/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170616.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, June 16, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 120 Headlines 1416 CHANCELLOR: "Herzfeld" Class Gets Conditional Certification ALLEN COUNTY, IN: "Buroff" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ALLIED COLLECTION: Patterson Moves for FDCPA Class Certification ALON USA: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action APU FOODS: "Marin" Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to E.D.N.Y. ASSET RECOVERY: Lamb Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass ATWELLS REALTY: Binienda Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Class AVIS BUDGET: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Bacon" Denied BANK OF AMERICA: Freddie Mac Appeals Judgment in Libor MDL BAYER HEALTHCARE: PCH Plaintiffs Seek Appeal of Summary Judgment BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: July 14 Reply to Bid for Judicial Notice BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: MSP Seeks Medical Services Reimbursement BONAFIDE THAI: "Sank" Suit Alleges Tip Regulation Violation BRIDGEVIEW BANQUET: Faces "Maor" Suit Over "Retained" Gratuities BROWN COUNTY, WI: Jacobs Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners CALIFORNIA: Class Cert. Bid in Suit v. Social Services Nixed CANADIAN PACIFIC: Denies Fault In Lac-Megantic Disaster CITIZEN'S TAXI: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed COMBE INC: Faces "Stringer" Suit Over Just For Men(R) Hair Dye COWLEY DISTRIBUTING: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Scott" Suit CVS PHARMACY: Corcoran, et al. Seek Certification of Class DNB BANK: Class Action Lawsuit Gets Green Light EXTRA SPACE: June 20 Hearing to Approve "Gomes" Settlement FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Court Strikes Class Claims in "Blunt" FLUSHING MARKET: "Huang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA GALAXY RECYCLING: "Dominguez" Class Settlement Has Final Court OK GARDA CL: "Louis" Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York GREEN DOT: Nov. 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing in "Lewis" Suit GREENCLEANING ENTERPRISES: "Zamora" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation GUARANTEED RATE: "Tadena" Suit Moved to E.D. California HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED: Insurers Seek to Dismiss Class Action HEALTHCARE NATIONAL: Able Home Seeks Certification of 3 Classes HEALTHCARE SERVICES: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida HILTON GRAND: "Kasprzyk" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA HOYT TRANSPORTATION: "Pichardo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL: "Chih" Suit Sues Over Balance Billing I & A RESTAURANT: Appeals Judgment in Sanchez Suit to 2nd Circuit INVENTURUS KNOWLEDGE: "Flahive" Suit Sues Over Robocalls KAMRAN STAFFING: "Denny" Suit Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations KLUEVER & PLATT: Class Certification Sought in "Righeimer" Suit LEXINGTON LAW: "Lebowitz" Suit Sues over Unsolicited Phone Calls LGI HOMES: "Selby" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Sought in "Pimentel" Suit LOUISIANA: Class Certification Sought in "Little" Suit MADISON SQUARE: "Millien" Suit Moved to S.D. New York MAGNI GROUP: Hoffman Sues over Migraine Relief Therapeutic Claims MATTRESS FIRM: "Blair" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification MDL 2492: "Roberts" Concussion Suit v. NCAA et al. Consolidated MDL 2782: Georgia Judge to Handle Hernia Mesh MDL MIAMINOLA ENTERPRISES: "Stevenson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation MIDWEST RECOVERY: "Qualls" Suit Seeks Certification of 2 Classes MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES: Wins Final OK of "Fequiere" Class Accord MISSOURI: Church, et al. Seek to Certify Indigent Persons Class MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Paldo Sign Moves for Class Certification NIBCO INC: Meadow, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass OGLETHORPE POWER: Dismissal of Former EMC Members' Suits Affirmed PIPEFITTERS ASSOCIATION: Porter Seeks Class Action Certification PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Sena" Suit Seeks to Certify Class PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Kopplin, et al. Seek to Certify Class REALTY INCOME: Gellatly & Erquiaga Sue Over Inaccessible Parking RED ROBIN: $900,000 Settlement in "Brackley" Suit Approved REGISTER TAPES: Court Certifies Settlement Classes in "Hamburger" RICKY'S GROUP: Faces "Young" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York RICH PRODUCTS: Must Send Class Members' Info to Ehrlich's Counsel RUSHMORE LOAN: Sellers Seeks to Certify Class of Fla. Consumers SANTA CLARA, CA: "Estorga" Class Conditionally Certified SEECO INC: Fails to Convince Court to Decertify Smith Suit Class SEQUOIA SENIOR: Bid to Expunge Class Claim Under Plan Denied SIRIUS XM: Broadcasters Closely Watching Flo & Eddie Suits SISTERS OF CHARITY: Faces "Towles" Suit over Pension Plan Funding SPAN-AMERICA MEDICAL: Berg Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Savaria SYSTEMATIC CONTROL: Gargonnu Seeks OT wages Under Labor Law TWO JINNS: Certification of Settlement Class Sought in "Shelby" TURNCO LLC: Faces "Shepard" Labor Suit Alleging Misclassification UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Knew It Was Underpaying Drivers UNION PACIFIC: Landowners Appeal Right-of-Way Suit Ruling UNITED STATES: Faces Amgen Suit in District of Columbus UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Kotlyar Sues Over Unauthorized Phone Calls UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations VENTURE DATA: Court Certifies Class in "Mey" Suit WESTAUB II: Faces "Munguia" Suit Over FLSA, NY Labor Law Breach YAZAKI NORTH: Court Dismisses OPPA Claims in "Sutka" Suit ZB N.A.: Faces "Evans" Suit Over IMG Fraudulent Investment Scheme ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action ZUFFA LLC: Must Produce Disputed Docs in UFC Antitrust Suit Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Judge Recuses Himself in "Standridge" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Dropped as Defendant in "Roper" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Bid to Seal Papers ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Graham Testimony in "Sweredoski" ASBESTOS UPDATE: SCOTUS Won't Review $3.6MM Verdict Toss ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Withholds Oroville Asbestos Records ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Worker Says CSX Liable for Cancer ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Sprayers Face Higher Mesothelioma Risk ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Research Group Spreads Awareness ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Going to Prison for Faulty Cleanup ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mother Finds Health Hazard in Drywall Compound ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Suggests Reducing Risks on Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fear for 87 Gourock Homes ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Gives Update on Libby Cleanup Efforts ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos to be Removed from Cottondale Elem. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at March31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has Less Than 500 Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Still Defending Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Fuels Still Faces Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Has $53.7MM Accrued Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 515 Exposure Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Faces 43 Asbestos Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Faces Less Than 285 Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Still Faces PI Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Faces 35,560 Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has US$674MM Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Group Defends 16 PI Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had US$604.1MM Liabilities at April 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defend Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 19 Cases at April 2 ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Defends Asbestos Suits at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Had US$217.1MM Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,700 PI Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Has 37,000 AO Respiratory Claimants ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 27,000 PI Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Has US$942.9MM Liability at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 71 Cases at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Defends 103 Cases at Mar 31 ********* 1416 CHANCELLOR: "Herzfeld" Class Gets Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JESSICA HERZFELD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. 1416 CHANCELLOR, INC. d/b/a THE GOLD CLUB, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive and THE APM CLUB, INC. d/b/a THE GOLD CLUB, Civil Action No. 14-4966 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Mark E. Kearney of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motions to conditionally certify a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action and to certify a class action under Rule 23. