUL PANZER, the Plaintiff v. SWIFTSHIPS, LLC, ET AL., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-02257-CJB-JVM (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Carl J. Barbier entered an order: 1. granting joint motion to dismiss & withdraw motion for class certification; 2. dismissing Plaintiff Paul Panzer's individual claims with prejudice; and 3. denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment as moot. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the above-referenced matter for a period of 60 days. Should the parties need an extension of the period of time they may file a motion accordingly. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3Fyzppxl SYRACUSE, NY: Court Refuses to Junk All Claims in "Winston" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Thomas J. McAvoy entered an order in the lawsuit titled JAQUELINE WINSTON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, and DEBORAH SOMERS in her official capacity as the Commissioner of Water, Case No. 5:16-cv- 00235-TJM-ATB (N.D.N.Y.), granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Motion is denied as to the Plaintiff's as applied equal protection claim based on the contention that the City denies restoration of water services even when a tenant agrees to pay the arrears and the restoration fee, and as to the Plaintiff's as- applied substantive due process claim, Judge McAvoy explains. Judge McAvoy adds that the Motion is granted in all other respects. Because this decision dismisses many of the claims upon which the Plaintiff's class certification motion is based, that motion is denied with leave to renew, Judge McAvoy ruled. Ms. Winston commenced the Action asserting that the City of Syracuse's "policy and practice of terminating water service to blameless tenants based upon their landlord's failure to pay the water bill" violates her rights to equal protection and substantive due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2VtTbeK1 T-MOBILE USA: Faces "Rahmany" Suit in W.D. of Washington -------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile USA, Inc. The case is captioned David Moshe Rahmany and Yehuda Rahmany, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. T- Mobile USA, Inc. and Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01416-JCC (W.D. Wash., Sep. 6, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. John C Coughenour. T-Mobile is a major wireless network operator in the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 1546 Nw 56th Street Seattle, WA 98107 Telephone: (800) 400 6808 Facsimile: (800) 520 5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Loses Bid to Derail Former Students' Fraud Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Erik Larson, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Donald J. Trump and his now-defunct real-estate university lost another legal attempt to block former students from suing as a group in a California case accusing the Republican presidential candidate of fraud. Trump University is accused of cheating students by persuading them to pay tens of thousands of dollars for real-estate seminars that turned out to be "infomercials" for buying more classes. The former students also claim workshops were led by instructors who hadn't been "hand-picked" by Trump as promised. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel in San Diego on Aug. 29 rejected Mr. Trump's argument that one of the lead plaintiffs in the case, Sonny Low, wasn't actually concerned with whether Trump University was an accredited institution. One of the key claims in the class-action suit is that the students had relied on their belief that the school was accredited when they paid to attend. The former students from California, New York and Florida seek compensation under consumer-fraud and elder-abuse laws. The case has dogged Mr. Trump as he battles Democrat Hillary Clinton ahead of the Nov. 8 general election, while Judge Curiel's Mexican heritage earlier prompted Trump to say that negative rulings in the case were retribution for his pledge to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Judge Curiel has scheduled a trial in the case for Nov. 28. Judge Curiel said the billionaire's lawyers were relying on a "selective interpretation" of Low's deposition, in which the former student said that accreditation "was not even a consideration for me," according to the ruling. "I went there because it was Trump University, that he created." The judge pointed to other portions of the deposition that suggested the former student believed Trump University was legitimate due to its association with Mr. Trump, regardless of whether it was accredited. "Besides being a multi-billionaire in real estate, he set up Trump University, which I would presume that he took all the steps necessary to set up a proper institution that he could call a university, with his name next to it," Low said in the deposition. Mr. Trump's lawyer in the case, Daniel Petrocelli, didn't immediately respond to a phone call seeking comment on the ruling. Trump University's lawyers have argued that sales pitches touting "secrets" and "hand-picked instructors" are mere "puffery" common to advertising, and that they can't be used to argue there was fraud. Mr. Trump also believed the students were receiving a high-quality education, the defense has said, while arguing there was no intent to defraud anyone. Mr. Trump is also asking Judge Curiel to undo class-action status in a second Trump University class action in San Diego in which the Republican presidential nominee is accused of racketeering. The consumer fraud case is Low v. Trump University LLC, 10-cv- 00940, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego). The racketeering case is Cohen v. Trump, 13-cv-02519, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego). UNITED STATES: Bid for Class Certification in "Allen" Suit Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled SHAUN C. ALLEN, the Plaintiff, v. USA et al. the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00484-JM-PSH (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order, motion for certification, and motion to supplement his motion for restraining order. As Judge Harris noted, the incidents underlying Allen's motion for a restraining order are not the same as the incidents alleged in Allen's complaint and amended complaint and, therefore, are not relevant in the case. The Plaintiff has also failed to provide any evidence in his objections to support class certification. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VZ0Rf5Rt UNITED STATES: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Gonzalez-Aviles" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Pablo Gonzalez-Aviles and Heleodoro Pena-Gonzalez filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Pablo Gonzalez-Aviles, et al. v. Thomas Perez, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv- 03463-JFM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland at Baltimore. Thomas E. Perez is sued in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Labor. The appellate case is captioned as Pablo Gonzalez-Aviles v. Thomas Perez, Case No. 16-2007, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Plaintiffs-Appellants Pablo Gonzalez-Aviles and Heleodoro Pena- Gonzalez are represented by: Alfred Darwin Holder, Jr., Esq. HOLDER LAW GROUP LLC P.O. Box 10509 Towson, MD 21285-0509 Telephone: (410) 296-9550 E-mail: darholder@holderlaw.com. - and - Meredith B. Stewart, Esq. SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1055 Charles Avenue New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 486-8982 Facsimile: (504) 486-8947 E-mail: meredith.stewart@splcenter.org - and - Edward John Tuddenham, Esq. MIGRANT LEGAL ACTION PROGRAM, INC 2001 S Street, NW Washington, DC 20009-0000 Telephone: (512) 413-4863 E-mail: etudden@prismnet.com Defendants-Appellees THOMAS E. PEREZ, in his official capacity as United States Secretary of Labor; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; and PORTIA WU, in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, are represented by: Vinita Andrapalliyal, Esq. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P. O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 598-8085 Facsimile: (202) 305-7000 E-mail: vinita.b.andrapalliyal@usdoj.gov - and - Erez Reuveni, Esq. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Liberty Square Building 450 5th Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 307-4293 E-mail: erez.r.reuveni@usdoj.gov - and - Sarah Stevens Wilson U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE P. O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 532-4700 E-mail: sarah.s.wilson@usdoj.gov Defendants-Appellees OUTSIDE UNLIMITED, INC.; A.R. STAR SERVICES, INC.; AKEHURST LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC.; BOB JACKSON LANDSCAPES, INC.; CEDAR RIDGE LANDSCAPE, INC.; COLUMBIA GROUNDS MANAGEMENT CORP.; CONTINENTAL LANDSCAPING, INC.; CREATIVE LANDSCAPES BY GREGORY, INC.; CUSTOM GROUND MAINTENANCE, INC.; DENISON LANDSCAPING, INC.; EASTON ICE COMPANY, INC.; EDS PLANT WORLD, INC.; EXCELL LAWN CARE INC.; EXEC-U-LAWN LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT, INC.; FACILITY SERVICES CO.; FRANK JOSEPH AND SONS, INC.; GOSHEN ENTERPRISES, INC.; GREEN ANGELS LANDSCAPING LLC; HARTSOE PROPERTY SERVICES, LLC; IVY HILL NURSERY CO., INC.; LARSONS TREE SERVICE AND LANDSCAPING, LTD.; LAYTONSVILLE TURF FARM, LLC; LEES LAWN SERVICE; MARYLAND NATIVES NURSERY, INC.; MEAD TREE AND TURF CARE, INC.; M.J.M. LAWN AND LANDSCAPING, INC.; OAK HILL LAWN CARE AND LANDSCAPING, INC.; P. STADLER AND SONS CO.; PAUL SCHWARTZ LANDSCAPING, LLC; PGC LANDSCAPE LLC; PINEHURST LANDSCAPE CO., INC.; POOLE LANDSCAPING, INC.; QUALITY ONE, INC.; SOUTH FORTY, INC.; STRATES FINE FOODS, INC.; TDH LANDSCAPING, LLC; TERRACE TURF LAWN SERVICES, INC.; W.H. BOYER, INC.; WOODFIELD LANDSCAPING INC.; ALPHA LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS, INC.; KCS LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT, INC.; LAWNS UNLIMITED, LLC; MANOR VIEW FARMS, INC.; PORTER LANDSCAPING, INC.; LANDCARE USA LLC; WENTWORTH NURSERY, INC.; WILLIAM T. KING, INC.; A OF R SERVICES, INC.; CLIPPERS INC.; DEGGELLER ATTRACTIONS, INC.; FAIRPLAY GAMES, INC.; GIBSON LANDSCAPES INC.; HYDRO-TECH IRRIGATION CO.; KANE LANDSCAPES, INC.; LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.; SURROUNDS INC.; WHATEVER ENTERPRISES, LLC; CHALLENGER SPORTS CORP.; CLIPPERS INC.- NOVA; INNERS AMUSEMENT CO.; KELLY-MILLER BROS. CIRCUS, LTD.; and SPOSATO LANDSCAPE CO., INC., are represented by: Wendel V. Hall, Esq. HALL LAW OFFICE 1200 G Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 661-2173 Facsimile: (202) 744-3250 E-mail: wendel@halllawoffice.net - and - Robert Wayne Pierce, Esq. PIERCE LAW FIRM, LLC 133 Defense Highway Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: (410) 573-9955 E-mail: pearce@rwpearce.com Defendant-Appellee DEGGELLER ATTRACTIONS, INC., is represented by: Terrance Wayne Anderson, Jr., Esq. GRAYROBINSON, PA 333 South East 2nd Avenue Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 416-6880 Facsimile: (305) 416-6887 E-mail: terrance.anderson@gray-robinson.com - and - Paul McDermott Finamore, Esq. NILES, BARTON & WILMER, LLP 111 South Calvert Street Baltimore, MD 21202-6185 Telephone: (410) 783-6349 Facsimile: (410) 783-6455 E-mail: pmfinamore@nilesbarton.com - and - John Teigen Hall, Esq. DISCEPOLO LLP 111 South Calvert Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 296-0780 Facsimile: (410) 296-2263 E-mail: teigen@discepolollp.com Defendant-Appellee TOLL BROTHERS, LLC-VA, is represented by: George Eugene Brown, Esq. KRAMON & GRAHAM, PA Commerce Place 1 South Street Baltimore, MD 21202-0000 Telephone: (410) 752-6030 Facsimile: (410) 361-8205 E-mail: gbrown@kg-law.com Defendant-Appellee VALLEYCREST COMPANIES is represented by: Noam Barak Fischman, Esq. MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO, PC 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-0000 Telephone: (202) 434-7401 Facsimile: (202) 434-7400 E-mail: nbfischman@mintz.com UV LOGISTICS: Class Certification Sought in "Griffis" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled APRIL GRIFFIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated Plaintiffs, v. UV LOGISTICS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-02740-RFD-CBW (W.D. La.), the Parties ask the Court for a motion for conditional collective action certification and notice. After conferring in good faith, the Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed to stipulate to conditional certification of a class consisting of: "all current and former Terminal Fleet Managers who were employed by Defendant dating back three years from the date of the entry of an Order of conditional class certification." The class would exclude any individuals who previously signed a severance agreement that included a waiver of any right to proceed against UV Logistics for FLSA claims. The Defendant continues to deny that it has violated the FLSA in any respect. Defendant does not concede that Plaintiff and the putative class members are "similarly situated" under or that the case is appropriate for collective action treatment. The Defendant specifically reserves its right to seek decertification of the conditionally certified class at a later time, and its right to fully defend this matter on the merits, once the putative class members are identified. The parties have further agreed that the issuance of an approved notice is appropriate. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KZ95UsPm The Plaintiff is represented by: Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. JACKSON & JACKSON 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 599 5953 Facsimile: (888) 988 6499 E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net mjackson@jackson-law.net The Defendant is represented by: Greg Guidry, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 603 Silverstone Road, Suite 102A Lafayette, LA 70508 Telephone: (337) 769 6583 Facsimile: (337) 989 0441 E-mail: greg.guidry@ogletreedeakins.com VALERO MARKETING: Case Management Scheduling Order Set ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Richard Seeborg entered the Case Management Scheduling Order in the case, FAITH BAUTISTA, Plaintiff, v. VALERO MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-05557-RS (N.D. Cal.). Judge Seeborg outlined that all non-expert discovery shall be completed by the parties on or before August 7, 2017. Discovery shall be limited to (a) 10 non-expert depositions per party; (b) 25 interrogatories per party, including all discrete subparts; (c) a reasonable number of requests for production of documents or for inspection per party; and (d) a reasonable number of requests for admission per party. The disclosure and discovery of expert witnesses shall proceed on these dates: a. On or before August 7, 2017, parties will designate experts in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). b. On or before September 4, 2017, parties will designate their supplemental and rebuttal experts in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). c. On or before November 6, 2017, all discovery of expert witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4) shall be completed. The schedules for Class Certification are likewise set for these dates: a. On or before May 26, 2017, plaintiff will file his motion for class certification. b. On or before July 24, 2017, defendant will file its opposition to class certification. c. On or before September 5, 2017, plaintiff will file his reply, if any, to defendant's opposition. d. Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be heard on September 28, 2017. A copy of the Court's Order dated September 1, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/dJjTGcfrom Leagle.com. Faith Bautista, Plaintiff, represented by Rafael Bernardino, Jr. -- rbernardino@hbdlegal.com -- Hobson, Bernardino Davis, LLP. Faith Bautista, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Chagas Martins -- cmartins@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jason Henry Alperstein -- jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Jason A. Hobson -- jhobson@hbdlegal.com -- Hobson Bernardino Davis LLP, Patrick W. Daniels -- patrickd@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Roxana Miller Pierce -- rpierce@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & Stuart Andrew Davidson -- SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice. Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Defendant, represented by Adam Friedenberg -- afriedenberg@glynnfinley.com -- Glynn & Finley, LLP, Lauren Elizabeth Wood -- lwood@glynnfinley.com -- Glynn & Finley LLP & Robert Charles Phelps -- bphelps@glynnfinley.com -- Glynn & Finley LLP. VERIZON WIRELESS: Faces "Menichiello" Suit in C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit has been filed against Verizon Wireless Services LLC. The case is styled Denise Menichiello, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Verizon Wireless Services LLC, Verizon Winback Group LLC, and Does 1-10, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01635-CJC-KES (C.D. Cal., Sep. 6, 2016). The assigned Judge is hon. Cormac J. Carney. Verizon Wireless provides wireless telecommunication services. The company was incorporated in 1999 and is based in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq. Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq. Todd M Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC 324 S Beverly Drive No. 725 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com tfriedman@toddflaw.com VISION FINANCIAL: $2,529 in Fees Awarded to Dolemba --------------------------------------------------- District Judge Thomas M. Durkin revised the total fees and costs to $2,529.98 in the case styled, SCOTT DOLEMBA, individually, and HERMINIA DOLEMBA, individually and on behalf of the class described herein, Plaintiffs, v. VISION FINANCIAL CORP., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-3567 (N.D. Ill.). The Plaintiffs in the case sought redress from collection practices of the Defendant, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiffs requested for a total amount of $14,069.61 in statutory damages and attorney's fees and costs. The Court concluded, however, that fees incurred after Plaintiff accepted the Offer of Judgment should be excluded. Rule 68 provides only for the recovery of "costs then accrued," that is, the costs incurred up to the point that the Offer of Judgment is made. The Court calculated the fees and costs to be awarded to Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs total fees and costs: $4,011.53 Less: JOL Time 330.00 MRT Time 160.00 CMC Time 110.00 Time incurred after offer was made (4/19/12) 878.00 Costs incurred after offer was made (4/19/12) 3.55 Revised total fees and costs $2,529.98 A copy of the Court's Order dated September 2, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/hn9nZjfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiff Scott Dolemba is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cassandra P. Miller, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Michelle A. Alyea, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC. 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: 312-739-4200 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Yousey" Suit Moved from W.D. Ark. to N.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Yousey and Geneva Yousey, On behalf of themselves and for all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., A New Jersey Corporation, and Volkswagen A.G., the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-05236, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-05087- CRB to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Charles R. Breyer. Volkswagen Group is a German multinational automotive manufacturing company headquartered in Wolfsburg, Lower Saxony, Germany. The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Kent Hirsch, Esq. HIRSCH LAW FIRM, P. A. 107 W. Emma Avenue Springdale, AR 72764 Telephone: (479) 751 0251 Facsimile: (479) 751 0490 E-mail: kent@hirschlawfirm.com - and - Marshall Dale Evans, Esq. THE EVANS LAW FIRM P.O. Box 1986 Fayetteville, AR 72702-1986 Telephone: (479) 521 9998 Facsimile: (479) 521 9995 E-mail: dale@evans-law-firm.com The Defendants are represented by: Gail Ponder Gaines, Esq. BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 372 6175 Facsimile: (501) 375 2802 E-mail: ggaines@barberlawfirm.com - and - Michael E. Hale, Esq. BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 707 6136 Facsimile: (501) 375 2802 E-mail: mhale@barberlawfirm.