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages pursuant to the FLSA. Judge Kearney granted the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify this action to proceed as a collective action against 1416 Chancellor and APM Club, as successor, under the FLSA on behalf of all dancers of the Gold Club in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at any time from Aug. 26, 2011 until Jan. 24, 2016. The Plaintiff will circulate a draft court-facilitated notice and protocol to the Defendants no later than June 16, 2017, the Defendants will comment upon the draft and protocol to Plaintiff by June 21, 2017, and the Plaintiff will move for approval of her proposed Court-facilitated notice with a memorandum identifying all areas of disagreement on June 27, 2017. The Defendants may file memoranda explaining its dispute with the proposed protocol or proposed black-lined notice on July 6, 2017. Judge Kearney denied the Plaintiff's request to certify a collective action on or after Jan. 25, 2016, when APM Club purchased the club. The judge said the Plaintiff did not dance at the Gold Club during APM Club's ownership and lacks standing to bring a claim because she cannot plead a personalized injury she suffered caused by APM Club's conduct. Judge Kearney also denied the Plaintiff's request to certify a class action against APM Club for conduct on or after Jan. 25, 2016. Judge Kearney granted the Plaintiff's motion to certify the Pennsylvania claims 1416 Chancellor and APM Club, as successor: (i) violated Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act by improperly classifying her as an independent contractor failing to pay minimum wage and overtime; (ii) violated Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law by taking her tips to cover its business expenses; and, (iii) she unjustly enriched 1416 Chancellor by remitting her tips and working promotional events without pay under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 on behalf of all former Dancers of the Gold Club in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at any time from Aug. 26, 2011 until Jan. 24, 2016. The Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class and Judge Kearney certified her as the Class representative. The Lead Plaintiff's counsel firm Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP, is authorized to act on behalf of the Class with respect to all actions required by, or necessary to be taken under, the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Orders and Policies. The Class Counsel will circulate a draft Court-approved notice and notice protocol to the Defendants no later than June 16, 2017, the Defendants will comment upon the draft and protocol to Plaintiff by June 21, 2017, and the Plaintiff will move for approval of the proposed Court-facilitated notice with a memorandum and identifying all areas of disagreement on June 27, 2017. The Defendants may file memoranda explaining their dispute with the proposed protocol or proposed black-lined notice on July 6, 2017. A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/hqno8C from Leagle.com. Jessica Herzfeld, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin J. Kilpela -- ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela LLP. Jessica Herzfeld, Plaintiff, represented by Gary F. Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP & Jamisen A. Etzel -- jetzel@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP. 1416 Chancellor, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley J. Shafer, Shafer & Associates, P.C., Matthew J. Hoffer, Shafer & Associates PC & Pasquale J. Colavita -- pasquale@colavitalawoffices.com -- Pasquale J. Colavita, P.C.. APM CLUB, INC., Defendant, represented by Matthew J. Hoffer, Shafer & Associates PC & Pasquale J. Colavita, Pasquale J. Colavita, P.C.. Bradley J. Shafer, Movant, represented by Pasquale J. Colavita, Pasquale J. Colavita, P.C.. Matthew J. Hoffer, Movant, represented by Pasquale J. Colavita, Pasquale J. Colavita, P.C.. Pasquale J. Colavita, Movant, represented by Pasquale J. Colavita, Pasquale J. Colavita, P.C.. 1416 Chancellor, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Bradley J. Shafer, Shafer & Associates, P.C., Matthew J. Hoffer, Shafer & Associates PC & Pasquale J. Colavita, Pasquale J. Colavita, P.C.. Jessica Herzfeld, Counter Defendant, represented by Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela LLP, Gary F. Lynch, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP & Jamisen A. Etzel, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP. APM Club, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Matthew J. Hoffer, Shafer & Associates PC & Pasquale J. Colavita, Pasquale J. Colavita, P.C.. Jessica Herzfeld, Counter Defendant, represented by Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela LLP, Gary F. Lynch, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP & Jamisen A. Etzel, Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP. ALLEN COUNTY, IN: "Buroff" Suit Seeks Certification of Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled DEMETRIUS BUROFF and IAN BARNHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DAVID GLADIEUX, in his official capacity, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00124-TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "all individuals held at the Allen County Jail on November 8, 2016 who on that date were U.S. citizens, residents of Indiana, were at least eighteen years of age, were not serving a sentence for a conviction of a felony crime, had not previously voted in the 2016 general election, were provided neither an absentee ballot nor transportation to a voting center, and were registered to vote or had been denied the opportunity to register to vote while held in the Allen County Jail". Mr. Gladieux is the Sheriff in Allen County, Indiana. The Plaintiffs allege that they are denied the fundamental right to vote in the 2016 general election. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zTuoECp6 The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Frank, Esq. Christopher C. Myers, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES 809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400 Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307 Telephone: (260) 424 0600 Facsimile: (260) 424 0712 E-mail: dfrank@myers-law.com ALLIED COLLECTION: Patterson Moves for FDCPA Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alonzo Patterson asks the Court to enter an order determining that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action styled ALONZO PATTERSON, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members described below v. ALLIED COLLECTION SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-04224 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendant. The Plaintiff defines a class of: (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) from whom Allied Collection Services sought to collect a loan made at more than 9% interest (c) made by an entity which did not possess a bank or credit union charter and was not licensed by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (d) where any communication occurred on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action. The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H5l2MtwC The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, 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 60603-1824 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com ccombs@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com malyea@edcombs.com ALON USA: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Alon USA Energy Inc. ("Alon USA" or the "Company") (NYSE:ALJ) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed merger between Alon USA and Delek US Holdings, Inc. ("Delek"). On January 3, 2017, Alon USA and Delek jointly announced that it had reached a definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") where Delek will acquire the remaining fifty-three percent of Alon's outstanding common stock not already owned by Delek, constituting an implied enterprise value of CAD675 million. Alon stockholders will receive 0.504 Delek shares, representing an implied value of $12.13 per share (the "Merger Consideration"). The Complaint alleges that the Merger Consideration and the process by which Defendants agreed to consummate the Proposed Merger are fundamentally unfair to Alon USA's public shareholders in view of the Company's recent financial success and prospects for future growth. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at -- tjmckenna@gme- law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com [GN] APU FOODS: "Marin" Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to E.D.N.Y. -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA KAMILA MARIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APU FOODS CORP., d/b/a RIKO PERUVIAN CUISINE, 44 SUNNYSIDE CORP., d/b/a RIKO PERUVIAN EXPRESS, JAMAICA 153 CORP. d/b/a RIKO PERUVIAN CUISINE, 8 CHELSEA CORP. d/b/a CUMBIA AND SABOR, PAULA ANDREA GIL, and WALTER BURGOS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02956 was transferred from the Case transferred in from U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-03224-MKB-SMG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Margo K. Brodie. The suit seeks to recover damages including back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and liquidated damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, and are and have been subject to Defendants' decision, policy, plan and common policies, programs, practices, procedures, protocols, routines, and rules willfully failing and refusing to pay them at the legally required minimum wage for all hours worked and allowing non-tipped employees to share in their tips. Peruvian owns and operates a restaurant chain specializing in rotisserie chicken.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Denise Schulman, Esq. 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 688 5640 Facsimile: (212) 688 2548 ASSET RECOVERY: Lamb Seeks Certification of Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled LINDA LAMB, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, INC., an Illinois corporation; and NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04336 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify classes and subclasses of: "all persons within the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) Asset Recovery placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) between the date of filing this litigation and the date of certification, (5) through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice (6) where Asset Recovery did not have consent to call said cellular telephone number"; Non-debtor class: "all persons within the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) Asset Recovery placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) between the date of filing this litigation and the date of certification, (5) through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice (6) where the number called was not assigned to the debtor including where such person's number was obtained from a source other than the person himself"; Non-debtor sub-class: "all persons within the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) Asset Recovery placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) between the date of filing this litigation and the date of certification, (5) through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice (6) where Asset contends the call was made to obtain location information of the alleged debtor"; Navient class: "all persons within the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) Asset Recovery placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) between the date of filing this litigation and the date of certification, (5) through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice (6) in an attempt to collect a debt owed or allegedly owed to Navient and (7) where the number called was not assigned to the debtor, including where such person's number was obtained from a source other than the person himself; and Navient sub-class: "all persons within the United States (2) to whose cellular telephone number (3) Asset Recovery placed a non-emergency telephone call (4) between the date of filing this litigation and the date of certification, (5) through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or artificial or prerecorded voice (6) in an attempt to collect a debt owed or allegedly owed to Navient and (7) where Asset contends the call was made to obtain location information of the alleged debtor." The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the TCPA by placing telephone calls to consumers' cellular telephone numbers using an automated telephone dialing system and/or a prerecorded or artificial voice message without having the consumers' express consent to receive such telephone calls. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xbQu7AJl The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith J. Keogh, 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 - and - David J. Philipps, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974 2900 Facsimile: (708) 974 2907 DavePhilipps@aol.com - and - Ronald C. Sykstus, Esq. BOND, BOTES, SYKSTUS, TANNER & EZZELL, P.C. 225 Pratt Avenue Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 539 9899 Facsimile: (256) 713 0237 E-mail: rsykstus@bondnbotes.com http://www.bondnbotes.com ATWELLS REALTY: Binienda Seeks to Certify Exotic Dancers Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned SAMANTHA BINIENDA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ATWELLS REALTY CORP., AND THE ONE, INC., d/b/a CLUB DESIRE and LUST VIP, the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00253-S-PAS (D. R.I.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class: "all individuals who have worked as entertainers performing exotic dancing services at Club Desire and Lust VIP, located at One Franklin Square in Providence, Rhode Island, at any time since June 20, 2012". The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint Samantha Binienda as the representative of the certified class, and appoint Stephen Brouillard of Bianchi & Brouillard, P.C., and Brant Casavant and Stephen Churchill of Fair Work P.C. as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2pCtR0zj The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Brouillard, Esq. BIANCHI & BROUILLARD, P.C. The Hanley Building 56 Pine Street, Suite 250 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 223 2990 Facsimile: (877) 548 4539 E-mail: sbrouillard@bbrilaw.com - and - Brant Casavant, Esq. Stephen Churchill, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607 3260 Facsimile: (617) 488 2261 E-mail: brant@fairworklaw.com steve@fairworklaw.com AVIS BUDGET: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Bacon" Denied -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ABIGAIL BACON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., and PAYLESS CAR RENTAL, INC., Defendants, Civ. No. 16-5939 (KM) (JBC) (D. N.J.), Judge Kevin McNulty of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the Defendants' motions to compel arbitration. The Plaintiffs have filed a putative class action against car rental companies Avis and its subsidiary, Payless alleging that the Defendants routinely charge customers' credit and debit cards for ancillary products and services that the customers have not authorized, and in some cases, have specifically declined. They assert claims under New Jersey, Florida, and Nevada consumer protection and unfair trade practices statutes, for injunctive relief, for unjust enrichment, and for conversion. The Plaintiffs propose to certify a class action comprising five subclasses. Presently before the Court are two motions to compel arbitration: one submitted by Payless (joined by Avis), and another submitted jointly by the Defendants. The Payless motion deals with Plaintiff Arcadia Lee, who rented a car for use in Costa Rica; and the joint motion deals with the remaining Plaintiffs, whose rentals occurred in New Jersey, Nevada, or Florida. Both motions seek an order compelling the Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims on an individual basis, as well as dismissal of the Complaint or stay of this action pending arbitration. Because the Defendants' motions present issues of fact, Judge McNulty denied as presented their motions to compel arbitration. That being the case, there must be discovery so that the motion to compel can be decided on a summary judgment standard. At their earliest mutual convenience, the parties will set up a conference with Magistrate Judge Clark and work out a schedule of phased discovery. The first phase should focus primarily on arbitrability. At its conclusion, Judge McNulty will accept one joint motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of arbitrability from the Defendants. The Plaintiffs, if they wish, may cross-move for partial summary judgment on the same issue. A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/hKa7I5 from Leagle.com. Abigail Bacon, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Heller Nagel -- bnagel@nagelrice.com -- Nagel Rice, LLP. Abigail Bacon, Plaintiff, represented by David J. Disabato -- ddisabato@disabatolaw.com -- Disabato & Bouckennooghe LLC, Greg Michael Kohn -- gkohn@nagelrice.com -- Nagel Rice, LLP & Lisa R. Bouckenooghe -- lbouckenooghe@disabatolaw.com -- Disabato & Bouckennooghe LLC. Arcadia Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Heller Nagel, Nagel Rice, LLP, David J. Disabato, Disabato & Bouckennooghe LLC, Greg Michael Kohn, Nagel Rice, LLP & Lisa R. Bouckenooghe, Disabato & Bouckenbooghe LLC. Jeannine Devries, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Heller Nagel, Nagel Rice, LLP, David J. Disabato, Disabato & Bouckennooghe LLC, Greg Michael Kohn, Nagel Rice, LLP & Lisa R. Bouckenooghe, Disabato & Bouckenbooghe LLC. Lisa Geary, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Heller Nagel, Nagel Rice, LLP, David J. Disabato, Disabato & Bouckennooghe LLC, Greg Michael Kohn, Nagel Rice, LLP & Lisa R. Bouckenooghe, Disabato & Bouckenbooghe LLC. Richard Alexander, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Heller Nagel, Nagel Rice, LLP, David J. Disabato, Disabato & Bouckennooghe LLC, Greg Michael Kohn, Nagel Rice, LLP & Lisa R. Bouckenooghe, Disabato & Bouckenbooghe LLC. Yvonne Wheeler, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Heller Nagel, Nagel Rice, LLP, David J. Disabato, Disabato & Bouckennooghe LLC, Greg Michael Kohn, Nagel Rice, LLP & Lisa R. Bouckenooghe, Disabato & Bouckenbooghe LLC. George Davidson, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Heller Nagel, Nagel Rice, LLP, David J. Disabato, Disabato & Bouckennooghe LLC, Greg Michael Kohn, Nagel Rice, LLP & Lisa R. Bouckenooghe, Disabato & Bouckenbooghe LLC. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kellie A. Lavery -- klavery@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, LLP. Payless Car Rental, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kellie A. Lavery, Reed Smith, LLP. BANK OF AMERICA: Freddie Mac Appeals Judgment in Libor MDL ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, et al., seek a writ vacating the Denial Order and directing the District Court (1) to enter partial judgments on Petitioners' antitrust and fraud claims, or (2) in the alternative, to certify for interlocutory appeal the February 2 and 16 Orders entered in the multidistrict litigation styled IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL No. 1:11-md-2262-NRB (S.D.N.Y.). The Petition for a writ of mandamus arises from a summary order ("Denial Order") entered by the district court overseeing the multidistrict litigation. That Order denied Petitioners' request for entry of partial final judgment on their federal antitrust and state law fraud claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), or in the alternative, for certification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). The Petitioners submit the requested writ is justified because the Denial Order constitutes a clear abuse of discretion that implicates important issues of judicial administration, undermines Petitioners' substantive rights, and raises novel questions of law. The appellate case is captioned as IN RE LIBOR-BASED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 17-1694, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The issues presented are: (1) Whether the district court abused its discretion in summarily denying Petitioners' request for partial final judgments pursuant to Rule 54(b) on their antitrust and fraud claims; and (2) Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Petitioners' alternative request for certification for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b). The Petitioners are The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; Principal Financial Group, Inc.; Principal Financial Services, Inc.; Principal Life Insurance Company; Principal Funds, Inc.; PFI Bond & Mortgage Securities Fund; PFI Bond Market Index Fund; PFI Core Plus Bond I Fund; PFI Diversified Real Asset Fund; PFI Equity Income Fund; PFI Global Diversified Income Fund; PFI Government & High Quality Bond Fund; PFI High Yield Fund; PFI High Yield Fund I; PFI Income Fund; PFI Inflation Protection Fund; PFI Short-Term Income Fund; PFI Money Market Fund; PFI Preferred Securities Fund; Principal Variable Contracts Funds Inc.; PVC Asset Allocation Account; PVC Money Market Account; PVC Balanced Account; PVC Bond & Mortgage Securities Account; PVC Equity Income Account; PVC Government & High Quality Bond Account; PVC Income Account and PVC Short-Term Income Account. The Defendants are Bank of America Corporation; Bank of America, N.A.; Barclays Bank Plc; British Bankers' Association; BBA Enterprises, Ltd; BBA Libor, Ltd; Citigroup, Inc.; Citibank, N.A.; Co??perative Centrale Raiffeisenboerenleenbank, B.A.; Credit Suisse AG; Credit Suisse International; Deutsche Bank AG; HSBC Bank PLC; HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Lloyds Banking Group plc; Lloyds TSB Bank PLC; Bank of Scotland PLC; Societe Generale; The Norinchukin Bank; Royal Bank Of Canada; The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc; The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc; The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd; UBS Ag; WestLB AG; and Portigon AG. As alleged by all Plaintiffs in the MDL (including the Petitioners), the Defendants conspired to artificially depress USD LIBOR for profit- and reputation-based reasons. The Defendants then sold price-fixed financial instruments incorporating USD LIBOR to U.S. financial institutions, including the Petitioners. The Petitioners also allege a broader conspiracy in which the Defendants agreed to boycott actual or potential LIBOR competitors in the market for interest-rate benchmarks to facilitate their price-fixing agreements. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 9, 2017, The Charles Schwab Corporation, et al., took an appeal to the Second Circuit from (1) the April 27, 2017 judgment entered in the 2011 Schwab Actions; and (2) all orders and rulings subsumed within the Judgment, including the District Court's Memorandum and Order entered on December 20, 2016, which dismissed the 2011 Schwab Actions in their entirety. The Charles Schwab appellate case is captioned as In Re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 17-1569. Plaintiff-Petitioner The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is represented by: James R. Martin, Esq. Jennifer D. Hackett, Esq. Woody N. Peterson, Esq. ZELLE LLP 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 375 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 899-4100 Facsimile: (612) 336-9100 E-mail: jmartin@zelle.com jhackett@zelle.com wpeterson@zelle.com The other Petitioners are represented by: K. Craig Wildfang, Esq. Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 E-mail: KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com SSlaughter@RobinsKaplan.com Plaintiffs Amabile, et al., are represented by: Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq. Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq. Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq. SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A. 1212 SE Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 320-9507 E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com Proposed Lender Class Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Marc I. Gross, Esq. Michael J. Wernke, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com migross@pomlaw.com mjwernke@pomlaw.com Plaintiffs The Regents of the University of California; East Bay Municipal Utility District; San Diego Association of Governments; City of Richmond; Richmond Joint Powers Financing Authority; Successor Agency to the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency; City of Riverside; Riverside Public Financing Authority; County of Mendocino; County of Sacramento; County of San Diego; County of San Mateo; San Mateo County Joint Powers Financing Authority; County of Sonoma, and David E. Sundstrom, in his official capacity as Treasurer of the County of Sonoma are represented by: Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq. Matthew K. Edling, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 E-mail: nnishimura@cpmlegal.com medling@cpmlegal.com - and - Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 40 Worth Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 201-6820 E-mail: abarnett@cpmlegal.com Plaintiff The City of Houston is represented by: Richard W. Mithoff, Esq. Warner V. Hocker, Esq. MITHOFF LAW FIRM One Allen Center Penthouse, Suite 3450 500 Dallas Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 654-1122 E-mail: Rmithoff@mithofflaw.com whocker@mithofflaw.com - and - Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq. Matthew K. Edling, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 E-mail: nnishimura@cpmlegal.com medling@cpmlegal.com - and - Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 40 Worth Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 201-6820 E-mail: abarnett@cpmlegal.com National Credit Union Administration Board as Liquidating Agent for U.S. Central Federal Credit Union, et al., is represented by: David C. Frederick, Esq. Wan J. Kim, Esq. Andrew C. Shen, Esq. KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C. Sumner Square 1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 326-7900 E-mail: dfrederick@kellogghansen.com shen@kellogghansen.com wkim@kellogghansen.com Plaintiffs Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-1 LTD., Triaxx Prime COO 2006-2 LTD., and Triaxx Prime COO 2007-1 L TO are represented by: Dean N. Kawamoto, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 E-mail: dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com Plaintiffs Bay Area Toll Authority, Schwab Short-Term Bond Market Fund, et al., Charles Schwab Bank, N.A., et al., and Schwab Money Market Fund, et al., are represented by: Steven E. Fineman, Esq. Michael J. Miarmi, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013-1413 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com mmiarmi@lchb.com Plaintiff CEMA Joint Venture is represented by: William E. Walker, Jr., Esq. P.O. Box 192 Massillon, OH 44648-0192 Telephone: (330)327-2509 E-mail: williamwalker@gmx.com Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association is represented by: Samuel William Cruse, III, Esq. GIBBS & BRUNS L.L.P. 1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 751-5287 E-mail: scruse@gibbsbruns.com - and - Kenneth E. Warner, Esq. WARNER PARTNERS, P.C. 950 Third Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 593-8000 E-mail: kwarner@WarnerPartnersLaw.com George Maragos is represented by: Thomas J. Mullaney, Esq. LEVENTHAL, MULLANEY & BLINKOFF, LLP 15 Remsen Avenue Roslyn, NY 11576 Telephone: (516) 484-5440 E-mail: tmullaney@lcmslaw.com Darby, Philadelphia, Prudential, and Salix Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel L. Brockett, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010-1601 Telephone: (212) 849 7000 E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com - and - Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com Plaintiffs The City of Philadelphia and The Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority are represented by: Mathieu J. Shapiro, Esq. OBERMAYER REBMANN MAXWELL & HIPPEL LLP Centre Square West 1500 Market Street, Suite 3400 Philadelphia, PA 19102-2101 Telephone: (215) 665-3014 E-mail: mathieu.shapiro@obermayer.com - and - Michael J. Boni, Esq. Joshua D. Snyder, Esq. BONI & ZACK LLC 15 St. Asaphs Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 822-0200 E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com jsnyder@bonizack.com Counsel for Baltimore, New Britain, and TCEH and Interim Lead Counsel for the Proposed OTC Plaintiff Class: Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Hilary Scherrer, Esq. Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 St. NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com hscherrer@hausfeldllp.com ngiddings@hausfeldllp.com The Bondholder Plaintiffs are represented by: Karen L. Morris, Esq. Patrick F. Morris, Esq. MORRIS AND MORRIS LLC 4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 300 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 426-0400 E-mail: kmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com pmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com - and - David H. Weinstein, Esq. Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq. WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC 100 South Broad Street, Suite 705 Philadelphia, PA 19110-1061 Telephone: (215) 545-7200 E-mail: weinstein@wka-law.com kitchenoff@wka-law.com Counsel for Baltimore, New Britain, and TCEH and Interim Lead Counsel for the Proposed OTC Plaintiff Class: William Christopher Carmody, Esq. Arun Subramanian, Esq. Seth Ard, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl. New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 336-3330 E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com sard@susmangodfrey.com Counsel for Interim Co-Lead Counsel for Exchange-Based Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class: David E. Kovel, Esq. Karen M. Lerner, Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: dkovel@kmllp.com klerner@kmllp.com - and - Christopher Lovell, Esq. Lovell Stewart Halebian, Esq. JACOBSON LLP 61 Broadway, Suite 501 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 608-1900 E-mail: clovell@lshllp.com Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs: Max R. Schwartz, Esq. Donald A. Broggi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT LLP The Chrysler Building 405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10174 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 E-mail: mschwartz@scott-scott.com dbroggi@scott-scott.com Defendants Bank of America Corp., Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch Capital Services, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Banc of America Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch International Bank, Ltd., Bank of America Home Loans are represented by: Paul Mishkin, Esq. Arthur J. Burke, Esq. Robert Wise, Jr., Esq. Adam Mehes, Esq. DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 450-4292 E-mail: paul.mishkin@dpw.com arthur.burke@davispolk.com rwise@dpw.com adam.mehes@davispolk.com Defendants Barclays Bank Plc, Barclays Capital Inc., Barclays U.S. Funding LLC, and Barclays PLC are represented by: Jonathan Schiller, Esq. Leigh Nathanson, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 446-2300 E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com lnathanson@bsfllp.com - and - David Braff, Esq. Yvonne Quinn, Esq. Matthew J. Porpora, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 558-4705 E-mail: braffd@sullcrom.com quinny@sullcrom.com porporam@sullcrom.com Defendant Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi sUFJ Ltd. is represented by: Daryl A. Libow, Esq. Christopher M. Viapiano, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 1700 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 700 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 956-7500 E-mail: libowd@sullcrom.com viapianoc@sullcrom.com Defendants Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A., and Rabobank Group are represented by: David R. Gelfand, Esq. Sean M. Murphy, Esq. Mark D. Villaverde, Esq. MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MCCLOY LLP 28 Liberty Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 530-5000 E-mail: dgelfand@milbank.com smurphy@milbank.com mvillaverde@milbank.com Defendants British Bankers' Association, BBA Enterprises, Ltd., and BBA Libor, Ltd., are represented by: Jeff G. Hammel, Esq. Richard D. Owens, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 Facsimile: (212) 751-4864 E-mail: jeff.hammel@lw.com richard.owens@lw.com Defendants Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group, N.A., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Credit Suisse International, Credit Suisse (USA) Inc. are represented by: Joel Kurtzberg, Esq. Adam Mintz, Esq. CAHILL GORDON & REINDEL LLP 80 Pine Street New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 701-3000 E-mail: JKurtzberg@cahill.com amintz@cahill.com Defendants Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Financial Products, Inc., Citi Swapco Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Limited., Citigroup Funding Inc. are represented by: Andrew A. Ruffino, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP The New York Time Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405 Telephone: (212) 841-1000 E-mail: aruffino@cov.com - and - Lev Louis Dassin, Esq. Jonathan Samuel Kolodner, Esq. CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP One Liberty Plaza New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 225-2790 E-mail: ldassin@cgsh.com jkolodner@cgsh.com Defendants Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Financial LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. are represented by: Moses Silverman, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 E-mail: msilverman@paulweiss.com Defendants J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., JPMorgan Chase Bank, Chase Bank USA, N.A., J.P. Morgan Bank Dublin PLC, J.P. Morgan Markets Ltd., J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, Bear Stearns Capital Markets, Inc. are represented by: Paul Gluckow, Esq. Thomas C. Rice, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 455-2000 E-mail: pgluckow@stblaw.com trice@stblaw.com - and - Lawrence H. Heftman, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 258-5500 E-mail: lheftman@schiffhardin.com Defendants Lloyds Banking Group plc, Lloyds Banking Group PLS, Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, Lloyds Bank PLC (formerly known as Lloyds TSB Bank PLC) are represented by: Marc Gottridge, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 875 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 918-3081 E-mail: marc.gottridge@hoganlovells.com Defendants HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., HSBC Bank PLC, The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Ltd., HSBC Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Finance Corp., HSBC USA Inc., HSBC Holdings, PLC, are represented by: Gregory Thomas Casamento, Esq. LOCKE LORD LLP Brookfield Place 200 Vesey Street, 20th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 415-8600 E-mail: gcasamento@lockelord.com Defendants The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Royal Bank of Scotland, RBS Citizens, N.A. (f/k/a Citizens Bank of Massachusetts), Citizens Bank, N.A., are represented by: Robert G. Houck, Esq. CLIFFORD CHANCE US, LLP 31 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 878-3224 Facsimile: (212) 878-8375 E-mail: robert.houck@cliffordchance.com - and - Fraser Hunter, Jr., Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (617) 526-6360 E-mail: fraser.hunter@wilmerhale.com The Norinchukin Bank is represented by: Alan M. Unger, Esq. Andrew W. Stern, Esq. Kenneth Meyer, Esq. Thomas Paskowitz, Esq. SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 839-5785 E-mail: aunger@sidley.com astern@sidley.com kmeyer@sidley.com tpaskowitz@sidley.com Royal Bank of Canada, and RBC Capital Markets, LLC, are represented by: Arthur W. Hahn, Esq. KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 525 W. Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 902-5241 E-mail: arthur.hahn@kattenlaw.com WestLB AG, Portigon AG, Portigon/WestLB AG, WestDeutsche Immobilienbank AG are represented by: Christopher M. Paparella, Esq. Marc A. Weinstein, Esq. HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP One Battery Park Plaza New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 837-6000 E-mail: paparella@hugheshubbard.com marc.weinstein@hugheshubbard.com Societe Generale is represented by: Steven Wolowitz, Esq. Andrew J. Calica, Esq. Henninger S. Bullock, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020-1001 Telephone: (212) 506-2500 E-mail: swolowitz@mayerbrown.com acalica@mayerbrown.com hbullock@mayerbrown.com UBS AG, UBS Securities LLC, and UBS Limited are represented by: Peter Sullivan, Esq. Jefferson E. Bell, Esq. Lawrence J. Zweifach, Esq. Eric J. Stock, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 351-2346 E-mail: psullivan@gibsondunn.com jbell@gibsondunn.com lzweifach@gibsondunn.com estock@gibsondunn.com ICAP plc is represented by: H. Rowan Gaither, IV, Esq. Shari Brandt, Esq. RICHARDS KIBBE & ORBE LLP 200 Liberty Street New York, NY 10281-1003 Telephone: (212) 530-1800 E-mail: rgaither@rkollp.com National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1 is represented by: Usher T. Winslett, Esq. WINSLETT STUDNICKY MCCORMICK & BOMSER LLP 6 East 39th Street, 6th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (646) 688-5424 E-mail: uwinslett@wsmblaw.com BAYER HEALTHCARE: PCH Plaintiffs Seek Appeal of Summary Judgment ---------------------------------------------------------------- Natural Products Insider reports that plaintiffs in a proposed class action lawsuit filed against Bayer HealthCare LLC over a popular probiotic are appealing a summary judgment order in favor of the company. Bayer was accused of making false and misleading claims regarding its dietary supplement, Phillips' Colon Health (PCH), the same product subject to FTC litigation in a case that was closely followed by the industry. In April, U.S. District Judge John Michael Vazquez ruled in favor of Bayer on all counts in the class action lawsuit. "In sum, plaintiffs failed to present competent evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact that Bayer's claims that PCH promotes overall digestive health and helps defend against occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas, and bloating are actually false or misleading," the judge concluded in his 30-page order. In the FTC lawsuit, the issue was whether Bayer's representations above were substantiated with "competent and reliable scientific evidence." The government argued the answer was no, causing Bayer to be in violation of an earlier consent decree, but a federal judge in New Jersey sided with Bayer in a 2015 decision. Bayer, the court pointed out, produced nearly 100 studies to support its PCH claims. "As two other courts have held, competent and reliable scientific evidence does not require drug-level clinical trials, and the government cannot try to reinvent this standard through expert testimony," Judge Jose Linares wrote in his 2015 opinion. Lawyers with Sidley Austin LLP, who defended Bayer in both cases, viewed the 2017 summary judgment order as an "important decision" that "should help to rein in the onslaught of lawsuits that improperly target dietary supplements. "First, the court's decision reinforces that dietary supplements are not regulated as drugs and structure/function claims need not be supported by randomized controlled clinical trials," the attorneys wrote in an article for Lexology.com. Bayer, however, can't move on yet from the class action lawsuit. On May 17, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. James Cecchi, an