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Consent Decree Entered in California Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, v. VOLKSWAGEN AG, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA CHATTANOOGA OPERATIONS LLC, AUDI AG, DR. ING. H.C. F. PORSCHE AG, and PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-03620 (N.D. Cal.), a partial Consent Decree is entered between and among the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the People, by and through the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the California Attorney General, and Volkswagen to resolve Unfair Competition Claims related to the marketing and sale of certain diesel vehicles of Volkswagen and Porsche. The monetary provision of the Consent Decree provides that Volkswagen shall pay to the California Attorney General a total aggregate amount of US$86,000,000. Volkswagen's and Porsche's agreement to satisfy all the requirements of the Consent Decree shall resolve and settle all of the People's Unfair Competition Claims, as well as all potentially applicable civil claims under California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, 17500, and 17580.5, and 12 USC Sec. 5531 et seq., or under any other consumer protection, unfair trade and deceptive acts and practices laws, as well as common law or equity (Consumer Protection Laws), including claims brought in the California Attorney General's sovereign enforcement capacity. The Consent Decree constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive agreement and understanding among the Parties with respect to the settlement embodied in the Decree and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, whether oral or written, concerning the settlement embodied herein, with the exception of the DOJ Consent Decree. Upon approval and entry of the Consent Decree by the Court, the Consent Decree shall constitute a final judgment of the Court as to the California Attorney General and the Defendants. A copy of the Court's Order dated September 1, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/z0mbVhfrom Leagle.com. People of the State of California, Plaintiff, represented by Jon F. Worm -- jon.worm@doj.ca.gov -- Office of the Attorney General. People of the State of California, Plaintiff, represented by Amos Erik Hartston -- amos.hartston@doj.ca.gov -- California Department of Justice, David Alexander Zonana -- david.zonana@doj.ca.gov -- California Department of Justice, Judith Aurora Yosepha Fiorentini -- judith.fiorentini@doj.ca.gov -- Office of the Attorney General, Nicklas A. Akers -- nioklas.akers@doj.ca.gov -- California Department of Justice & William Raabe Pletcher, California Department of Justice. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (AG), et al., Defendants, represented by Michael Howard Steinberg -- steinbergm@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP. YAHOO: Judge Approves E-mail Scanning class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- David Kravets, writing for Ars Technica, reports that in 2013, Yahoo announced that it would begin scanning its users' e-mail for targeted advertising purposes -- just as Google does. As is par for the course, class-action lawsuits were filed. The Silicon Valley media giant, according to one of the lawsuits, was violating the "personal liberties" of non-Yahoo Mail users. That's because non-Yahoo Mail users, who have sent mail to Yahoo mail users, were having their e-mail scanned without their permission. "Plaintiff and the Class are among the multitude of U.S. residents who have sent electronic communications or emails to a Yahoo Mail user or users, and whose personal liberties have been, and continue to be, intruded upon when these private communications are read or, in the alternative, eavesdropped upon by Yahoo," the lawsuit read. The suit said that Yahoo's new scanning policies adopted under Yahoo chief Marissa Mayer violated federal and state privacy laws and that Yahoo's e-mail scanning regime "seriously threatens the free exercise of personal liberties, and is of the type of behavior that the U.S. Congress and the California Legislature has declared should not be tolerated in a free and civilized society." The suit, which was one of six that were co-mingled as a single class action, demanded that a judge halt the scanning and award each victim "$5,000 or three times actual damages" in addition to "reasonable attorneys' fees and costs." Fast forward three years. The case is now closed. Days ago, a Silicon Valley federal judge signed off on a settlement. The lawyers won, they were awarded $4 million (GBP3 million), and the public got nothing. What's more, the settlement allows Yahoo to continue to scan e-mails without non-Yahoo users' consent. (Yahoo Mail customers have granted consent to the scanning as a condition of using the service.) The major change the lawsuit produced was that Yahoo is agreeing to scan the e-mail while it's at rest on its servers instead of while the mail is in transit. This, according to the settlement, satisfies the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) claims. The deal spells out that Yahoo only has to do this for three years, but Yahoo said it would continue with the new scanning protocol after the three years expire. Let the e-mail scanning continue In September 2015, plaintiffs' lawyers argued that CIPA was breached even when the e-mail was being scanned at rest. "The plain language of the statute, however, prohibits the interception of communications both while they are in transit and while they are being received". The judge clearly didn't agree. The agreement, however, does require Yahoo to be a tad more transparent. It requires Yahoo to beef up its "Yahoo Privacy Center Webpage" to clearly state that "Yahoo analyzes and stores all communications content, including email content from incoming and outgoing mail." And on the "Yahoo Mail Webpage," the heading "Personally Relevant Experiences" must be replaced with the heading "Information Collection and Use Practices." In the end, we'll add this case to the list of other so-called "privacy lawsuits" that essentially enrich a cottage industry of plaintiffs' lawyers, do little to protect or compensate consumers, and don't change the tech sector's behavior in any real, meaningful way. But reading US District Judge Lucy Koh's settlement approval order, you'd be left thinking the public was served. Judge Koh, a well-known Silicon Valley federal judge whom President Barack Obama has nominated to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, wrote that "Class Counsel achieved a result that was beneficial to the Class. Yahoo now no longer scans or analyzes Yahoo Mail content that is in transit in violation of CIPA," Judge Koh wrote. And in explaining why she signed the deal, Judge Koh's order highlights how the case has mutated over the year, from wanting the interception blocked outright to demanding consent, and: As to the strength of Plaintiffs' case, Plaintiffs have achieved their stated goal in this litigation: Yahoo will no longer intercept and analyze emails in transit for advertising purposes. Instead, for the next three years, Yahoo may only analyze incoming email after the email reaches a Yahoo Mail users' inbox, and Yahoo may only analyze outgoing email after the email is in a Yahoo Mail users' sent email folder. These changes, according to Yahoo's Senior Manager of Engineering, will require "a considerable investment of time, money, and resources." The four named plaintiffs in the case will each receive $5,000. In September, the plaintiffs' lawyers were demanding that Judge Koh issue a declaration that Yahoo was violating CIPA and the federal Stored Communications Act, which generally prohibits spying on stored communications on servers without consent. The law is the law "A declaration as to the lawfulness of Yahoo's conduct under these circumstances will be based on actual facts and provide a conclusive finding that will guide not only Yahoo's future conduct but that of other similar companies," one of the lead plaintiffs' lawyers, Daniel Girard, wrote Judge Koh. The judge, whose appellate court nomination is pending, did not issue such a declaration. In a telephone interview, Mr. Girard said Yahoo gets to continue to scan e-mail. But Yahoo will do it lawfully -- when the e-mail communications are at rest on Yahoo servers -- instead of unlawfully, while the e-mails are in transit. "We just enforced the law that was available to us," Mr. Girard said. "Unless you got some other law, that's all you can do." At this juncture. We might be wondering about Google, the pioneer of e-mail scanning. Google is being sued under a similar class action representing people with non-Gmail accounts who have had their messages scanned without consent. That case is pending before Judge Koh. * Class Action Firm Slater & Gordon Incurs $1-Bil. Loss ------------------------------------------------------- LawFuel reports that Australian law firm Slater and Gordon was the first law firm to be listed on the stock exchange, but it is also the first to post a very public $1 billion loss. The personal injury and class action law firm, which extended to the UK under an aggressive growth plan, has suffered significant reversals in the UK in particular. The total loss was $1.02 billion. The firm's woes have been the subject of much media reportage, including here on LawFuel. The Herald Sun reported that the loss was due to writedowns totalling $879.5 million, mostly related to the UK division of the firm, which also obtained lower resolutions for noise-induced hearing loss cases. Case settlements exceeded the number of new files opened in both Australia and in the UK, with a negative movement in work in progress of $41.3 million -- two thirds of it in Australia. Negative cash flow slowed from $83.3 million in the first half to $20.9 million, and the company said significant improvement is still required to turn that around. The firm also raised the total impairment charge from the $876.4 million announced in its first-half results and announced $33.3 million in restructuring costs related to the UK legal business it bought in May 2015. "We are confident we have the strategy and people in place to stabilize financial performance during the 2017 financial year," managing director Andrew Grech said. * Electronic Class Action Settlement Notices Proposed ----------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that those postcards you get about a class action settlement might be on their way out under a new proposed rule that would allow class notices to be sent via email and other electronic means rather than U.S. mail. The proposal, introduced on Aug. 12, is a sea change for lawyers who historically have relied on mailing addresses to send notices about a class action settlement. For most, the new rule, if approved, would be a welcome bump into the 21st century. "More recently, particularly on the West Coast, courts have been more comfortable with email notices," said Andrew McGuinness, an attorney in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and author of the blog www.topclasslaw.com. "You have a lot of class actions against everything from Uber to high-tech online services in which almost everything is done with email." The proposal is part of a package of changes drafted by a civil rules committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference's Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure that impact class actions, or Rule 23, which hasn't been amended since 2003. The proposals are open for public comment until Feb. 15, after which the committee must adopt the changes, which then go to the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress for approval. Lawyers say the change is long overdue. "Many people in the class action bar have been talking about that for a long time," Mr. McGuinness said, adding that the cost of sending notices by U.S. mail can run tens of thousands of dollars. But he admitted that the change might do little to persuade judges, who have increasingly been focused on claims rates in class action settlements. "Whether it's going to radically change response rates remains to be seen." The current rules don't actually mandate that notices be sent by U.S. mail. But judges have interpreted such a requirement based on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1974 holding in Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, which found that individual notice was required in order to achieve the "best notice that is practicable" under Rule 23. The new rule specifies that such notice may include "electronic means, or other appropriate means." The proposal has its critics. Todd Hilsee of The Hilsee Group LLC in Philadelphia, who has advised the Federal Judicial Center for 14 years on notice standards, said the move is driven by a rising number of vendors who promise lawyers high response rates at cheaper prices. In a public comment he made to the committee, Mr. Hilsee noted that a "scant fraction" of people actually click onto advertisements posted through internet banners and social media, and that response rates provided by some claims vendors are inflated. Notices sent by U.S. mail, by contrast, don't face spam filters and can be forwarded if someone moves, he added. Some judges have raised similar concerns. On June 23, California's Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed approval of a class action settlement of about 500,000 consumers of diet supplements after finding that only 895 people made claims. The notices were sent by email for more than half the class members, and through an online site and publication in USA Today to those remaining. In its order, the panel told the lawyers to come up with a better reason why U.S. mail wasn't used. Last year, a federal judge rejected a class action settlement involving an allegedly rigged arcade game in part due to concerns that the notice plan's banner ads wouldn't reach enough people. But the plaintiffs attorney in the case, Fred Isquith -- Isquith@whafh.com -- a partner at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, said lawyers often don't have mailing addresses, particularly when consumers buy online. Such was the case here, where the defendant, Sega Amusements USA Inc., just had emails and telephone numbers. "If the defendant says this is good enough notice for me, I'm willing to take the risk it should be good enough for the judge," he said. "There are always going to be people who don't get notices." * Recall of Faulty Products Proposed Under New Draft Bill --------------------------------------------------------- Zia Haq, writing for Hindustan Times, reports that a draft bill aimed at strengthening consumer rights provides for a powerful new tool called class-action suits, which can be invoked to recall an entire batch of faulty products based on a single complaint. These are among new measures in the draft bill being vetted by an inter-ministerial panel to bring consumer laws in line with a rapidly evolving economy. If one lot of a consumer item, such as mobile phones, has a common defect, a single complaint can trigger a recall of the whole range by invoking "class action". Class-action suits, a legal tool, enable one individual complaint of a faulty product or service to be treated as an "interest group" of other people in similar circumstances. India has witnessed mass product recall, such as faulty cars, but it has been mostly voluntary. The new bill will provide class- action suits specifically as a consumer right. The draft seeks to punish celebrities who endorse dubious products or appear in ads that make trumped-up claims. It proposes a fine of Rs 10 lakh and jail of up to two years for a first offence by celebrities. For subsequent offences, the proposed fine is Rs 50 lakh and maximum five years in jail. The bill provides for a National Consumer Authority, which will act as a regulator to ensure compliance with the new provisions. * Role of Judges in MDL Cases Faces Increasing Scrutiny ------------------------------------------------------- Andrew J. Trask, Esq. -- atrask@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that class actions are not the only form of aggregate litigation. Multi- district litigation ("MDL"), the process by which large numbers of smaller lawsuits are consolidated before a single judge for pretrial purposes, without requiring any kind of certification process, has been around since 1968. And, as courts have demanded more rigor for Rule 23 certification, MDLs have become more popular, particularly for mass torts. With that increasing popularity comes increasing scrutiny. To take just one example, a new paper on the proper role of the judge in MDL cases by professors Andrew Bradt and D. Theodore Rave has received press coverage only days after its posting on SSRN. The paper deserves the recognition. It's a good summary of the problems with MDLs, and contains an interesting solution to at least one of the issues scholars and lawyers have confronted. As the authors write: Despite its transfer-and-remand structure, judges, lawyers, and scholars all recognize that the goal of MDL is not merely centralized discovery followed by thousands of trials scattered around the country. The goal is mass settlement. By centralizing nationwide proceedings in mass tort cases --essentially gathering all of the relevant players into same forum before the same judge -- MDL creates a perfect environment for the parties to negotiate a global resolution of the defendant's liability to potentially thousands of claimants in one fell swoop. And, as MDL has begun to take center stage in both the federal courts and procedure scholarship, perhaps the most controversial issue is clarifying the proper role of the judge in achieving these mass settlements - - in particular whether the MDL judge should review settlements, and reject them if they are unfair, as a judge in a class action would be obliged to do under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). MDLs, of course, are not class actions. There are no absentee members, and consolidation is supposed to only be for pretrial proceedings. (In reality, there are often just a few "bellwether" trials held in front of the MDL court.) Faced with the question of how to keep aggregate settlements fair without the protections of Rule 23(e), Professors Bradt & Rave suggest a novel solution: the judge in an MDL ought to conceive of her role as acting in an "information forcing" capacity; that is, the judge should use the MDL process to force the disclosure of information to allows the parties in MDL cases to make informed decision about whether to accept proposed settlements. And often, the single most useful piece of information that the MDL judge can communicate to claimants will be a simple and frank assessment of the fairness of deal, even if that assessment will have no binding force. Their argument is straightforward. Aggregate litigation of any type faces a governance problem, because there are always a large number of claimants represented by a small number of lawyers. As a result, no individual claimant will exert much control over the litigation. Moreover, the lawyers will be tempted to cut corners, and may not reconcile the conflicts between their interests and their clients'. Class actions resolve this dilemma through certification under Rule 23. But MDL cases don't have that kind of structural protection. Instead, litigants remain dependent on their lawyers and the steering committee to watch out for their interest. Some judges have addressed this concern by appointing themselves fiduciaries of the small claimants, and treating the MDL as a "quasi-class action." This role is controversial, and possibly in violation of the Rules Enabling Act. But, the authors note, judges don't need formal authority to register their opinion of MDL settlements. And, based on the reactions of one set of litigants to a judge's declaration that a settlement was "unfair" (instead of seeking mandamus, they re-negotiated to address the judge's concerns), they believe MDL judges may simply need to be more aggressive in sharing their thoughts about the progress of the litigation. It's an intriguing idea, though not without its flaws. As Bradt & Rave note, some judges may not have the bandwidth to monitor the MDLs in front of them this closely; and some may be biased toward any settlement so long as it clears their docket or provides some relief to many claimants. The fact is, however, that aggregation by MDL is not going away. And lawyers concerned with mass torts will be grappling with these issues for some time to come. Professors Bradt & Rave have provided a concise, thought-provoking summary that is sure to have influence in this area. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Groupon's Bid to Amend CMO in "Mosley" Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned WILLIAM MOSLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GROUPON, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-01205-BLF (N.D. Calif.