attorney in Roseland, New Jersey who signed the notice of appeal on behalf of the plaintiffs, didn't immediately respond to an emailed request for comment. "We believe the District Court's ruling dismissing this case based on the failure of plaintiffs to meet their burden of proof was correct and should be affirmed on appeal," Bayer said in an emailed statement. "The benefits of Phillips' Colon Health have been fully substantiated as demonstrated by numerous clinical, animal and genetic studies. The District Court's ruling was the third time that a federal court has found that plaintiffs have failed to prove their claims regarding the benefits of Phillips' Colon Health probiotics." As in the FTC case, a crucial aspect of the class action lawsuit turned on the testimony of experts. In concluding PCH's claims are false, plaintiffs' expert--Stefano Guandalini, M.D., a pediatrics professor at The University of Chicago Medicine--relied on double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trials (RCTs). For PCH's statements to be true, Guandalini opined, they must be supported with RCTs, and he maintained the testing required to determine a product's efficacy would be the same for a dietary supplement or drug, according to Vazquez's summary judgment order. But the judge rejected the expert's opinion that an RCT is required to support PCH's statements, and he said Guandalini was unaware of or misunderstood the "legal standard required to prove that a statement about a dietary supplement is 'true and not misleading.' "In essence, plaintiffs' expert opines that absent an RCT showing PCH's efficacy, Bayer's claims that PCH promotes digestive health are false," Vazquez wrote. "This lack-of-substantiation theory is not the legal standard. Without understanding the proper legal requirements to demonstrate whether Bayer's statements about PCH are false and misleading, Dr. Guandalini cannot offer an informed opinion as to whether that standard has been met." Later in his order, Vazquez further distinguished the substantiation standard from the plaintiffs' burden of proof. The "question," he said, "is not whether there is sufficient evidence to support PCH's claims, but rather whether plaintiffs have presented proof that PCH's claims are in fact false or misleading." Guandalini's interpretation of three RCTs did not establish the falsity of PCH's statements because "[t]he studies were not designed to test whether PCH 'promote[s] overall digestive health' and 'helps defend against occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas, and bloating,'" the judge observed. Rather, the purpose of two of the studies was to ascertain the effect of PCH on individuals with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and severe IBS, he noted. "These 'chronic' and 'reoccurring' symptoms are far more severe than the occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas and bloating that PCH claims to defend against," the judge wrote. In his deposition, Guandalini admitted he didn't know whether PCH was incapable of helping to promote overall digestive health. Wrote Vazquez: "In short, Dr. Guandalini did not offer a definitive opinion as to whether PCH's claims that it promotes overall digestive health and helps defend against occasional constipation, diarrhea, gas, and bloating were actually false." [GN] BLACKROCK INSTITUTIONAL: July 14 Reply to Bid for Judicial Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned Charles Baird, Plaintiff, v. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-1892-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gillaim, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, ordered that the Plaintiff must file any objection to the Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice by July 14, 2017, and that the Defendants must file any reply by July 28, 2017. Pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rule 6-2, the Plaintiff and the Defendants stipulate and agree that on June 1, 2017, the Defendants filed a Request for Judicial Notice in connection with their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint filed on the same day. Because the Request for Judicial Notice relates to the Motion to Dismiss, the parties have conferred and agreed that it makes sense to align the remaining briefing on the two motions. They have therefore stipulated and agreed to the briefing schedule for the Request for Judicial Notice, which coincides with the existing briefing schedule for the Motion to Dismiss: July 14, 2017 as the Plaintiff's objection to the Request for Judicial Notice due and July 28, 2017 as the Defendants' reply due. The parties have not requested any previous enlargement of time with respect to the Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice. One previous request for time modification has been made during the pendency of this action, setting the Motion to Dismiss briefing schedule, which was entered by the court on April 27, 2017. A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 stipulation and order is available at https://is.gd/Euv1c0 from Leagle.com. Charles Baird, Plaintiff, represented by Nina Rachel Wasow -- nina@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP. Charles Baird, Plaintiff, represented by Julia Horwitz -- jhorwitz@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll, Karen L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Michelle C. Yau -- myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Todd F. Jackson -- todd@feinbergjackson.com -- Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman and Wasow LLP. BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan -- akaplan@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow -- mvergow@omm.com -- OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards -- edwards@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Blackrock, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP. The BlackRock, Inc. Retirement Committee, Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Jason Herman, Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP. The Administrative Committee of the Retirement Committee, Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP. The Investment Committee of the Retirement Committee, Defendant, represented by Brian David Boyle, O'Melveny Myers LLP, Adam Manes Kaplan, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Meaghan McLaine VerGow, OMelveny and Myers LLP & Randall W. Edwards, O'Melveny & Myers LLP. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: MSP Seeks Medical Services Reimbursement -------------------------------------------------------------- MAO-MSO RECOVERY II, LLC, a Delaware entity; MSP RECOVERY, LLC, a Florida entity; MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, a Florida, the Plaintiffs, v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM, PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMA GMBH & CO., KG, BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH, BIDACHEM S.P.A., PROVIDIO, LLC PROVIDIO MEDISOLUTIONS, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21996-UU (S.D. Fla., May 27, 2017), seeks to recover from Defendants, as primary plans: -- reimbursement of all sums, on a fee-for-service basis, that Plaintiff's assignor HMO/Medicare Advantage Organization (MAO) was billed for medical care and treatment rendered on behalf of its MA enrollees, for which Defendants are responsible as primary payers, and -- double damages for Defendants' failures to properly reimburse Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sues Defendants to enforce its direct rights of recovery, subrogation rights, and/or recovery and reimbursement rights for the medical payments made as a secondary payer. The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for the medical services and/or supplies that were paid by its assignor to treat the injuries suffered by its enrollee as a direct result of the blood thinner product manufactured, marketed, and/or distributed by the Defendants. Plaintiff's causes of action arise from the Defendants' failure and refusal to reimburse Plaintiff for medical expenses paid on behalf of enrollees, for which Defendants are the responsible entities. Plaintiff's claim arises from the same practice or course of conduct that gave rise to the Class's claims. Boehringer Ingelheim is a global, research-driven pharmaceutical company embracing many cultures and diverse societies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John H. Ruiz, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 5000 SW 75 Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614 2222 E-mail: serve@msprecovery.com BONAFIDE THAI: "Sank" Suit Alleges Tip Regulation Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE D.B. SANK, as the Collective Representative under Fair Labor Standards Act in a Collective Action, and as Class representative for Plaintiff's State Law Claims, Plaintiff, v. BONAFIDE THAI and Soungpan Missakasavake as an individual under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws and "Sam" last name unknown as an individual under FLSA and Illinois Wage Laws Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01251-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill., June 5, 2017), alleges that Defendants violated tip regulations by taking from Plaintiff 10% of credit card tips. The case raises violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Bonafide Thai is a restaurant located in Bloomington, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John C. Ireland, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. IRELAND 636 Spruce Street South Elgin, IL 60177 630-464-9675 Fax: 630-206-0889 Phone: 6283137 E-mail: Attorneyireland@gmail.com BRIDGEVIEW BANQUET: Faces "Maor" Suit Over "Retained" Gratuities ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARSHALL MAOR, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against BRIDGEVIEW BANQUET CORP.; JOHN VITALE; and any other related entities, Defendants, Index No. 605175/2017 (N.Y. Sup., County of Nassau, June 5, 2017), alleges that Defendants have engaged in a policy and practice of unlawfully retaining employees' gratuities at all of Defendants' restaurant and catering venues located in New York in violation of the New York Labor Law. BRIDGEVIEW BANQUET CORP. operates a food catering business. Plaintiff has worked for Defendants in various food and service capacities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura R. Reznick, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Phone: (516) 873-9550 BROWN COUNTY, WI: Jacobs Seeks to Certify Class of Prisoners ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled Aaron L. Jacobs, Jr. v. K. Barkley, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00246-PP (E.D. Wisc.), asks the Court to certify his third amended complaint as a class action lawsuit and to appoint class counsel. K. Barkley is an officer, employee or agent of the Brown County Jail. The Plaintiff and the proposed class members are currently incarcerated at the Brown County Jail, in Green Bay, Wisconsin. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1keO3JC4 CALIFORNIA: Class Cert. Bid in Suit v. Social Services Nixed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled Trina Ray, the Plaintiff, v. California Department of Social Services, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-04239-PA-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Percy Anderson entered an order striking Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and distribution of judicial notice for violating Local Rule 7-3. The Court said, "Future violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Central District's Local Rules, or the Court's orders may result in the imposition of sanctions. Under the Central District's Local Rules, "counsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall first contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution. The conference shall take place at least 7 days prior to the filing of the motion. As the Notice of Motion makes clear, Plaintiff's motion flouts the pre-filing requirements of Local Rule 7-3." A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jk7AOjR5 CANADIAN PACIFIC: Denies Fault In Lac-Megantic Disaster ------------------------------------------------------- Eric Atkins, writing for Globe and Mail, reports Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. denies any responsibility for the 2013 oil train explosion in Lac-Megantic, Que., saying the liability for the disaster that killed 47 people lies with the company that hauled the crude and the locomotive engineer. CP filed its defence in response to a class-action lawsuit on behalf of 5,000 people and companies who lost loved ones, homes or businesses in July, 2013, when an unattended Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway Inc. train of 72 tank cars carrying 7.7 million litres of oil derailed and exploded. Most of the town's core was destroyed, and 2,000 people were forced to flee. The lawsuit also names MM&A and its engineer, Thomas Harding. CP hauled the oil train to Montreal from New Town, N.D., and said its responsibility ended when it handed the cargo over to MM&A, which was to carry it to the Irving Oil Ltd. refinery in Saint John. "[T]here is a transfer of liability when traffic is interchanged from a carrier to a connecting carrier," CP said in the court document, citing Association of American Railroads rules. "No CP locomotive or tank cars, no CP crew and no CP tracks were involved in the derailment." Joel Rochon, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said CP's liability stems from its partnership with the shipper, World Fuel Services, and its entities in the North Dakota rail hub that was the source of the oil. Get the latest news on deals, mergers and acquisitions and capital markets. The lawsuit alleges the oil shipment was mislabelled to conceal its volatility, a move that permitted the use of older, cheaper tank cars over the "poorly maintained and low-cost" MM&A route east of Montreal instead of a better-maintained line owned by Canadian National Railway Co. "It was all about driving profits and cutting costs for CP-- focusing on the bottom line to the detriment of communities along the railroad, including Lac-Megantic," Mr. Rochon said by phone. "CP was very much involved in the process of moving the Bakken shale gas liquids . . . from North Dakota to the Irving refinery. So this is very much something that happened in conjunction with the shipper, World Fuel Services," he said. A CP spokesman said the company had no comment because the matter is before the courts. None of the claims has been proven in court. In its statement of defence, CP said it had no role in the selection of MM&A to handle the train. "In all cases . . . the shipper always selected the route," CP said, adding that "common carrier" rules prevent a railway from refusing to haul legal cargo. CP said it could not have foreseen that the lone MM&A engineer, Mr. Harding, would fail to apply enough brakes to the train and leave it unattended on a descending grade, nor that a fire in one locomotive would lead to its shutdown. This caused the train's air brakes to gradually fail. The train rolled down the tracks and reached 105 kilometres an hour before crashing and exploding in the centre of town, investigators found. Mr. Rochon said CP's denials come as no surprise, given the company's "very aggressive, recalcitrant position throughout the course of their defence of this action. It appears they are determined to drag this litigation out and not contribute to any settlement agreement." About 25 companies previously named in the lawsuit were dropped after they agreed to contribute to a $450-million fund for the victims. Contributors included Irving Oil, Shell Oil Co., World Fuel Services and the federal government, which gave $75-million. CP refused to contribute to the fund, a move that left the Calgary-based company open to lawsuits. MM&A is in bankruptcy protection, and its assets have been sold. The case is scheduled to return to a Lac-Megantic courtroom in July for pretrial procedures. CP faces several legal battles over the crash, including a $409- million damages lawsuit filed by the province of Quebec and 10 insurance claims, according CP documents. The town last year dropped its lawsuit against CP, saying the fight would be too long and expensive. Mr. Harding and two other former MM&A employees have been charged with criminal negligence causing death. A jury trial is scheduled to begin in the fall. [GN] CITIZEN'S TAXI: Judge Allows Class Action to Proceed ---------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a driver's class action complaint, accusing a taxi dispatcher of not paying him and other drivers like him overtime and wrongly deducting from their pay, will be allowed to proceed after a federal judge refused to fully dismiss the action. In an opinion issued May 26 in Chicago, Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim denied portions of a motion to dismiss the complaint of Daniel Martinez, who is suing Citizen's Taxi Dispatch, Inc., and its owner, Patricia Shelton, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. Martinez said the company failed to pay overtime and also alleged unlawful payroll deductions. According to Kim's background, Citizen's Taxi operates cars in and around DuPage County, but primarily contracts with school districts to provide student transportation in Wheaton and Warrenville. Drivers are designated independent contractors, though they are subject to drug testing, set weekly schedules, non-negotiable schedules and route assignments and disciplinary action. Drivers are required to rent vehicles from the company; the weekly fee is deducted from their paychecks along with other expenses, such as parking tickets and towing costs associated with terminated employees. The drivers pay for vehicle maintenance and repairs, tolls and gas. Martinez drove for Citizen's from February through September 2016, and allegedly worked up to 56 hours a week without being paid time-and-a-half for the overtime hours in excess of 40 hours worked. In moving to dismiss, Citizen's argued it is exempt from FLSA regulations, and therefore the complaint does not belong in federal court. Kim noted Martinez invoked enterprise coverage rather than alleging he is subject to individual FLSA coverage. Citizen's said that position required Martinez to allege its drivers handle or transport goods that crossed state lines. In a response brief, Martinez pointed to daily runs to O'Hare and Midway airports, as well as frequent trips to take goods to and from interstate shipping facilities, including post offices. "Enterprise coverage has repeatedly been found to extend to local businesses whose local employees, in the course of their employment, use supplies that were manufactured out-of-state," Kim wrote, noting the clause has such broad interpretation it applies to nearly any business meeting FLSA dollar volume requirements. Citizen's also argued for dismissal under FLSA's taxicab exemptions, but Kim said the burden falls on the company to prove it qualifies. "Exemption must be construed narrowly against the employer," Kim wrote, adding, "the exemption question is better left for the summary judgment or trial stage." Finally, Citizen's said Martinez failed to sufficiently allege facts about his compensation, pay rate and what he feels he's owed. But the judge noted Martinez had cited two specific weeks in which he worked 54 and 56 hours without getting time-and-a-half for the excess. The "uncompensated overtime allegations are sufficiently detailed," Kim wrote. However, Kim did dismiss the FLSA claim without prejudice to allow Martinez to amend his complaint to include allegations filed in the response brief. Under the state law claim, Citizen's argued for dismissal by saying Martinez did not fully allege a compensation agreement with the company. Referencing his independent contractor agreement