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, denied Groupon, Inc.'s request for a modification of the August 13, 2015 Case Management Order, which required the parties in the case to file dispositive motions by September 1, 2016. Groupon argues that there is good cause to amend the order given its pending motion to dismiss and because fact discovery will not be completed until November or December 2016. Groupon also argues that amending the case management order would not prejudice Plaintiffs. Judge Freeman pointed out that Groupon seeks to modify the Court's scheduling order by postponing the deadline for dispositive motions and the trial by approximately four months. Groupon first argues that there is good cause because discovery remains ongoing. This is unconvincing in light of the parties' failure to comply with the Court's August 13, 2015 order to set, among other things, a discovery cut-off date, Judge Freeman said. The parties have been aware of the deadline for filing dispositive motions for more than a year and could have made efforts to ensure the completion of discovery prior to the deadline or extend the deadline for dispositive motions before the day the motions were due, but they did not, the judge held. This plainly demonstrates a lack of diligence, the judge concluded. A full-text copy of Judge Freeman's Memorandum and Order is available at https://is.gd/EuGd01 from Leagle.com. William Mosley, Plaintiff, represented by Mani Sheik, Sheik Law, Inc.. Frances Mosley, Plaintiff, represented by Mani Sheik, Sheik Law, Inc.. Groupon, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dean N. Panos, Esq. -- dpanos@jenner.com -- Jenner And Block LLP, Kenneth Kiyul Lee, Esq. -- KLee@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Stephen Earl Carlson, Imai, Tadlock, Keeney & Cordery, LLP, Elizabeth Abbene Coleman, Esq. -- ecoleman@jenner.com -- Jenner and Block LLP, pro hac vice, Kelly Marie Morrison, Esq. -- kmorrison@jenner.com -- Jenner and Block LLP & Theodore Thomas Cordery, Imai Tadlock Keeney & Cordery, LLP. Imai Tadlock may be reached at: 100 Bush Street, Suite 1300 San Francisco, California 94104 Tel:(415) 675-7000 Fax:(415) 675-7008 Email: admin@itkc.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Amend Suit to Add Asbestos Claim Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge William E. Smith of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island denied High Rock Westminster Street, LLC's motion to amend its complaint against Bank of America, N.A., to add a claim that BOA breached a lease by not removing friable asbestos from the building at 111 Westminster Street, in Providence, Rhode Island. According to Judge Smith, it is clear that at nearly every stage in the litigation, which centers on BOA's obligations under a 10- year lease for the Building, High Rock knew or should have known about the facts underlying its asbestos claim, but, by its own admission, waited at least two and half years to bring it. This is, perhaps, the definition of "undue delay," Judge Smith said. A full-text copy of Judge Smith's Memorandum and Order dated September 7, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/RmRlN1 from Leagle.com. High Rock Westminster Street, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Cheryl B. Pinarchick, Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP. High Rock Westminster Street, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Lyne, Murphy & King, P.C., pro hac vice, Mary C. Dunn, Esq. -- mcd@blishcavlaw.com -- Blish & Cavanagh, LLP, Robert J. Cavanagh, Jr., Esq. -- jvc@blishcavlaw.com -- Blish & Cavanagh, Shawn Lu, Esq. -- slu@murphyking.com -- Murphy & King, P.C., pro hac vice & Thomas J. Alves, Esq. -- ela@blishcavlaw.com -- Blish & Cavanagh, LLP. Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Robert Clark Corrente, Esq. -- rcorrente@whelancorrente.com -- Whelan, Corrente, Flanders, Kinder & Siket LLP, Christopher N. Dawson, Esq. -- cdawson@whelancorrente.com -- Whelan, Corrente, Flanders, Kinder & Siket LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer G. Roma, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice, Kate J. Bergeron, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew G. Lindenbaum, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, PC, pro hac vice & Matthew H. Parker, Esq. -- mparker@whelancorrente.com -- Whelan, Corrente, Flanders, Kinder & Siket LLP. CBRE, Inc., Respondent, represented by Doreen M. Zankowski, Saul Ewing LLP, pro hac vice & Zachary W. Berk, Saul Ewing LLP. Jeffrey Petzgold, Respondent, represented by Zachary W. Berk, Esq. -- zberk@saul.com -- Saul Ewing LLP. Clinton Craig, Respondent, represented by Zachary W. Berk, Saul Ewing LLP. Bank of America, N.A., Counter Claimant, represented by Robert Clark Corrente, Whelan, Corrente, Flanders, Kinder & Siket LLP, Christopher N. Dawson, Whelan, Corrente, Flanders, Kinder & Siket LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer G. Roma, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice, Kate J. Bergeron, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew G. Lindenbaum, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, PC, pro hac vice & Matthew H. Parker, Whelan, Corrente, Flanders, Kinder & Siket LLP. High Rock Westminster Street, LLC, Counter Defendant, represented by Cheryl B. Pinarchick, Brown Rudnick Berlack Israels LLP, Daniel J. Lyne, Murphy & King, P.C., pro hac vice, Mary C. Dunn, Blish & Cavanagh, LLP, Michael K. O'Neil, Murphy & King, P.C., Robert J. Cavanagh, Jr., Blish & Cavanagh, Shawn Lu, Murphy & King, P.C., pro hac vice & Thomas J. Alves, Blish & Cavanagh, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wrongful Death Suit Remanded to NJ State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jose L. Linares of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in an opinion dated September 6, 2016, said he will grant the motion seeking remand to New Jersey state court of the asbestos-related action styled GILBERT PAUL HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-4038 (JLL)(D.N.J.). The motion to remand was filed by the plaintiff who, through the lawsuit, sought to recover damages for, among other things, wrongful death. Removal, according to the Plaintiff, was barred by the forum-defendant rule because two of the defendants -- Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., and Brenntag Specialities, Inc. -- are deemed to be citizens of, among other states, New Jersey. Judge Linares found that the Plaintiff has not fraudulently joined WCD, in contrast to the Defendants' arguments, because the claims asserted against WCD are not wholly insubstantial and frivolous. The complaint, Judge Linares, pointed out presents a straightforward claim based on products liability against WCD, i.e., that the decedent was harmed by the asbestos content of the talc allegedly supplied by WCD for the manufacturer of the talcum powder used by decedent. Judge Linares further found that the claims against BSI are not wholly insubstantial and frivolous, because it is properly named in its status as a successor in interest to WCD. CPC cannot reasonably argue that New Jersey law, or the law of any state, would bar these types of claims, the judge said. A full-text copy of Judge Linares's Opinion is available at https://is.gd/EEGXCc from Leagle.com. GILBERT PAUL HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, represented by ROBERT E. LYTLE, Esq. -- RLytle@szaferman.com -- SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, PC. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by GARY D. VAN LIEU, Esq. -- gvanlieu@ofwvlaw.com -- O'TOOLE FERNANDEZ WEINER VAN LIEU, LLC, JOSHUA S. LICHTENSTEIN, Esq. -- jsl@ofwvlaw.com -- & STEVEN ALLEN WEINER, Esq. -- sweiner@ofwvlaw.com -- O'TOOLE FERNANDEZ WEINER VAN LIEU LLC. CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY, Defendant, represented by ANDREW N. KESSLER, Esq. -- akessler@hoaglandlongo.com -- HOAGLAND, LONGO, MORAN, DUNST & DOUKAS, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Not Entitled to Coverage for Defense Costs ---------------------------------------------------------------- From 1981 to 1985, First State Insurance Company; Twin City Fire Insurance Company; New England Reinsurance Corporation; Nutmeg Insurance Company (collectively, the Defendants), insured the City of Phoenix against liability for bodily injury occurring during that time. The insurance applied only to liability incurred above the City's $500,000 self-insured retention. In 2013, a third party sued the City for bodily injury caused by asbestos exposure that occurred from 1967 to 1993. The City settled the lawsuit for $500,000 and spent more than $1,400,000 in defense costs. The Defendants denied coverage for these expenses. The City claims the Defendants violated their policy terms and acted in bad faith. In an order dated September 2, 2016, Judge Neil V. Wake of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and denied the City's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Judge Wake further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment against the Plaintiff and in favor of the Defendants that the Plaintiff take nothing, and terminate the case. Judge Wake noted that the parties agree that the asbestos exposure was an "occurrence" that triggered The Hartford's policies. The question is whether the City's $500,000 settlement payment and $1,400,000 in defense costs are covered and therefore reimbursable under any of the policies. Judge Wake held that because the parties have not presented evidence of negotiations or other communications between the City and The Hartford when the City purchased the policies, resolution of the disputes turns on the policy terms, the nature of the coverages, the relation among the coverages, and the reasonable expectations of sophisticated participants in the insurance industry. Judge Wake further held that even when an excess policy is silent on whether underlying defense costs satisfy the underlying policy limit, it is unreasonable for a sophisticated insured, such as the Plaintiff, to assume they do. Judge Wake added that the excess policies do not merely exclude defense costs form satisfying the retained limit. They also speak explicitly to how defense costs are to treated. The case is City of Phoenix, Plaintiff, v. First State Insurance Company; Twin City Fire Insurance Company; New England Reinsurance Corporation; Nutmeg Insurance Company, Defendants, No. CV-15- 00511-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz.). A full-text copy of the Order is available at https://is.gd/7Ao0Jq from Leagle.com. City of Phoenix, Plaintiff, represented by Emil John Kotalik, Jr., Esq. -- ejk@pklawyers.com -- Peshkin & Kotalik PC. City of Phoenix, Plaintiff, represented by Tracy R. Nadzieja, Esq. -- trn@pklawyers.com -- Peshkin & Kotalik PC. First State Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by James P. Ruggeri, Esq. -- jruggeri@goodwin.com -- Shipman & Goodwin LLP, Joshua Philip Mayer, Esq. -- jmayer@goodwin.com -- Shipman & Goodwin LLP & Robert Anthony Justman, Esq. -- rjustman@meagher.com -- Meagher & Geer PLLP. Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by James P. Ruggeri, Shipman & Goodwin LLP, Joshua Philip Mayer, Shipman & Goodwin LLP & Robert Anthony Justman, Meagher & Geer PLLP. New England Reinsurance Corporation, Defendant, represented by James P. Ruggeri, Shipman & Goodwin LLP, Joshua Philip Mayer, Shipman & Goodwin LLP & Robert Anthony Justman, Meagher & Geer PLLP. Nutmeg Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by James P. Ruggeri, Shipman & Goodwin LLP, Joshua Philip Mayer, Shipman & Goodwin LLP & Robert Anthony Justman, Meagher & Geer PLLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYCHA's Claims vs. G-I Holdings Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- Judge Rosemary Gambardella of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey granted in its entirety G-I Holdings, Inc., et al.'s motion for summary judgment against the New York City Housing Authority on its indemnity and restitution claims, and denied NYCHA's cross-motion for partial summary judgment as to liability. G-I Holdings is the successor-in-interest to GAF Corporation, an entity named in approximately 500,000 asbestos-related lawsuits. NYCHA filed its proof of claim on October 13, 2008, for asbestos property damage in the amount of $500 million to pay for the remediation of NYCHA owned housing complexes and buildings where, it was alleged, asbestos-containing products originally manufactured, mined, distributed, and sold by the debtors or its predecessors-in-interest were installed. NYCHA further alleged that it incurred costs necessary to abate the hazards by replacing such products with non-toxic substitutes. On December 10, 2008, G-I objected to NYCHA's Proof of Claim on the basis that NYCHA's claims have long since been time-barred, and NYCHA was aware of the purported damage to its buildings from the asbestos containing materials long before January 5, 2008, the cutoff date for such claims. On December 14, 2010, the court entered a decision on G-I's objection and determined that NYCHA's tort based claims, including negligence, personal injury, and/or property damage, were time- barred. On December 15, 2014, G-I filed a motion for summary judgment on NYCHA's causes of action for indemnity and restitution, making three main arguments in support of its position: 1) NYCHA cannot make the factual or legal showing necessary to sustain claims for equitable indemnity and restitution; 2) NYCHA's causes of action for equitable indemnity and restitution are recast time-barred tort claims; and 3) NYCHA's equitable claims are precluded by laches and should be dismissed. On February 9, 2014, NYCHA also filed a cross motion for partial summary judgment as to liability on its restitution and indemnity claims, asserting that it has "provided more than sufficient evidence to prove the material facts of each" of the elements that the court identified in its 2010 opinion to establish claims for true restitution and indemnity and that on the "significant" question whether the asbestos containing materials at issue are "inherently dangerous," that G-I has demonstrated that it has no scientific and evidence-based proof that the products of its predecessors in NYCHA buildings are not hazardous to human health. Judge Gambardella held that, as a matter of law, summary judgment must be granted in favor of G-I and against NYCHA with respect to NYCHA's common law indemnity claim because, although NYCHA owes a duty to its tenants, that duty does not extend, as a matter of law, to G-I to indemnify NYCHA for its own activities. Judge Gambardella also concluded that G-I is entitled to summary judgment on NYCHA's restitution claims. The judge held that an award for restitution damages to NYCHA is not appropriate because to do so would make damages recoverable from a party who supplied any potentially hazardous materials or substances. The judge found that, NYCHA in essence, has failed to show it fulfilled a duty also owed by G-I in response to action that was "immediately necessary" to protect "public decency, health, or safety." Judge Gambardella found no genuine dispute as to any material fact regarding the lack of urgency as it pertains to NYCHA's restitution claims. Lastly, Judge Gambardella found that NYCHA's indemnity and restitution claims are recast time-barred tort claims and as such must be dismissed. A full-text copy of Judge Gambardella's September 9, 2016 opinion is available at http://bankrupt.com/misc/njb01-30135-11004.pdf Reorganized Debtors, G-I Holdings, Inc., et al are represented by: Dennis J. O'Grady, Esq. Mark E. Hall, Esq. RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND & PERRETTI, LLP Headquarters Plaza One Speedwell Avenue Morristown, NJ 07962-1901 Tel: (973)538-0800 Fax: (973)538-1984 Email: dogrady@riker.com mhall@riker.com -- and -- Andrew Rossman, Esq. Scott C. Shelley, Esq. Jacob J. Waldman, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL, URQUHART & SULLIVAN, L.P. 51 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010 Tel: (212)849-7000 Fax: (212)849-7100 Email: andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com scottshelley@quinnemanuel.com jacobwaldman@quinnemanuel.com -- and -- Marc J. Kurzman, Esq. SANDAK, HENNESSEY & GRECO, LLP 707 Summer Avenue Stamford, CT 06901 Tel: (203)425-4200 Fax: (203)325-8608 Email: mkurzman@carmodylaw.com New York City Housing Authority is represented by: Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD, LLP Princeton Pike Corporate Center 997 Lenox Drive -- Building 3 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-2311 Tel: (609)896-3600 Fax: (609)896-1469 Email: jmpollock@foxrothschild.com -- and -- Philip J. Goodman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. GOODMAN, P.C. 280 North Old Woodward Avenue -- Suite 407 Birmingham, MI 48009 -- and -- Christopher M. Placitella, Esq. Jared M. Placitella, Esq. Joel Rosen, Esq. Stewart L. Cohen, Esq. Harry M. Roth, Esq. COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH. P.C. 2001 Market Street -- Suite 2900 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (866)291-7088 Fax: (215)567-6019 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Angus" to State Court Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Motion to Remand to the San Francisco Superior Court of the case captioned JAMES ANGUS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN CRANE INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-03532-JST (N.D. Calif.). Judge Tigar also granted the Plaintiffs' request for an award of attorneys' fees and costs is also granted. The Plaintiffs are citizens of Virginia. The Defendant, a business organized under the laws of Delaware, has its principal place of business in Illinois. The Plaintiffs filed the asbestos action in San Francisco Superior Court. Nearly two years later, on June 23, 2016, Defendant John Crane Inc. removed this case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The Defendant's Notice of Removal was filed four days before trial was set to begin on June 27, 2016. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. Judge Tigar held that the Defendant's theory of removal was so flawed as to be objectively unreasonable. Moreover, the Defendant appears to have acted in bad faith, waiting until four days before trial was to commence before filing its Notice of Removal, Judge Tigar further held. A full-text copy of the Order dated August 22, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/h1zQqq from Leagle.com. James Angus, Plaintiff, is represented by Alan R. Brayton, Esq. -- Brayton Purcell LLP, David R. Donadio, Esq. -- Brayton Purcell LLP, James Patrick Nevin, Jr., Esq. -- Brayton Purcell, Nancy Teresa Williams, Esq. -- Brayton-Purcell & Richard Martin Grant, Esq. -- Brayton Purcell LLP. Juana Angus, Plaintiff, is represented by Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP, David R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP, James Patrick Nevin, Jr., Brayton Purcell, Nancy Teresa Williams, Brayton- Purcell & Richard Martin Grant, Brayton Purcell LLP. John Crane Inc., Defendant, is represented by Alex G. Taheri, Esq. -- Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, Bill D. Fountain, Esq. - - bfountain@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP & Claire Christine Weglarz, Esq. -- cweglarz@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell Thackston Young LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Flowserve Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Vega" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned GASPAR HERNANDEZ-VEGA, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP. (as Successor to Buffalo Pumps, Inc.) et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190367/2014, Motion Seq. No. 009, 2016 NY Slip Op 31607(U)(N.Y. Sup.), Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant Flowserve's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, except as to plaintiff's claims relating to Rockwell pumps, which are dismissed as it is undisputed that the defendant never manufactured Rockwell pumps. This action arises out of claims by plaintiff Gaspar Hernandez- Vega that he developed mesothelioma as a result of his alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products while working as a pipefitter. The plaintiff alleges that during his deposition, he testified interchangeably to the fact that he worked with "Edward valves," "Vogt valves," and "Edward-Vogt valves" (collectively, "Flowserve valves") that exposed him to asbestos through his changing of the packing and gaskets applied to those valves. The Plaintiff further asserts that he knew he worked with Flowserve valves because the name was on a tag on the side of the valve's body. Additionally, the plaintiff states that he knew that he was exposed to asbestos from working on packing and gaskets within Flowserve valves. While performing work on Flowserve valves, the plaintiff states that he breathed in visible asbestos dust created by his work. The Plaintiff emphasizes that he identified Flowserve valves both as Edward valves and as Vogt valves at various points in his deposition. Flowserve's argument in support of it motion for summary judgment stems from its emphasis on the fact that the plaintiff specifically identified "Edward-Vogt" valves at his discovery deposition and video deposition. Additionally, Flowserve submits that the plaintiff testified during his discovery deposition to working with "Rockwell pumps," which it would be responsible for as a successor to the Rockwell Manufacturing Company. Flowserve states that the plaintiff's testimony represents a misidentification, since Edward-Vogt valves did not come into existence until 1998 and Flowserve and its predecessor (Rockwell Manufacturing Company) never manufactured, distributed or sold pumps of any kind. In further support of its motion, Flowserve submits the affidavit of David Osbourne, who worked for the company for forty-three years in various engineering, sales, and marketing positions. Osbourne states that he is fully familiar with Flowserve's historic valve products, although he does not specify which business records, if any, he reviewed to gain his knowledge, particularly for the time period prior to his employment. He states that the Edward-Vogt valve line did not come into existence until 1998 after a merger between the Vogt Valve Company and Edward Valves, Inc. Osbourne further submits that prior to 1998, there was no valve manufactured, labeled, or branded "Edward-Vogt." As such, Flowserve argues that the plaintiff could not have worked with any Edward-Vogt valves during his career as a pipefitter in the 1960s and 1970s, as they did not exist. Judge Moulton held that, here, Flowserve has failed to meet its initial burden. Flowserve proffers no evidentiary proofs demonstrating that its valves were not at the sites that the plaintiff worked at, did not contain asbestos, and did not otherwise require the use of asbestos "as a matter of design, mechanics or economic necessity." Rather, Flowserve points to the plaintiff's equivocal testimony with respect to whether he was exposed to "Edward valves," "Vogt valves," or "Edward-Vogt valves." Such evidence "pointing to gaps in an opponent's evidence is insufficient to demonstrate a movant's entitlement to summary judgment," Judge Moulton said. By not proffering affirmative evidence that its products could not have contributed to the plaintiff's injury, Flowserve has failed to meet its burden, Judge Moulton concluded. A full-text copy of the Decision and Order dated August 22, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/8PGywz from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment OK in "Malone" Recommended ------------------------------------------------------------ In the asbestos-related case captioned CHARLES D. MALONE and ELIZABETH MALONE, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-406-GMS-SRF (D. Del.), there are three motions for summary judgment before the court in this asbestos-related personal injury action. The motions were filed by Defendants Cummins, Inc., Foster Wheeler Corporation, and CBS Corporation. Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware recommended granting Cummins' motion for summary judgment as there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute as to whether Mr. Malone was exposed to an asbestos-containing Cummins product with sufficient frequency, regularity, and proximity to meet Mississippi's product nexus requirement. Magistrate Fallon also recommended granting CBS' motion for summary judgment as there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute regarding whether Mr. Malone was exposed to an asbestos- containing product manufactured or distributed by Westinghouse. Magistrate Fallon recommended granting Foster Wheeler's motion for summary judgment as there is no issue of material fact in dispute as to whether exposure to an asbestos-containing Foster Wheeler product caused Mr. Malone's alleged injury. A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated August 29, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/xkudba from Leagle.com. Charles D. Malone, Plaintiff, is represented by David W. deBruin, The deBruin Firm LLC & Charles E. Soechting, Jr., pro hac vice. Elizabeth Malone, Plaintiff, is represented by David W. deBruin, The deBruin Firm LLC. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Esq. -- Wilbraham Lawler & Buba. Armstrong International Inc., Defendant, is represented by Robert Alexander Ranieri, Esq. -- rranieri@dmclaw.com -- Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.. Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, is represented by Krista Reale Samis, Esq. -- ksamis@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC. CBS Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq. -- bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Esq. -- smartyniak@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC. Crane Co., Defendant, is represented by Nicholas E. Skiles, Esq. - - nskiles@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., Defendant, is represented by Andrew G. Ahern, III, Esq., Joseph W. Benson, Esq.. Cummins Inc., Defendant, is represented by Barbara Anne Fruehauf, Esq. -- Wilbraham Lawler & Buba. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. General Electric Company, Defendant, is represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC. Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, is represented by Jessica Lee Tyler, Esq. -- JLTyler@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by Sally J. Daugherty, Esq. -- Salmon Ricchezza Singer & Turchi LLP. Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, is represented by Eric Scott Thompson, Esq. -- ethompson@fandpnet.com -- Franklin & Prokopik. Pfizer Inc., Defendant, is represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Esq. -- Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP. Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Donald Robert Kinsley, Esq. -- drk@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC & Paul A. Bradley, Esq. -- pab@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley & Anderson LLC. William Powell Company, Defendant, is represented by Anne Kai Seelaus, Esq. -- Barnard, Mezzanotte, Pinnie and Seelaus. Zurn Industries LLC, Defendant, is represented by Daniel Partick Daly, Kelley Jasons McGowan Spinelli & Hanna LLP. Trane US Inc., Defendant, is represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Atwood & Morrill Company Inc., Defendant, is represented by Eric Scott Thompson, Franklin & Prokopik. Flowserve US Inc. Solely as Successor to Edward Valves, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Willard F. Preston, III, Goldfein & Joseph. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Circ. Remands "Jefferson" to District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated the order of the district court and remanded to the district court for further proceedings the case JOANNIE L. JEFFERSON; ADRAINE J. GEORGES; DERRIE K. JEFFERSON; RYAN F. JEFFERSON; THOMAS H. JEFFERSON, IV; KEVIN L. JEFFERSON; BRAD A. JEFFERSON; LISA M. WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, Defendant-Appellant, No. 15-30211, Summary Calendar (5th Cir.). Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London appeals the district court's remand of this case to state court. Arguing that complete diversity existed at the time of remand between the plaintiffs and Lloyd's, the only remaining defendant, Lloyd's contends that the court was without discretion to remand the case. Joannie Jefferson and other plaintiffs sued various defendants in Louisiana state court for various state-law claims related to asbestos exposure. The plaintiffs eventually amended their complaint to name Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London as an additional defendant on the theory that it was liable as an excess insurer. Subsequently, one of the original defendants named the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa, Ltd. (IDC) and another entity as third-party defendants. IDC removed the case to federal district court under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, asserting that it was a "political subdivision, agency or instrumentality" of the South African government. The propriety of that removal is not in question. Once in federal court, the case was transferred to the court overseeing the multidistrict litigation on asbestos. That court granted summary judgment in favor of the South African entities and, exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims, transferred the case back to the Eastern District of Louisiana. After more defendants were dismissed pursuant to a settlement, Lloyd's was the sole remaining defendant in the case. The district court then, sua sponte, remanded the matter back to Louisiana state court in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1367(c) after asserting that "the remaining parties in the matter are not diverse." Lloyd's timely appealed, arguing that the remaining parties were in fact diverse and the district court thus had no discretion to remand the case. The Fifth Circuit held that due to the absence of allegations or evidence that would allow it to conclusively address this claim, it vacates the district court's remand order and remands the case to district court for further proceedings. A full-text copy of the Opinion dated August 25, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/P46FVD from Leagle.com. Paula Marcello Wellons, Esq. for Defendant-Appellant. Jody Edward Anderman, Esq. for Plaintiff-Appellee. Jules Burton LeBlanc, IV, Esq. for Plaintiff-Appellee. Cameron Ray Waddell, Esq. for Plaintiff-Appellee. Denyse Finn Clancy, Esq. for Plaintiff-Appellee. Deborah Ashbrooke Tullis, Esq. for Defendant-Appellant. Renee Melancon, Esq. for Plaintiff-Appellee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Property Owners Win Summary Judgment Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MARCI JONES Plaintiff, v. ANDY ANDERSON and NANCY ANDERSON d/b/a BAR LO KENNELS GROOMING Defendants, Case No. 4:14CV366 (E.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Don D. Bush of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff was employed by Noble Finance. Noble Finance rented a commercial building from Defendants Andy and Nancy Anderson. The Plaintiff claims that, during the course of her employment, she suffered personal injuries from being exposed to asbestos, mold and dead animals. The Plaintiff's suit against the Defendants includes claims for her personal injuries as well as loss of earning capacity and the cost of medical treatment. In their motion, the Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because they were not the possessor of the property and thus owed no duty to the Plaintiff. The Defendants further argue that, even if they owed a duty to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's claims fail because she cannot meet her burden regarding causation and damages as they relate to her asbestosis claim as well as her claim involving mold and other toxins. The Defendants also argue that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because all of the Plaintiff's claims fail for the reason that limitations had passed. Finally, the Defendants argue that the Plaintiff cannot produce any evidence that the Defendants are liable in their capacity as the proprietors of "Bar Lo Kennels Grooming." Judge Bush pointed out that the Plaintiff's suit was filed on June 6, 2014. Therefore, if her claims accrued prior to June 6, 2012, they are time barred. Judge Bush noted that the Defendants have shown through the summary judgment record that the Plaintiff had "access to information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that [s]he likely suffers from a work-related injury" before June 6, 2012. A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 31, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/xuxwON from Leagle.com. Marci Jones, Plaintiff, is represented by Jack F. Tracy, Esq. -- Jack Tracy Attorney. Marci Jones, Plaintiff, is represented by Weldon E. Nesbitt, Esq. -- Weldon E. Nesbitt, PC. Andy Anderson, Defendant, is represented by Ronald Wesley Tidwell, Esq. -- Ellis & Tidwell. Nancy Anderson, Defendant, is represented by Ronald Wesley Tidwell, Ellis & Tidwell. Bar Lo Kennels Grooming, Defendant, is represented by Ronald Wesley Tidwell, Ellis & Tidwell. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atwood, Carrier Win Summary Ruling in "Mitchell" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JIMMY R. MITCHELL AND CONNIE MITCHELL, his wife Plaintiffs, v. ATWOOD & MORILL CO., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-958-SLR-SRF (D. Del.), Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware recommended granting the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. Jimmy and Connie Mitchell filed the asbestos action in the Delaware Superior Court against multiple defendants on July 30, 2015, asserting personal injury claims arising from Mr. Mitchell's alleged exposure to asbestos. Defendant Foster Wheeler removed the action to this court on October 22, 2015. Atwood filed its motion for summary judgment on June 10, 2016. Carrier filed its motion on June 24, 2016. The Plaintiffs did not respond to Defendants' motions. On July 27, 2016, Counsel for Carrier filed a letter with the court seeking dismissal given the Plaintiffs' failure to oppose its summary judgment motion. Atwood represents that there is no evidence in the record regarding exposure to an Atwood product. The Plaintiffs have not responded with any evidence in the record of product identification as to the moving Defendant. Carrier argues that the evidence does not show that it manufactured or supplied the insulation from which Mr. Mitchell alleges exposure. Magistrate Fallon held that Atwood's motion for summary judgment should be granted. Atwood asserts that there is "a complete absence of evidence" regarding exposure to an asbestos-containing Atwood product "because there are no facts on the record relative to Atwood." Because the Plaintiffs have not set forth any evidence to refute this assertion, there is no evidence to establish that exposure to an Atwood product was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Mitchell's alleged injury, Magistrate Fallon concluded. Magistrate Fallon also concluded that Carrier's motion for summary judgment should be granted. Carrier argues that the evidence does not show that it manufactured or supplied the insulation from which Mr. Mitchell alleges exposure. Magistrate Fallon held that under maritime law, a manufacturer has no liability for harms caused by a product it did not manufacture or distribute. Mr. Mitchell only associates asbestos with external insulation on Carrier blowers. However, Carrier submitted an affidavit from Allen Hopkins, Contract Manger-Marine Systems Group for Carrier, indicating that Carrier did not manufacture such asbestos- containing insulation. The Plaintiffs do not submit any evidence to dispute this sworn testimony. Accordingly, there is no evidence to establish that exposure to an asbestos-containing Carrier product was a substantial factor in causing Mr. Mitchell's alleged injury, Magistrate Fallon concluded. A full-text copy of the Report and Recommendation dated August 29, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/e0wOuB from Leagle.com. Jimmy R. Mitchell, Plaintiff, is represented by Allen Dale Bowers, II, Esq. -- Law Office of A. Dale Bowers. Connie Mitchell, Plaintiff, is represented by Allen Dale Bowers, II, Esq. -- Law Office of A. Dale Bowers. Atwood & Morrill Co., Defendant, is represented by Eric Scott Thompson, Esq. -- Franklin & Prokopik & Paul D. Sunshine, McGivney & Kluger, P.C.. Carrier Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Armand J. Della Porta, Jr., Esq. -- ajdellaporta@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin & Jessica Lee Tyler, Esq. -- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin. Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, is represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Esq. -- bvalocchi@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC, Allison L. Texter, Esq. -- atexter@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Esq. -- smartyniak@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell LLC. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Kelly A. Costello, Esq. -- kelly.costello@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. Nash Engineering Company, Defendant, is represented by Eric Scott Thompson, Esq. -- ethompson@fandpnet.com -- Franklin & Prokopik & Paul D. Sunshine, Esq. -- psunshine@mklaw.us.com -- McGivney & Kluger, P.C.. Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, is represented by Beth E. Valocchi, Swartz Campbell LLC, Allison L. Texter, Swartz Campbell LLC & Shawn Edward Martyniak, Swartz Campbell LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: AT&T Wins Summary Judgment in "Jones" ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned DANIELLE TETTEH, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of DANIEL L. JONES, deceased, Plaintiff, v. ALCATEL-LUCENT USA, INC., et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N14C-08-023 ASB (Del. Sup.), Judge Vivian L. Medinilla of the Superior Court of Delaware granted Defendant AT&T Corp.'s bid for summary judgment, holding that the Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact with respect to whether AT&T could be held liable for Jones' work-place injury based on the "negligent performance of an undertaking" under Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Daniel Jones was an employee of Western Electric Company. Defendant AT&T Corp. is the former corporate parent of Western Electric Company. Plaintiff Danielle Tetteh, individually and as administrator of the Estate of Daniel Jones, seeks to hold AT&T liable under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 324A, for Daniel Jones' alleged asbestos-related work injury. AT&T moves for summary judgment. AT&T did not undertake to render services to WECO which it should have recognized as necessary for the protection of WECO's employees, including Jones, Judge Medinilla said. The Plaintiff has not presented evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer, without undue speculation, that AT&T assumed, and then negligently breached, WECO's duty to Jones while he was working for WECO, the judge added. A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 31, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/cva5Gm from Leagle.com Beverly L. Bove, Esquire, Esq. -- Law Office of Beverly L. Bove, Wilmington, Delaware, and Jackalyn A. Olinger, Esquire -- jolinger@mrhfmlaw.com -- Maune, Raichle, Hartley, French & Mudd LLC, St. Louis, MO, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. John C. Phillips, Jr., Esquire -- jcp@pgmhlaw.com -- Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware. Attorney for Defendant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Silver's Bid to Continue Bail Partly Granted ------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. SHELDON SILVER, Defendant, No. 15-CR-093 (VEC)(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Valerie Caproni of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Silver's motion to continue bail pending appeal and to stay the fine and forfeiture orders pending appeal. On November 30, 2015, Sheldon Silver, former Speaker of the New York State Assembly, was convicted on two counts of honest services mail fraud, two counts of honest services wire fraud, two counts of extortion under color of official right, and one count of money laundering. On May 3, 2016, Silver was sentenced to imprisonment and to pay a financial penalty and ordered to forfeit the proceeds of the crimes. Silver moves to continue bail and to stay the fine and forfeiture orders pending appeal. Silver orchestrated two criminal schemes in which he abused his position as the Speaker of the New York State Assembly and as an elected Assemblyman for unlawful personal gain. The two schemes follow the same basic model: Silver received bribes and kickbacks in the form of referral fees from third party law firms in exchange for actual and promised official actions. Silver also engaged in money laundering pursuant to which he invested the proceeds of his unlawful schemes into private, exclusive investment vehicles. In support of his motion to continue bail, Silver primarily argues that the scope of "official action" in a quid pro quo -- an element of both honest services fraud and extortion under color of official right -- has changed dramatically due to the Supreme Court's decision in McDonnell v. United States, No. 15-474. According to Silver, the jury charge defining official action was deficient under McDonnell, and many of the alleged official acts introduced at trial do not rise to the level of official action after McDonnell. Thus, there was an error in the jury charge, and the error was not harmless because the jury may have improperly convicted Silver based on conduct that is not illegal under McDonnell, which would require reversal of the conviction or a new trial as to all counts. Silver contends that there is therefore a substantial question of law and fact likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial, thereby requiring that Silver's bail be continued pending his appeal. Silver also moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 38(c) and 32.2(d) to stay the financial penalty and forfeiture order pending appeal. He asserts that he has a meritorious appeal and that imposing the penalties now would irreparably harm him and his wife because they would need to sell their homes in order to pay the fine. The Court agrees that, in light of McDonnell, the continuation of bail pending appeal and a stay of certain of the financial penalties are warranted. A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 25, 2016 is available at https://is.gd/XKS4qf from Leagle.com. Dr. Robert Taub, Interested Party, is represented by Lisa R. Zornberg, Esq. -- lzornberg@lswlaw.com --Lankler Siffert & Wohl LLP. The New York Times Company, Intervenor, is represented by David Edward McCraw, Esq. -- The New York Times Company. NBC Universal Media, LLC, Intervenor, is represented by Daniel M. Kummer, Esq. -- NBC Universal Media LLC. USA, Plaintiff, is represented by Andrew Daniel Goldstein, United States Attorney's Office, SDNY, Carrie Heather Cohen, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY, Howard Seth Master, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY & James M. McDonald, Us Doj, pro hac vice. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Still Defends Suits at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Owens-Illinois Group, Inc., has determined that it is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately 2,000 plaintiffs and claimants, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. The Company states, "OI Inc. is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily injury and death as a result of exposure to asbestos. From 1948 to 1958, one of OI Inc.'s former business units commercially produced and sold approximately $40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-silicate based insulation material containing asbestos. OI Inc. sold its insulation business unit at the end of April 1958. The typical asbestos personal injury lawsuit alleges various theories of liability, including negligence, gross negligence and strict liability and seeks compensatory and, in some cases, punitive damages in various amounts (herein referred to as "asbestos claims"). "As of June 30, 2016, OI Inc. has determined that it is a named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving approximately 2,000 plaintiffs and claimants. Based on an analysis of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2015, approximately 82% of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought, or in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court. Approximately 11% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages above the jurisdictional minimum up to, and including, $15 million or less, and 7% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than $15 million but less than or equal to $100 million. "As indicated by the foregoing summary, current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages. OI Inc.'s experience resolving hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief alleged in a complaint bears little relevance to a claim's merits or disposition value. Rather, the amount potentially recoverable is determined by such factors as the type and severity of the plaintiff's asbestos disease, the plaintiff's medical history and exposure to other disease-causing agents, the product identification evidence against OI Inc. and other co-defendants, the defenses available to OI Inc. and other co-defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which the claim is made, and the plaintiff's firm representing the claimant. "In addition to the pending claims set forth above, OI Inc. has claims-handling agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the country. These agreements require evaluation and negotiation regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable probability of exposure to a product manufactured by OI Inc.'s former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in 1958." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Disposed 396K Claims at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Owens-Illinois, Inc., disposed approximately 396,000 asbestos claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. "OI Inc. has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Based upon its past experience, OI Inc. believes that these categories of lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and they are not included in the above description of pending matters or in the following description of disposed matters. "Since receiving its first asbestos claim, OI Inc. as of June 30, 2016, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately 396,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment per claim of approximately $9,200. OI Inc.'s asbestos indemnity payments have varied on a per claim basis, and are expected to continue to vary considerably over time. Asbestos-related cash payments for 2015, 2014 and 2013 were $138 million, $148 million, and $158 million, respectively. The OI Inc.'s cash payments per claim disposed (inclusive of legal costs) were approximately $95,000, $81,000 and $93,000 for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair Units Had 4,000 Claims at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------- There were 4,000 claims outstanding against Pentair PLC's subsidiaries, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing of the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. The Company states, "Our subsidiaries and numerous other companies are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases typically involve product liability claims based primarily on allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third- parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of corporate defendants. While we have observed an increase in the number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. Our historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate, settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the future. "As of June 30, 2016, there were approximately 4,000 claims outstanding against our subsidiaries. This amount includes adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted. This amount is not adjusted for claims that identify incorrect defendants or duplicate other actions. In addition, the amount does not include certain claims pending against third parties for which we have been provided an indemnification. Periodically, we perform an analysis with the assistance of outside counsel and other experts to update our estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for resolving claims also impacts these estimates. Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors, including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the solvency and creditworthiness of insurers. "Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $233.0 million and $237.9 million as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for pending and future claims and related defense costs. Our estimated receivable for insurance recoveries was $109.0 million and $111.0 million as of June 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. "The amounts recorded by us for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance-related assets are based on our strategies for resolving our asbestos claims and currently available information as well as estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include the number and type of new claims filed each year, the average cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues with insurance carriers, the amounts of insurance and the related solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers, and the indemnifications we have provided to and received from third parties. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables are subject to greater uncertainty in the latter portion of the projection period. Other factors that may affect our liability and cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those recorded if assumptions used in our calculations vary significantly from actual results." ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Claims Pursued Against Quaker Chemical ---------------------------------------------------------- Quaker Chemical Corporation had no asbestos claims have been actively pursued, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. The Company states, "An inactive subsidiary of AC Products, Inc., that was acquired in 1978 sold certain products containing asbestos, primarily on an installed basis, and is among the defendants in numerous lawsuits alleging injury due to exposure to asbestos. The subsidiary discontinued operations in 1991 and has no remaining assets other than the proceeds received from insurance settlements. The overwhelming majority of these claims have been disposed of without payment and there have been no adverse judgments against the subsidiary. Based on a continued analysis of the existing and anticipated future claims against this subsidiary, it is currently projected that the subsidiary's total liability over the next 50 years for these claims is less than $3.0 million (excluding costs of defense). Although the Company has also been named as a defendant in certain of these cases, no claims have been actively pursued against the Company, and the Company has not contributed to the defense or settlement of any of these cases pursued against the subsidiary. These cases were handled by the subsidiary's primary and excess insurers who had agreed in 1997 to pay all defense costs and be responsible for all damages assessed against the subsidiary arising out of existing and future asbestos claims up to the aggregate limits of their policies. A significant portion of this primary insurance coverage was provided by an insurer that is insolvent, and the other primary insurers asserted that the aggregate limits of their policies have been exhausted. The subsidiary challenged the applicability of these limits to the claims being brought against the subsidiary. In response, two of the three carriers entered into separate settlement and release agreements with the subsidiary in 2005 and 2007 for $15.0 million and $20.0 million, respectively. The proceeds of both settlements are restricted and can only be used to pay claims and costs of defense associated with the subsidiary's asbestos litigation. In 2007, the subsidiary and the remaining primary insurance carrier entered into a Claim Handling and Funding Agreement, under which the carrier is paying 27% of defense and indemnity costs incurred by or on behalf of the subsidiary in connection with asbestos bodily injury claims. The agreement continues until terminated and can only be terminated by either party by providing a minimum of two years prior written notice. As of June 30, 2016, no notice of termination has been given under this agreement. At the end of the term of the agreement, the subsidiary may choose to again pursue its claim against this insurer regarding the application of the policy limits. The Company believes that, if the coverage issues under the primary policies with the remaining carrier are resolved adversely to the subsidiary and all settlement proceeds were used, the subsidiary may have limited additional coverage from a state guarantee fund established following the insolvency of one of the subsidiary's primary insurers. Nevertheless, liabilities in respect of claims may exceed the assets and coverage available to the subsidiary." ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Had 805 Active Cases at June 30 ----------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corporation was a defendant in approximately 805 active cases involving approximately 3,300 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016 The company states, "As of June 30, 2016, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 805 active cases involving approximately 3,300 plaintiffs. The vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants. At December 31, 2015, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 820 active cases involving approximately 3,315 plaintiffs. About 2,500, or approximately 76 percent, of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs. During the six months ended June 30, 2016, dismissals, settlements and other dispositions resolved approximately 145 cases, and new case filings added approximately 130 cases. During 2015, settlements and other dispositions resolved approximately 415 cases, and new case filings added approximately 275 cases. "Historically, asbestos-related claims against U. S. Steel fall into three major groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were exposed to asbestos on the premises of U. S. Steel facilities; (2) claims made by persons allegedly exposed to products manufactured by U. S. Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and maritime laws by employees of former operations of U. S. Steel. "The amount U. S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not material to U. S. Steel's financial condition. However, U. S. Steel is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos- related claims due to a number of uncertainties, including (1) the rates at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4) uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to address asbestos-related claims. Despite these uncertainties, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on U. S. Steel's financial condition, although the resolution of such matters could significantly impact results of operations for a particular quarter." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $407MM Liability at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Union Carbide Corporation had $407 million asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing of the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. The Company states, "The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos- containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the Corporation's products. "The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future claims. "Based on a study completed in January 2003 by Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation (now known as Ankura Consulting Group, LLC ("Ankura") as a result of the March 2016 merger of Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation and Ankura), the Corporation increased its December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2 billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Since then, the Corporation has compared current asbestos claim and resolution activity to the results of the most recent Ankura study at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual continues to be appropriate. In addition, the Corporation has requested Ankura to review the Corporation's historical asbestos claim and resolution activity each year since 2004 to determine the appropriateness of updating the most recent Ankura study. "In October 2015, the Corporation requested Ankura to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine the appropriateness of updating its December 2014 study. In response to that request, Ankura reviewed and analyzed data through September 30, 2015. In December 2015, Ankura stated that an update of its study would not provide a more likely estimate of future events than the estimate reflected in the December 2014 study and, therefore, the estimate in that study remained applicable. Based on the Corporation's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution activity and Ankura's response, the Corporation determined that no change to the accrual was required. The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $437 million at December 31, 2015, and approximately 21 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 79 percent related to future claims. "Based on the Corporation's review of 2016 activity, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at June 30, 2016. The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims was $407 million at June 30, 2016. Approximately 22 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 78 percent related to future claims. "The Corporation has receivables for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability as well as receivables for defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that have settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage. The Corporation continues to believe that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from all insurance carriers is probable of collection. At June 30, 2016, the Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability and defense and resolution costs was $44 million ($61 million at December 31, 2015). "The Corporation expenses defense costs as incurred. The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs, net of insurance, was $18 million for the second quarter of 2016 ($21 million in the second quarter of 2015) and $35 million in the first six months of 2016 ($45 million in the first six months of 2015), and reflected in "Cost of sales" in the consolidated statements of income." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trimas Corp. Had 950 Pending Cases at June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- Trimas Corporation had 950 pending cases involving an aggregate of 6,031 claimants alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016. The Company states, "As of June 30, 2016, the Company was a party to 950 pending cases involving an aggregate of 6,031 claimants alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or distributed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries for use primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries. "In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were distributed or used. "The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos- related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which product identification can be made may increase, and the Company may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things, claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the amount sought. Of the 6,031 claims pending at June 30, 2016, 101 set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating the statutory minimum or maximum). At June 30, 2016, of the 101 claims that set forth specific amounts, there were no claims seeking specific amounts for punitive damages. "In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery stage. "Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all asbestos-related cases, some of which were filed over 20 years ago, have been approximately $8.1 million. All relief sought in the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. To date, approximately 40% of the Company's costs related to settlement and defense of asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary insurance. Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a coverage- in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers regarding the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-related claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The coverage-in- place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and indemnity coverage available to the Company that might otherwise be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the administration of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes it is likely there will be a period within the next 6 to 18 months, prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement and following exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance coverage, during which the Company will be solely responsible for defense costs and indemnity payments, the duration of which would be subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid. "Based on the settlements made to date and the number of claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product identification, the Company believes that the relief sought (when specified) does not bear a reasonable relationship to its potential liability. Based upon the Company's experience to date, including the trend in annual defense and settlement costs incurred to date, and other available information (including the availability of excess insurance), the Company does not believe these cases will have a material adverse effect on its financial position and results of operations or cash flows." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Insurers Want $19MM From Asbestos Lawyers ---------------------------------------------------------- Cameron Langford, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Humana, Aetna and UnitedHealthcare sued five Texas law firms, demanding $19.5 million in medical benefits they paid the firms' asbestos clients. Asbestos became prized building material in the late 1800s for its fire-resistant and sound-absorption qualities. By the 1950s, the friable mineral had been incorporated into nearly every aspect of commercial and home buildings: flooring, roofing, concrete, insulation and bricks. But inhaling asbestos can cause lung diseases, including cancer. Class action lawsuits and government regulations have resulted in tens of billions of dollars in judgments and other costs, including remediation of buildings and asbestos mines. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1990 banned materials containing more than 1 percent asbestos from being sprayed on buildings, pipes and electrical lines. Most asbestos personal injury claims are settled through asbestos bankruptcy trusts, set up in the reorganization plans of bankrupt companies that manufactured asbestos, according to the insurers' Sept. 6 lawsuit in Galveston Federal Court. Once an asbestos trust is established, an asbestos claimant must seek a settlement from the trust rather than through a lawsuit against the debtor, the insurers say in the complaint. "There are presently more than 50 asbestos trusts in operation. Additional asbestos trusts are scheduled to be established or [start] accepting claims within the next 12-18 months. Collectively, these trusts will hold more than $40 billion in assets," the lawsuit states. The three major insurance companies say the five defendant law firms have pocketed more than $19.5 million in bankruptcy trust settlements that belong to them, as reimbursement for medical benefits they provided for 297 of the firms' clients. The insurers say they had to review dozens of bankruptcy documents and file motions in bankruptcy courts to identify those 297 people, because asbestos bankruptcy trust claims operate "under a cloak of secrecy" with no public disclosure of who gets paid, how much they are paid, nor from which trust. The insurers say that as Medicare Part C providers, federal law requires the law firms to reimburse their medical benefit payments to the firms' clients. They say the law firms repay benefits to the federal government when their asbestos clients are covered by Medicare Parts A and B, which are administered directly by the feds, but ignore those bills when the clients are covered by private insurers under Medicare Part C. They allege ERISA and Medicare Act violations and unjust enrichment. They want the law firms ordered to hold asbestos settlements in a trust account. They also seek a declaration they are entitled to a list of the names of all asbestos claimants represented by the law firms, and reimbursement of medical benefits paid to the 297 claimants before the firms pay out any more asbestos settlements. The insurers are represented by John Thomas, Esq. -- jthomas@hicks-thomas.com -- with Hicks Thomas in Houston. The defendants are Brent Coon & Associates, and Reuad Morgan & Quinn LLP, both based in Beaumont; The Bogdan Law Firm, and Shrader & Associates LLP, both of Houston; Arlington-based Foster & Sear LLP; and Austin-based Hissey Kientz LLP. None of the firms responded to requests for comment. Aetna, Humana and UnitedHealthcare are three of the six largest health insurers in the United States. Together, they insure more than 100 million U.S. residents. ASBESTOS UPDATE: James Hardie Unlikely to Pay for Aboriginal Kids ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Peacock, writing for ABC News, reported that an Aboriginal man has developed the fatal asbestos cancer mesothelioma after playing in the tailings from James Hardie's white asbestos mine at Baryulgil, in northern NSW, when he was a child. Ffloyd Laurie, 54, who has never worked with asbestos, was exposed to the deadly dust as a schoolchild when tailings from the mine were widely used as landfill on the roads, around houses and even at the school in the tiny community. "We used to have it all around our yard," Mr Laurie told 7.30. "We used to play marbles. We used to make pancakes and eat it! We didn't know what it was." James Hardie operated the mine from just after World War II until 1976, shortly before it closed. But the former asbestos multinational appears unlikely to pay Mr Laurie any compensation. Because of a special clause in the agreement struck in 2005 between the NSW government and James Hardie after it moved offshore, it can only be sued in relation to the Baryulgil mine as a "defendant of last resort". Mr Laurie's lawyer, Tanya Segelov, has instead commenced proceedings against the NSW Education Department, because Mr Laurie and his sister, brother and schoolmates were all exposed to asbestos in the playground of the Baryulgil Primary School. "It's absurd that the people responsible are not being sued, but it's the state and the taxpayers who will be paying compensation for what really is James Hardie's problem," Ms Segelov told 7.30. "It makes me really angry to think that decades after the dangers of asbestos were known, these kids had no chance. They were covered in it." 'Asbestos mountains were my first sand hills' Although the company was aware of the dangers of asbestos and its link to cancer for many decades, the Aboriginal people from Baryulgil say they were never warned. "When they dropped off the new tailings we would just go and play in these piles of asbestos," Mr Laurie's sister, Di Randall, told 7.30. "To us it was just like dirt or sand. We thought it wasn't harmful because no-one told us that it was, so we just dived in it." Michelle Larkin remembers when she was about 10 years old watching the truck from the mine dump loads of asbestos tailings outside the school. "We were all given little buckets to carry the asbestos up through the school and we started building a volleyball court," she told 7.30. "Straight after school, we were into it, diving into it. It wasn't anything new to us because we lived with asbestos. Asbestos mountains were my first sand hills." Fears Ffloyd is just the first Although Mr Laurie is the first of the children to develop mesothelioma, the fear is others might too. Ms Randall told 7.30 she is now scared to have a medical check-up. "I'm frightened that I could have something, so every day I just wake up and think I'm the lucky one," she said. "But then my luck could run out, too. We don't know." Mesothelioma is almost always fatal within a year of first diagnosis. Mr Laurie says with the little time he has left, he wants to "live life to the full", including going on the honeymoon he never had with his wife. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MPs to Move Out of "Asbestos-Riddled Parliament ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arj Singh, writing for Independent.co.uk, reported that MPs could move out of the Houses of Parliament for six years if they back a parliamentary committee's recommendation of a temporary decant so restoration work can take place. The Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster will recommend that MPs move into the nearby Department of Health with peers going to the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, a committee source said. According to The Times, Prime Minister Theresa May is set to back the call, increasing the likelihood that it will happen, but it will still be subject to a parliamentary vote. The committee will recommend that the move takes place between 2022 and 2028, the source said. A study by Deloitte last year highlighted the appalling condition of the Palace of Westminster, with potentially deadly fire risks, collapsing roofs, crumbling walls, leaking pipes and large quantities of asbestos. The committee of MPs and peers is set to back one of the options set out in the study -- that there should be a full decant, estimated by Deloitte to cost between GBP3 billion to GBP4.3 billion -- with the most likely figure GBP3.5 billion. If politicians refuse to leave the building, patching it up to basic standards will take around 32 years and could cost between GBP4.9 billion and GBP7.1 billion, the June 2015 study said. A Downing Street spokeswoman said: "We are awaiting the report and will respond in due course." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wave of Victims to Emerge From Toxic School ------------------------------------------------------------ Hamish Broome, writing for The Northern Star, reported that the lawyer representing a Casino man dying from asbestos-related lung disease mesothelioma has said she expected a wave of victims to emerge in coming years. Tanya Segelov, who is representing 54-year-old Ffloyd Laurie in a lawsuit against the NSW Education Department, said it would be "amazing" if others who grew up in the Aboriginal community of Baryulgil in the 1960s and 1970s failed to contract the disease. "It takes 40 years to develop, so this is the time," Ms Segelov said. "What we know is there was a whole community exposed in this way. They're not all going to get it. It's a lottery as to who will and who won't." "They know about the disease, they've lived with the consequences of it. Now we're seeing the next generation of it. "The insidious thing about asbestos is you've got to wait 40 years for it to develop." Mr Laurie was diagnosed in June with the disease after suffering from a prolonged cough. Following scans, doctors immediately recognised the fluid on his lungs as characteristic of the deadly disease. Mesothelioma sufferers are usually given between nine and 12 months to live. Unlike the previous generation who contracted the disease after working in the notorious James Hardie asbestos mine, this generation was exposed to asbestos tailings away from the mine while at school and playing in their community. Ms Segelov said ironically, the Baryulgil community had very happy memories of growing up in a "loving and very stable" community -- partly thanks to the reliable, prosperity afforded to their community from jobs in the mine. But the memories of the idyllic childhood had long been shattered by the deadly legacy of the mine and the tragedy to all the families who lost their dads and uncles. Ms Segelov said the compensation sought from the NSW Education Department would come in enough time for Mr Laurie to afford the "best available" treatment for the disease, to provide peace of mind for his family -- for whom he was the main breadwinner -- and to enjoy his life in the little time he has left. She said the broader goal of the lawsuit was to put it "on the record" that the first child of the original generation exposed to the disease had been struck down. She said because Baryulgil was an Aboriginal community many of their illnesses had been put down to "lifestyle diseases" by James Hardie over the years, but "they can't argue this one" because asbestos was the sole cause of mesothelioma. "There will be more people coming after Ffloyd," she said. "We want to make sure that this community is not forgotten." The lawsuit will be expedited and is expected to be resolved within three months. "We hope the state will come to the table and negotiate a settlement," Ms Segelov said. Rivers student is likely to be the first of many diagnosed with cancer as a result of tailings from a nearby James Hardie asbestos mine being spread throughout the school's playground. ABC 7.30 last night reported the case of Ffloyd Laurie, a 54-year- old man diagnosed with the incurable asbestos cancer mesothelioma earlier this year. Mr Laurie spent his childhood in the 1960s and 70s in Baryulgil, south of Casino, where his father worked at the nearby asbestos mine, operated by James Hardie from 1953 to 1976. His father subsequently died from an asbestos related disease contracted due to his former employment. Asbestos Diseases Foundation of Australia president, Barry Robson, said Mr Laurie was believed to be the first former student diagnosed with mesothelioma as a result of the long-running practice of using asbestos mine tailings in the school grounds. Children played and crawled through asbestos "For decades, the mine manager would arrange for asbestos tailings to be sent down the road from the mine and dumped in the school," Mr Robson said. "Former students recall being given buckets which they filled with asbestos and used to fill holes in the volleyball court and elsewhere in the playground, while photographs show piles of asbestos waste used as part of an 'obstacle course' for the children to play and crawl through. "Decades after the deadly nature of asbestos was confirmed, this toxic substance was deliberately being delivered to a public school where children would be exposed to it daily." First diagnosis from childhood exposure Mr Robson said that while many former mine workers and residents of Baryulgil had contracted asbestos-related diseases, Mr Laurie was the first whose only exposure occurred in childhood. "Mr Laurie was a non-smoker who never worked with asbestos, so his childhood in Baryulgil was unquestionably the cause of his diagnosis with aggressive, incurable mesothelioma," he said. "With up to 70 children enrolled at the school at any time, and the use of asbestos waste continuing for decades, there is no doubt he is just the first of many who will have their lives cut short." Taxpayers to foot the bill Mr Robson said it was a disgrace that taxpayers, rather than James Hardie, would be forced to foot the entire compensation bill resulting from the practice. "Under the compensation arrangements negotiated in 2005, James Hardie became a defendant of last resort, forcing victims to sue any other possible organisation first before they could make a claim against the nation's largest former asbestos producer," he said. "That means the NSW Government, and by default taxpayers, will be left footing the entire compensation bill for former Baryulgil Public School students who fall victim to the asbestos waste that was dumped at their school by James Hardie." Mr Laurie's legal action Mr Laurie is taking legal action in a ground-breaking case against the NSW Government in relation to his exposure to asbestos at the public school. He is being represented by dust diseases specialist Tanya Segelov, who is also a member of the Federal Government's Asbestos Safety and Eradication Council. She said he never worked in industries where asbestos is prevalent, and that his only known exposure to the toxic substance occurred at Baryulgil. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Atty Calls for Workplace Protection for All ------------------------------------------------------------ Leigh Day, in an article for Lexology, wrote that asbestos lawyer and campaigner Harminder Bains, Esq. -- hbains@leighday.co.uk -- has called on the Government to press for action on the removal of asbestos in schools and workplaces as a huge restoration project is announced to make safe the Houses of parliament. Harminder, whose father died of mesothelioma, and who has campaigned for the removal of potentially lethal asbestos products in workplaces, including schools and hospitals, says, "I am saddened that while MPs are quick to preserve their own safety when it comes to asbestos removal, schoolchildren and people working in offices, hospitals and factories, do not have the same choice." The Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster is to recommend that MPs move out of the Houses of Parliament for six years while an extensive restoration programme takes place. A report on the state of the buildings last years highlighted problems including fire risks, collapsing roofs and walls, leaking pipes and large quantities of asbestos. Exposure to asbestos is the only cause of the fatal lung cancer mesothelioma which causes thousands of premature deaths every year. In 2015 the all-party Parliamentary Group of Occupational Safety and Health called for immediate action to remove asbestos from the UK's workplaces and public buildings. At the time, Ian Lavery, chair of the all-party group said: "There is far too much complacency about the asbestos which we can still find in hundreds of thousands of workplaces as well as a majority of schools where children face exposure to this killer dust. Harminder Bains, partner in the asbestos team at Leigh Day said: "Asbestos dust is a killer. People have the right to work and study in buildings that are free of this menace. "Unlike MPs, who will enjoy the restoration of their workplace at tax payers' expense, thousands of UK citizens will go on to develop a fatal lung disease because they have been exposed to asbestos. "The Government should do all it can to get asbestos out of schools. Pupils, teachers and support staff all deserve protection from asbestos, and it is deeply disappointing that the Department of Education still does not have a long term strategy in place to deal with this lethal problem. "All workers deserve protection, not just the ones who are lucky enough to work in the Houses of Parliament." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fears Close Hotel Development Site ------------------------------------------------------------ Pablo Vinales, writing for ABC News, reported that a hotel construction site in central Hobart has been temporarily shut down after a suspected discovery of asbestos in concrete building material. About 80 construction workers on the site were told to stop work when sampling from the material, known as infill, was tested for the potentially deadly fibre. Hutchinson Builders confirmed a hygienist was brought in to assess the situation. Richie Hassett from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) was called to the site and said he was concerned about the finding. "Management contacted me with some issues about asbestos on site, the site's been shut down at the moment and there's some remedial works being done as we speak," said Mr Hassett. The union said the sub-contractor that supplied the infill obtained it from a nearby demolition site that was contaminated with asbestos. Mr Hassett fears it could have gone to other work sites. "What other sites has this gone to, what other driveways has this gone to? We just don't know," said Mr Hassett. Asbestos 'prevalent' in Tasmania Michael Kerschbaum from the Master Builders Association said the incident was concerning, but asbestos was prevalent in Tasmania's building industry. "It's opportune for people to consider where they're getting their fill from, the source of that fill and just have a think about whether it may contain asbestos," he said. The sub-contractor has been contacted for comment. Site project manager Jo Gregg said work was stopped as a precaution. "We had some material come to site and we've taken the proactive step of shutting the site down just while we take some precautionary and investigative steps to find out what is that material," said Ms Gregg. "Very shortly after we shut the whole site down and brought everyone into the site shed and just explained that we were taking precautionary steps while we did further investigations." In a statement, Worksafe Tasmania confirmed it was investigating. The hotel is being developed by the Sydney-based Ressen Property Group. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Rugby Player Fronts ICAC Over Dumping Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Raveen Hunjan, writing for ABC News, reported that former rugby league player Craig Izzard has fronted the Independent Commission Against Corruption, denying allegations he solicited a bribe early last year and claiming he acted honestly in his role as an illegal waste dumping investigator for western Sydney councils. Mr Izzard is facing the ICAC over four allegations he asked for money in return for ignoring illegal asbestos-ridden waste dumping between January 2015 and March this year. The inquiry was shown two emails sent to Mr Izzard in 2014, where staff raised concerns about waste dumping at a Luddenham property, in Sydney's west, where asbestos was later found. "The job was referred to you a while back, could you please provide council with the details of your investigation," said one email. Counsel assisting the inquiry, James Mack, asked Mr Izzard whether he investigated the matter. "Not that I can remember," said Mr Izzard. "Did it surprise you that 11 samples taken by the EPA from 405 Willowdene contained asbestos?" asked Mr Mack. "It would surprise me, yes," said Mr Izzard. Following the incident, the owner of the property faced Liverpool local court, pleaded guilty to dumping asbestos and was fined $55,000. The man who transported the waste to the Luddenham property was also later fined $25,000. Mr Izzard was also asked about one allegation of soliciting a bribe from a man named Antonio Barillaro in exchange for not investigating the man over alleged illegal landfill operations at a Badgerys Creek property. Mr Mack: "You never solicited a bribe from him?" Mr Izzard: "No." Mr Mack: "He never said the words to you, 'you're not getting a dollar from me'?" Mr Izzard: "No." Mr Mack: "Do you know anybody by the name Antonio Barillaro?" Mr Izzard: "No." Mr Mack: "Are you telling the truth Mr Izzard?" Mr Izzard: "I certainly am." Counsel assisting took Mr Izzard through Penrith City council's codes of conduct, quizzing him on his obligations not to abuse his power and to act ethically in his role. Mr Izzard said he did not know the code of conduct document "word for word," but that he was guided by the obligations set out. "Is it your evidence that whilst employed within the Western Sydney Regional Illegal Dumping Squad that you always acted honestly?" asked Mr Mack. "I would say yes," replied Mr Izzard. Mr Izzard will return to front the inquiry. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Additional Asbestos Found at VHS South ------------------------------------------------------- Deborah M. Marko, writing for The Daily Journal, reported that electrical and sheet metal workers stopped work at Vineland High School South when additional asbestos was discovered in the kitchen area, according to school officials. The subcontractors were focused on duct work as part of the $10 million, two-year replacement of the heating/hot water system and the installation of air conditioning at the 53-year-old school. How it started: Vineland High air conditioning project hits snag The latest discovery of asbestos was found over the dishwasher area, Wayne Weaver, the school district's facilities director, told The Daily Journal. The area includes about three clusters measuring about 12-by-12 inches, he said. This area was not included during the 20-day around-the-clock abatement project that kicked in when asbestos was discovered in July, according to school board president Scott English. That project wrapped up Aug 31. This latest asbestos discovery was in a "very small concealed area," said Edye Maier, spokeswoman for the N.J. Schools Development Authority, who said the material was scheduled to be removed today. The crews that stopped work followed protocol, she said. An environmental specialist was called in and air samples tested clean, she said. Related story: VHS South asbestos project completed on time "I am very frustrated, I just want the project to come to a close," the school board president said. "Unfortunately, you can't stop this from happening when you're into a building this age." Students were not exposed to the asbestos, Weaver said, noting the kitchen area remains closed, along with the gym area, while the construction work continues. Students were scheduled to be dismissed due to heat previously. This newly discovered asbestos will be removed, Weaver said. Then the subcontractors will be back, he said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sri Lanka to Take New Steps Over Asbestos Use -------------------------------------------------------------- News First reported that Sri Lanka's cabinet has decided to control the importation and use of asbestos from January 1, 2018 with a plan of prohibiting the manufacture of asbestos-related products by 2024, a top government minister said. "All varieties of asbestos including white asbestos used in Sri Lanka have been found to be carcinogenic by the World Health Organization," Cabinet spokesman, Minister Gayantha Karunathilake told reporters at the Cabinet press briefing on Wednesday. "The import of blue asbestos, already identified as cancerous by the WHO has been banned in the Island since 1987" Karunathilake said. Asbestos is used in the manufacture of roof tiles, cement, pipes, and break-pads of vehicles, papers and ropes. According to the WHO, all types of asbestos cause lung cancer, mesothelioma, cancer of the larynx and ovary. Exposure to asbestos occurs through inhalation of fibers in the air around living and working spaces. WHO says around 125 million people in the world are exposed to asbestos at the workplace. The government said the move to control the use of asbestos is aimed at minimising its impact on health and the environment, and to shift consumers to more beneficial substitutes. About 80 percent of asbestos imported to Sri Lanka are used for the manufacture of roofing sheets. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Plaintiff Seeks to Restore Asbestos Verdict ------------------------------------------------------------ The Madison County Record reported that former plasterer Joseph Sondag, who won a jury verdict in an asbestos trial but lost it on appeal due to his excellent breathing, aims to restore it at the Illinois Supreme Court. Sondag wants the Court to review a decision of Fourth District appellate judges in Springfield, who found he suffered no physical harm from asbestos. They ruled that McLean County Circuit Judge Rebecca Foley should have directed a verdict for Tremco Inc., instead of entering $70,000 judgment against it. Sondag used Tremco tape, which contained asbestos, from 1957 to 1983. He sued Tremco and other asbestos defendants in 2008, after physician Al Rossi found scarring and pleural plaques in his lungs. At trial in 2014, Rossi testified that at age 82, Sondag could climb two flights of stairs at a running pace without shortness of breath. He told jurors a pulmonary test showed excellent diffusion capacity for a man of his age who had smoked. Daughter Julie Grant told jurors she had noticed shortness of breath, and spouse Phyllis Sondag told them it had grown worse in the last year and a half. Jurors awarded damages but didn't break them down by category. On appeal, Tremco argued that physical changes resulting from asbestos dust, without clinical symptoms, do not afford a cause of action for products liability. Fourth District judges agreed this June, finding Sondag suffered no physical harm. Justice Thomas Appleton wrote, "He has no pulmonary symptoms." "Physical harm is an essential element of any action for product liability, regardless of whether the action sounds in negligence or strict liability," he wrote. Appleton distinguished physical harm from harm, and distinguished both from injury. He wrote that injury denotes invasion of any legally protected interest of another. He wrote that harm denotes existence of loss or detriment in fact of any kind resulting from any cause. He also wrote that physical harm denotes physical impairment of the human body, or of land or chattels. "Although no one wants pleural plaques and interstitial fibrosis, we do not see how these conditions have affected him in any practical, functional way," Appleton wrote. He wrote that as of the date of trial, Sondag had no restrictive lung disease, respiratory distress or limitation. But for tests, "he would have remained blissfully aware of any condition in his lungs," he wrote. Appleton found no evidence that plaques and scars caused the shortness of breath that his daughter and spouse noticed. "After all, Joseph Sondag is 82 years old, and he has been a smoker," Appleton wrote. Physician Rossi "agreed that Joseph Sondag was doing pretty well," he wrote. He wrote that Sondag might argue that he would have been even healthier had he not been exposed to Tremco tape. "The problem with such reasoning is that there are hundreds of millions of air sacs in the lungs and saying that physical harm [starts] with the scarring of any one of these air sacs would tend to divest harm of its practical meaning," he wrote. Justice Lisa Holder White concurred. Justice Thomas Harris concurred but wrote separately that he would have ordered Tremco to pay $67,000 in medical bills. That would nearly equal the amount of the jury's award, which Appleton did not include in his opinion but Harris included in his. Sondag petitioned the Supreme Court for leave to appeal, and he awaits an answer. Brad Elward, Melissa Schoenbein, Chris Larson and William Charnock, all of Heyl Royster in Peoria, represent Tremco. Chip Corwin, James Wylder and Andrew Kelly, all of Wylder Corwin Kelly in Bloomington, represent Sondag. They can be reached at: Wylder Corwin Kelly LLP 207 E. Washington, Suite 102 Bloomington, IL 61701 Email: info@wcklaw.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Yuanda Under Pressure Over Asbestos Scandal ------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Burrell, writing for The Australian, reported that the Chinese-owned building products company behind a mounting asbestos scandal in Australia is under financial pressure, with combined losses of $11.4 million over the past two years and outstanding debts to its parent entity of almost $40m. Yuanda Australia's latest financial accounts, lodged with the corporate regulator, reveal it is surviving due to the "ongoing support and funding" from parent company Shenyang Yuanda Aluminium Industry Engineering Co. The company has been at the centre of controversy since the discovery in July that it had supplied asbestos-laced products to the $1.2 billion Perth Children's Hospital and the 1 William Street tower in Brisbane. The Australian revealed that another Yuanda's shipment was later stopped at the border and revealed to contain asbestos, which has been banned in Australia since 2003. Asbestos is not illegal in China, which remains one of the world's biggest producers of chrysotile, the "white asbestos" found in Brisbane and Perth. Yuanda's parent company in China is chaired by Kang Baohua, who controls 56 per cent of the company and whose personal wealth is estimated at $US1.15 billion. Yuanda, which employs 8000 people, has been praised by top leaders in China, including President Xi Jinping, as an example of Chinese reform. Mr Kang, 63, is also a director of Yuanda Australia. As at December 31, Yuanda Australia's total liabilities exceeded assets by $48m and its debts included a $37.7m outstanding loan provided by the parent company, according to the accounts filed with the Australian Securities & Investments Commission. According to the financial statement, the parent entity has confirmed in writing that it won't call for repayment of the loan unless the Australian subsidiary was able to repay it without impairing its ability to conduct business and pay other liabilities. Yuanda Australia made an after-tax loss of $7.1m in 2014 and another after-tax loss of $4.3m last year. It earned $217.2m in revenue in Australia last year. Since mid-July, Australian Border Force has ordered independent testing of all of Yuanda's shipping containers and two airfreight shipments. Tests on all of them, apart from the container headed for the Brisbane site, have been negative. Testing has also been conducted at the 68 sites across Australia at which Yuanda has supplied building products. No asbestos has so far been detected. Yuanda has previously blamed a "fraudulent" certification process in China. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mesothelioma Still Possible for 9/11 Survivors --------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Strauss, writing for Surviving Mesothelioma, reported that 15 years after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, some of the wounds inflicted that day have begun to heal. Unfortunately others, including many anticipated cases of malignant mesothelioma, have yet to be revealed. Malignant mesothelioma is the most deadly of several serious health conditions associated with the fibrous mineral, asbestos. It can take decades after people inadvertently inhale or swallow the fibers for them to develop symptoms of the disease. Asbestos was a popular insulator and building component additive at the time the Twin Towers were constructed. Some four hundred tons of the toxin was used in the building. When the towers came down, thousands of first responders and New Yorkers were exposed to enormous clouds of dust and debris which included mesothelioma- causing asbestos. A Deadly Legacy of Mesothelioma While many of the emergency workers, first responders, and others on or near the scene of the 9/11 tragedy developed respiratory problems in the weeks and months following the event, those who are most likely to eventually receive a mesothelioma diagnosis may not know it for another five years or more. Fortunately, when and if these people are diagnosed with mesothelioma, they may be eligible for compensation. Last year, Congress reauthorized the Zadroga Act, legislation that provides healthcare and other benefits to 9/11 firefighters and first responders. Mesothelioma's Long Latency The risk of mesothelioma among people on the scene of the 9/11 attacks still exists fifteen years after the fact because of the disease's long latency period, or the time between exposure and symptom development. Shards of asbestos are biopersistent, remaining in the body tissue where they trigger inflammation and irritation that can eventually lead to malignant mesothelioma. It is the same worrisome problem faced by anyone who has been exposed to toxic asbestos dust; the symptoms of mesothelioma could develop at any time after exposure. Or they may never develop. The anniversary of 9/11 is a fitting time to note that anyone who has been exposed to asbestos dust, regardless of the setting, should be aware of the most common symptoms of mesothelioma. These can include cough, shortness of breath, chest pain, and fatigue. Asbestos-exposed people should have regular medical exams to monitor for early signs of illness. Some studies have even suggested that there may be a survival benefit in periodic CT scans for individuals at highest risk. An estimated 60,000 to 70,000 9/11 responders suffered the most concentrated asbestos exposure and now face the highest risk for mesothelioma. However, the EPA has stated that no level of asbestos exposure is safe. Source: Wu, M et al, "Case report: Lung disease in World Trade Center responders exposed to dust and smoke", April 2010, Environmental Health Perspectives, pp. 499-504. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Suit Blaming Asbestos in Courthouse Could End -------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Wallach, writing for Beaumont Enterprise, reported that the family of a district court judge that sued Jefferson County in 2005 for contributing to his death concedes the case is likely at an end because of a recent court ruling that could prolong it several more years and a 2014 Texas Supreme Court decision that limited manufacturers' liability. Ellarene Farris, the wife of late District Judge James Farris, sued the county and other defendants, including asbestos manufacturers, in her husband's 2004 death, contending asbestos remediation in the Jefferson County courthouse exposed her husband to the deadly fibers that were in widespread use throughout much of the 20th century as insulating material in buildings. A district judge in Harris County, where all asbestos-related cases are reviewed and cleared for trial in the courts where they were first filed, ruled that the county and other defendants could appeal any decision he would make in the case, meaning the case could continue for years. A Texas Supreme Court decision from 2014 that limited liability of asbestos manufacturers in cases where lung disease resulted during decades of exposure also lengthened the family's odds of success. Farris, who was 72 when he died, spent almost his entire legal career in the Jefferson County courthouse, first as an assistant district attorney, beginning in 1961; county Court-at-law No. 2 judge from 1969 to 1977; and 317th District Court judge from 1977 until 1996, all within the old courthouse building built in 1931. He pursued a side career as an in-demand dinner speaker that took him across the country, usually for juvenile justice advocacy groups, which was his main legal focus in the 317th court. "He had just given a speech in Idaho in October 2004," Ellarene Farris said. "He came home and said he couldn't do it any more. He went into the hospital and nine days later, he was dead." She said her husband had no idea he suffered from mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungs. The symptoms began as an abdominal pain that wouldn't quit and ended soon after with a struggle to breathe. "He was so scared. He didn't even know he had mesothelioma," Ellarene Farris said. Farris, her son, Gary Wallace, and her attorneys, Aaron Heckaman and Kyle Beale, said the Texas law requiring plaintiffs to find others who had similar exposure creates an almost impossible standard. "The test is a legal fiction," said Beale, who said the case is personal because he knew Farris when Beale was a law student at Baylor University, also Farris' alma mater. The latency period takes decades, Heckaman and Beale said. Trying to find others similarly affected makes a successful case virtually impossible, particularly in a setting that is non- traditional for asbestos-related diseases. The Texas Supreme Court in 2014 ruled against a plaintiff who won a judgment against brake pad manufacturer Borg Warner, upheld by an appellate court in Corpus Christi. The state high court said the defendant in the case wasn't the only brake pad manufacturer whose products were used by the shop in which the plaintiff claimed illness resulted after 30 years. The Farris case also bogged down because government entities since 1970 had legal exposure capped at $100,000. "It's never been about money," Ellarene Farris said. Her son, Gary Wallace, agreed. "There's not any money in this. The Texas Legislature made sure of that," he said. "We just want the courthouse cleared." Jefferson County Judge Jeff Branick said the courthouse is clear of asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: John Holland Not To Blame for Hospital Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------------- ABC News reported that construction company John Holland is not responsible for asbestos discovered in roof panels at the yet-to- be opened Perth Children's Hospital, an interim report has found. The report, conducted by state building commissioner Peter Gow, found problems in the production process of the panels in China. "There was a problem or a hiccup in the production process in China and inappropriate or non-conforming materials were in fact included in the panels," he said. The deadly material was found in the hospital's roofing panels -- supplied by Chinese company Yuanda -- in July. Just days earlier, Yuanda was found to have used asbestos-tainted gaskets sourced from China in Brisbane's new government tower. Mr Gow said both John Holland and Yuanda had specified materials being supplied for the hospital should be asbestos free and had received a test report from China on the roof panels confirming that was the case. However, an audit revealed the test report had not actually tested the panels for the presence of asbestos. The Department of Immigration and Border Protection has released a statement saying "specifiers, builders and suppliers must be vigilant about the products they use during construction and must satisfy themselves that the products they use do not contain asbestos". The department said it was the responsibility of importers and exporters to ensure they did not import or export prohibited goods such as asbestos. Dust control not adequate The report also found John Holland did not properly address the likelihood of a dust hazard when workers cut into the panels -- causing some to be exposed to asbestos dust. Mr Gow said had dust control management procedures been better, the risk to workers would have been reduced. He said the company also needed to improve its processes for detecting and preventing the presence of asbestos. The Australian agency responsible for stopping asbestos at the border has since revealed it is only testing a fraction of shipments each year for the substance. Mr Gow said it was impossible to be sure that imported materials did not contain asbestos. "There is a continuing risk to the Western Australian and the Australian construction industries from non-conforming building products," he said. Mr Gow said the industry needed to find better ways of detecting hazardous products and preventing exposure to workers. The commissioner would not comment on when the hospital, plagued by delays -- including the recent discovery of lead in the water - - will open. He said an investigation into the lead was ongoing. "At this point we don't have a clear idea of exactly where the lead has come from," he said. In a statement, Yuanda Australia said it was "continuing its own thorough review to determine how incorrect products were used in the manufacturing process". ASBESTOS UPDATE: Netherlands Orders Removal of Asbestos Roofs ------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Mauney, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that although the Netherlands banned asbestos 22 years ago, officials continue eliminating the toxic mineral from the country's infrastructure, most recently ordering all asbestos roofing be removed by Jan. 1, 2024. The removal only applies to exterior asbestos-containing materials such as corrugated sheets and slate roofing. It does not apply to interior asbestos roof boards and roof insulation. "The ban on [asbestos] roofing is a start," David de Vreede, a technical advisor for the Dutch group Committee for Asbestos Victims, told Asbestos.com. "The goal is no asbestos in the country, but that will take a long time." While the government is subsidizing some of the asbestos removal costs, experts predict the federal financial help is not enough. All 28 countries of the European Union, including the Netherlands, have banned the use of asbestos, which is linked to serious respiratory diseases and cancers such as mesothelioma. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the Netherlands reports high rates of asbestos-related deaths. Ban on Asbestos Roofs Will Prevent Exposure Wilma Mansveld, former Undersecretary for Infrastructure and Environment, led the roof ban, citing deteriorating roofs and recent fires as reasons for banning the asbestos building materials. "We have to take this risk seriously and tackle it. I want to prevent people from being exposed to asbestos fibers," Mansveld said in a 2015 translated press release. "Recent fires in which asbestos particles ended up [in] residential areas underline the need for a ban." Inclement weather, such as hail, high winds and freezing rain, also leads to deterioration, and over time, the spread of dangerous particles. The average lifespan of an asbestos roof is 30 years. In many cases, replacement is long overdue. De Vreede, 25, owns a water and air filtration company with his father and regularly works with asbestos removal companies. Aside from his involvement with the Committee for Asbestos Victims, he lobbies for better environmental standards. He believes many Dutch residents are unaware of the dangers above their heads. While the country banned asbestos in 1994, the ban only applies to the trade, storage and use of asbestos. Asbestos materials are still common in older buildings. "Some people think that because of the ban, that there is no danger," he said. "Those people are wrong." Building Owners Face High Costs to Remove Asbestos Owners of buildings with asbestos roofs are responsible for removal, and the municipalities can inform individuals under what special conditions they may fall under. All removals must be reported to the municipality. After the 2024 deadline, municipalities can impose a fine or penalty on owners. "Some people think that because of the ban, that there is no danger," De Vreede said. "Those people are wrong." The Netherlands has strict asbestos removal standards, and it is a costly and time-consuming process. In an effort to ease the burden on affected building owners, the Dutch government introduced a subsidy program in January that provided them $16.7 million (15 million euros). However, De Vreede says it's not enough. "[The asbestos removal] is estimated to cost 3 to 4 billion euros ($3.3 to 4.5 billion), so that's just a drop of water in the frying pan," he said. Many Asbestos Roofs Are in Lower-Income Areas More than three quarters of the affected roofs are located in agricultural sectors of the country, according to Dutch website Groninger Krant. De Vreede said that many of those affected include residents of low-income housing formerly owned by corporations. "The corporations don't want to renovate because of the cost, so they will sell to immigrants and poor people who simply don't know any better," he said. Law requires sellers to disclose in a contract if a structure contains asbestos materials, but these disclaimers are often in fine print and in Dutch, making them easily overlooked or difficult to understand for foreigners and the poorly educated. "It's usually just a 'sign here' situation," de Vreede explained. Mesothelioma Is a Growing Problem in the Netherlands The Netherlands reported 481 mesothelioma deaths to the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2010, more than double the amount of neighboring Belgium. That's nearly the same amount of reported deaths in Spain, Portugal and Denmark, combined. Neighboring Germany -- with a population nearly five times the size of the Netherlands -- reported only 1,397 mesothelioma deaths to the WHO in 2010. While de Vreede believes the Netherlands' true asbestos numbers are on par with the rest of the EU, he did point out the country has a deep history in the shipbuilding industry because of its location on the North Sea. Shipbuilders used asbestos to insulate most sea vessel parts. "There is often little to no ventilation on the ships, which can lead to high [asbestos] exposure," he said. Fires at warehouses and farms are also catalysts for spreading asbestos, taking particles a mile or more away, and in some cases, affecting heavily populated city centers. With a latency period of 20-50 years, mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases could be on the rise in the future because of these issues. Asbestos Is Out of Sight, Out of Mind for Many Joyce Matthijssen, a lawyer at the Committee for Asbestos Victims in the Netherlands, said the awareness of mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases varies from person to person, but she feels it's especially low among younger generations. "They didn't experience the time in which asbestos was actually banned consciously," Matthijssen said. "Most people of this younger generation don't even know how to identify asbestos." Matthijssen added that many of the Dutch don't think about their homes or office buildings containing asbestos. "They also do not bother to find out," she said. "And when they do find out, in most cases, they are more concerned about the cost of removing asbestos than about asbestos hazards." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter Blames Companies for Mother's Death ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Abella, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that a St. Clair County woman is suing multiple companies, alleging negligence in causing the death of the plaintiff's mother. Maria Rodriguez, individually and as special administrator of the estate of Migdalia Praderes, deceased filed a lawsuit Aug. 17 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against CBS Corp., Certain-Teed Corp., Crane Co., General Electric Co., Georgia-Pacific LLC, John Crane Inc., Union Carbide Corporation and Metropolitan Life Insurance, alleging failure to exercise ordinary care and caution for the safety of Praderes. According to the complaint, on March 6, 2012, Praderes first became aware she had developed mesothelioma, an asbestos-induced disease. The suit says she was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or absorbed asbestos fibers from products that were manufactured, sold, installed or distributed by the defendants. The plaintiff alleges the defendants negligently included asbestos in their products, failed to provide adequate instructions and warnings and conspired among themselves to injure Praderes. Rodriguez seeks trial by jury and judgment of more than $50,000 from each defendant. She is represented by attorneys Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville. St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-436 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Work Site Hit With 17 Asbestos Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Aliyya Swaby, writing for New Haven Independent, reported that the principal of a Wallace Street construction site is contesting $65,000 in federal fines levied for allegedly failing to protect workers from asbestos exposure. In response to an employee complaint, Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OSHA) sent inspectors last November to visit 206 Wallace St., a former automotive warehouse, and hit owner Rakaj Companies this summer with a list of 17 violations of proper asbestos management. Aleks Rakaj is affiliated with the property in at least three ways, as the member of CT Repair Services, LLC located at 206 Wallace St., as principal of 206 Wallace Street LLC, and as a member of Arka Group LLC located at 220 Wallace St., an extension of the property. Rakaj also owns Federal Oil, LLC in Seymour. Rakaj did not respond to repeated requests for comment from the Independent. According to the OSHA record, the agency issued 17 "serious" violations May 9, to be abated by May 13. Instead, Rakaj contested the violations June 8. The matter is now in court. Sawco Associates bought the property from Yale University in 2009 for $1,250,000, before selling it in 2015 for $285,000 to 206 Wallace Street LLC on Nov. 12, 2015, according to land records. An appraisal of the property shows the land at 86,533 square feet, with a building area of 42,995 square feet -- used as an industrial warehouse in a light industry zoning district. New Haven's health department officials got a call about suspicious activity in an empty building, and Brian Wnek, senior sanitarian, headed over on November 20, 2015. When officials went through the front door, the crew working on the project went through the back door, said Paul Kowalski, who directs the city's environmental health program. Then, Wnek called the feds. The investigation was turned over to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, state Department of Health Asbestos Program and OSHA, and the work was shut down. The 17 violations cover a number of alleged failures to protect employees' health, including: * Failing to provide lunch areas at the work site with safe concentrations of asbestos in the air. * Failing to regularly monitor the concentration of asbestos in the air. * Failing to use vacuum cleaners equipped with HEPA filters to collect all dust that may contain asbestos material. * Failing to wet the site to decrease employee exposure to asbestos during cleanup, removal, handling and cutting. * Failing to provide employees with respirators to breathe in a contaminated area. * Failing to provide employees with shower areas to decontaminate themselves after exposure to asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: City Won't Be Fined for Firefighters Exposure -------------------------------------------------------------- WFTV9.com reported that 9 Investigates discovered the city of Orlando and its fire department will not be fined after firefighters were exposed to asbestos while prepping a building for training. The city could have been forced to pay thousands for the conditions. Channel 9's Jeff Levkulich spoke with fire department leaders Tuesday, who said they're making sweeping changes. The fire department will implement a new asbestos training program. In the last 10 years, only seven similar cases have resulted in no fines. According to documents from the Orange County Environmental Protection Division, 42 companies have been fined over the last 10 years for violating asbestos regulations. The fines ranged from $650 to $90,000. Orlando firefighters were exposed to the hazardous substance last February at the building used for training on Mercy Drive. After a recent hearing, the city and the fire department, which were facing fines of $25,000 per violation, were not fined. "I do think it's a win-win for everybody involved," said Orlando Fire Department Deputy Chief Gerald Lane. Lane said the city is implementing asbestos training within the next 30 to 60 days, and that that will cost the department practically nothing to implement. "Probably the most positive thing that occurred for us is we have actually improved our communication with Orange County EPD," said Lane. "Going forward, we have improved, or implemented some additional rules going forward, and hopefully we don't have to deal with this again." WFTV legal analyst Belvin Perry said training will not have an effect on the long-term health costs, or any potential future lawsuits filed against the city. "Unfortunately, it does not provide a shield for the Orlando Fire Department for any potential litigation given with asbestos- related illnesses that some firefighter may have suffered," Lane said. The firefighters affected will have to monitor their lungs for years to come, but Lane said firefighters are always running into buildings where there could be asbestos, or other dangerous chemicals. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Review May Trigger Chlorine Industry Probe --------------------------------------------------------------- Pat Rizzuto, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reported that chlorine manufacturers, which currently are the largest U.S. importers of asbestos, could have their use of the mineral reviewed soon if the Environmental Protection Agency selects asbestos as one of the first 10 substances it will analyze under the amended chemicals law. Chlorine and caustic soda are manufactured by the chlor-alkali industry, which uses asbestos for one of three processes that companies can use to produce both chemicals. The U.S. Geological Survey has listed the chlor-alkali industry as the primary importer of asbestos in each annual mineral commodity summary the service has published since 2013. The industry's use accounted for 90 percent of the 358 tons of asbestos imported into the country in 2015, the geologic survey said in its 2016 summary. The chlor-alkali industry's use of asbestos should be evaluated by the EPA as part of an assessment of the risks posed by the mineral, Linda Reinstein, president of the nonprofit advocacy group Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 9. Top 10 Substances? All domestic uses of asbestos should be reviewed by the EPA, which must make the mineral one of the first 10 chemicals it evaluates under the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act, Scott Faber, vice president of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 12. "Few chemicals are as dangerous as asbestos; there is no question it poses a health risk," Faber said. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182), which amended TSCA on June 22, gave the agency new authorities to oversee the safety of chemicals, he said. "Asbestos is the substance by which this new law will be judged," Faber said. As changes to TSCA were debated for years, members of Congress were among the many individuals who voiced frustration about provisions of the original TSCA that prompted the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to overturn the EPA's 1989 ban of many uses of asbestos The asbestos organization and Environmental Working Group have been joined by automotive brake manufacturers, some Democratic senators, and other environmental health groups in urging the EPA to examine the risks of asbestos as one of the first 10 chemicals it reviews under the Lautenberg Act. By December the EPA must be examining the risks posed by 10 chemicals under the law. Those 10 chemicals must be selected from the agency's 2014 "Work Plan" list of approximately 90 substances the agency already announced it would evaluate prior to the Lautenberg Act becoming law. "Work plan substances for which EPA has had significant work underway are logical candidates for the first 10 substances under review," the American Chemistry Council told Bloomberg BNA in a Sept. 9 e-mail. The EPA has not begun to work on asbestos. If the agency does not make the asbestos evaluation part of the first 10 chemicals, the next administration could decide whether and when it would be reviewed. Faber declined to comment as to whether the uncertainty of which administration will be elected is a reason his group and others are pushing now for asbestos to be one of the first 10 chemicals the EPA evaluates. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, however, has testified before Congress about asbestos' benefits. During a July 21, 2005, hearing before a Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee about U.S. financial involvement in the renovation of the U.N.'s headquarters, Trump testified: "there's a whole debate about asbestos. I mean, a lot of people could say that if the World Trade Center had asbestos, it wouldn't have burned down. It wouldn't have melted, okay? A lot of people think asbestos . . . a lot of people in my industry think asbestos is the greatest fire- proofing material ever made." Workers, Community Protected: Trade Association If the agency were to evaluate asbestos, it will find that chlor- alkali companies already take extensive actions to prevent workers and the public from exposure, the American Chemistry Council said. The agency already had reached that conclusion in 1989 when it restricted many uses of asbestos, the council's Chlorine Chemistry Division told the EPA in comments it filed Aug. 24 about a risk evaluation rule the agency must develop. When EPA excluded the chlor-alkali industry from its 1989 asbestos ban the agency said: "exposure to asbestos during the life cycle of this product is limited because the product is generally fabricated on site, used saturated with isolation and disposed of while wet. Asbestos is not prone to be released into the ambient air during states after product fabrication." "The industry's practices have continued to improve since 1989 as handling and monitoring technology has evolved," the chemistry council told Bloomberg BNA Sept. 9. The council provided a list of actions companies take to prevent exposures beginning from the receipt of dry asbestos shipments, through the wet process used to transform that asbestos into a diaphragm that is designed to prevent dangerous chemical reactions while chlorine and caustic soda are manufactured, until the used wet diaphragm is disassembled in a closed process and made into non-reusable parts for disposal. "Because of this continuous wet environment, the use of asbestos in the chlor-alkali industry is very different than historical processes associated with airborne release of asbestos fibers," the chemistry council said. Reinstein said chlor-alkali manufacturers may successfully prevent exposures while they use the asbestos, but that doesn't negate the need for the EPA to assess the risks posed by the mineral's life cycle. Scope of Assessment Would Be Subsequent Decision A life cycle assessment would consider the risks of mining the mineral even though that is done abroad, she said. The agency also should review domestic risks from transporting it to companies that use it, from spills and accidents that could occur, from manufacturing processes that use asbestos, from the use of asbestos-containing products, and from the disposal of asbestos and the products it is used to make, Reinstein said. Her perspective on issues the EPA should consider if it evaluates the risks of asbestos points to a step the agency would have to take after it declares a chemical to be a high priority subject to risk evaluation. Within six months of declaring a chemical to be a high priority, the agency must publish a scope with information such as the hazards, exposures, conditions of use, and the potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations it plans to evaluate. As the EPA determines the scope of any evaluation of asbestos, it should take into account that chlor-alkali companies have "essentially eliminated" potential exposures, the American Chemistry Council's Chlorine Chemistry Division wrote in comments it submitted to the agency Aug. 24 about a risk evaluation rule the EPA is developing. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queensland Asbestos School Students "Safe" ----------------------------------------------------------- Jamie McKinnell, writing for The Australian Associated Press, reported that Queensland's education minister Kate Jones has reassured parents that students at a Brisbane school where asbestos material was found are safe. Part of Holland Park State School is out of bounds after the substance was uncovered on the oval after heavy rain. Ms Jones said work to remove it was scheduled for this month's school holidays. "I can confirm that that is on track and . . . we will be on site removing asbestos from Holland Park throughout the school holidays," she said. Ms Jones said "swift action" was taken to fence off the affected area. "Can I please assure all parents that all measures have been taken in line with our asbestos management plans," she said. Asbestos management frameworks had been in place for more than a decade and Holland Park was the only school with an active incident, Ms Jones added. But the grounds didn't need to be completely shut down because experts assessed the risk and advised school operations could continue, she said. ********* 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 * * *