on its own does not satisfy requirements to uphold the state law claim, Kim said, dismissing that complaint without prejudice. Martinez also accused Citizen's of unjust enrichment by requiring drivers to pay vehicle expenses. Citizen's argued that claim should fail on the same grounds it opposed the FLSA claim, but since Martinez is allowed to replead that complaint, Kim said "this argument gets them nowhere." Martinez is represented in the action by attorneys with The Fish Law Firm, of Naperville, and Osborne Employment Law, of Glen Ellyn. Citizen's Taxi is defended by attorneys Zachary Bravos, Esq. and Kathleen DiCola, Esq. of the firm of Bravos & DiCola, of Wheaton. [GN] COMBE INC: Faces "Stringer" Suit Over Just For Men(R) Hair Dye -------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN STRINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. COMBE, INC.; COMBE PRODUCTS, INC.; COMBE LABORATORIES, INC.; and COMBE INTERNATIONAL, LTD., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-03192-LB (N.D. Cal., June 5, 2017), alleges that Defendants launched a targeted marketing campaign headlined by legendary Black sports figures to induce African American males to purchase hair dye product line Just For Men(R). Defendants allegedly engaged in this racially motivated conduct despite knowing that: (1) the Just For Men(R) Jet Black color shade intended for African American consumers contained seventeen times more p-Phenylenediamine ("PPD") -- a remarkable "strong sensitizer" with the potential to cause severe health risks -- than lighter color shades intended for White consumers, and (2) the sensitization rate to PPD is fives times greater for African American males than White males. In the face of this unacceptable risk disparity between the races, Defendants neglected to warn or disclose that African American males had a significantly heightened propensity for severe physical injury or that the Jet Black color shade was unreasonably dangerous. Combe Incorporated produces personal products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE & TORRIJOS, LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Phone: (310) 844-9696 Fax: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: elise@asstlawyers.com alfredo@asstlawyers.com - and - Jay A. Urban, Esq. URBAN & TAYLOR S.C. 4701 North Port Washington Road Milwaukee, WI 53212 Phone: (414) 906-1700 Fax: (414) 906-5333 E-mail: jurban@wisconsininjury.com COWLEY DISTRIBUTING: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Scott" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ROY JAMES SCOTT, SR., On behalf of himself and others Similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. COWLEY DISTRIBUTING, INC. (a Missouri Corporation), the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04307-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Nanette K. Laughrey entered an order: 1. conditionally certifying Plaintiffs' collective action, pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act for: "all current and former employees who worked for Defendant Cowley Distributing, Inc. at any time in the three years preceding the date of this Order, who performed work as drivers/merchandisers while employed by Cowley, who were paid on a set weekly salary basis, who in whole or in part operated a motor vehicle that had a gross vehicle weight ratio of 10,000 lbs. or less, and who were not paid at one and one-half times their regular hourly rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek"; and 2. authorizing Plaintiff Roy James Scott, Sr. to act as class representative and Donelon, P.C. to act as class counsel. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=v8I1e77w CVS PHARMACY: Corcoran, et al. Seek Certification of Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Christopher Corcoran, et al. on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., the Defendant. Case No. 4:15-cv-03504-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on July 18, 2017, at 2:00 p.m., for an order: a. certifying a class of: "all CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (CVS) customers in [California] [Arizona] [Florida] [Illinois] [Massachusetts] [New York] who, between November 2008 and July 31, 2015, (1) purchased one or more generic prescription drugs from CVS that were offered through CVS's Health Savings Pass (HSP) program at the time of the purchase; (2) were insured for the purchase(s) through a third-party payor plan administered by one of the following pharmacy benefit managers: Caremark/PCS, Express Scripts, Medco, MedImpact, or Optum/Prescription Solutions (prior to January 29, 2015); and (3) paid CVS an out-of-pocket payment for the purchase greater than the HSP program price for the prescription"; b. appointing the named Plaintiffs as representatives of the class; and c. appointing the named Plaintiffs' attorneys of record as class counsel. The Plaintiffs seek certification of a statutory unfair and deceptive acts and practices claim (and for California, two such claims) arising under the laws of each of the respective states: (1) the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code, and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code; (2) the Arizona Consumer Fairness Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat.; (3) the Florida Unfair & Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Fla.; (4) the Illinois Consumer Fraud & Deceptive Practices Act,; (5) the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uWStlLQQ The Plaintiff is represented by: Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633 1908 Facsimile: (415) 358 4980 E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com - and - Richard Lewis, Esq. Sathya S. Gosselin, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K St. NW, Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 540 7200 Facsimile: (202) 540 7201 E-mail: rlewis@hausfeld.com - and - Pat A. Cipollone, P.C. Rebecca R. Anzidei Robert B. Gilmore STEIN MITCHELL CIPOLLONE BEATO & MISSNER LLP 1100 Connecticut Ave. N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 Tel: (202) 737-7777 E-mail: pcipollone@steinmitchell.com ranzidei@steinmitchell.com rgilmore@steinmitchell.com - and - Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Bethany L. Caracuzzo, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692 0772 Facsimile: (415) 366 6110 E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com jkl@pritzkerlevine.com bc@pritzkerlevine.com DNB BANK: Class Action Lawsuit Gets Green Light ----------------------------------------------- Norway's consumer council (Forbrukerradet) won a green light on June 2 to move forward with a massive class-action lawsuit against Norway's biggest bank, DNB. The council, on behalf of DNB customers, is demanding that the highly profitable state- controlled bank refund NOK 690 million in fees charged on its investment funds. Norway's biggest bank, DNB, has had a terrible year with lots of bad publicity. Now it faces a huge class-action lawsuit over the fees it charged investment fund customers. PHOTO: newsinenglish.no "We are happy and relieved," Jorge Jensen, a director of the consumer council, told Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK) June 2afternoon after an Oslo appeals court refused to hear DNB's appeal and cleared the way for the lawsuit to proceed. A lower court had earlier approved the class-action suit, but DNB, which has faced a string of problems in recent years, had appealed. The bank lost, and Jensen is now ready to sue DNB for allegedly cheating customers into paying management fees on their investments in various funds that were far too high. The funds include "DNB Norge," "DNB Norge I" and "Avanse Norge I." The council intends to sue on behalf of as many as 180,000 funds customers at DNB. "DNB has charged fees for a service it did not deliver," Jensen claims. "They have marketed and priced several of Norway's largest stock investment funds actively, but the funds have been managed passively." DNB denies the charges and appealed the consumer council's initial victory in the Oslo City Court (Oslo Tingrett). "DNB's appeal was an attempt to avoid these customers being able to demand refunds of NOK 690 million (USD 82 million) because they had paid for something they didn't get," Jensen said. DNB can still appeal to Norway's Supreme Court but it remained unclear whether it will be heard after an appeals court saw no grounds for it. "We have just received the news that the appeals court has rejected our appeal," DNB spokesman Vidar Korsberg Dalsbo told NRK. "We will now spend some time going through their reasoning." The lawsuit will be the largest class action in Norwegian history and may have implications for funds customers in other countries as well. "This problem with passive funds that are marketed as being actively managed comes up in several countries in Europe," Jensen told NRK. "Lists are now being published all over Europe of what funds are involved." That may lead to class action suits being filed on behalf of customers abroad as well. [GN] EXTRA SPACE: June 20 Hearing to Approve "Gomes" Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled STEVEN GOMES, JR., on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff(s), v. EXTRA SPACE STORGE, INC.; EXTRA SPACE MANAGEMENT, INC.; and JOHN DOE COMPANIES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No 2:13-cv-00929-CLW. (D.N.J.), Mr. Steven Gomes, Jr., on behalf of himself and the putative class, on June 20, 2017, will ask the United States Court for the District of New Jersey for an Order certifying this case to proceed as a class action and granting final approval of the parties' class settlement agreement. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n7BAkeZj The Plaintiff is represented by: Bharati Sharma Patel, Esq. THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC 1520 U.S. Highway 130 - Suite 101 North Brunswick, NJ 08902 Telephone: (732) 545 7900 Facsimile: (732) 545 1030 E-mail: bpatel@wolflawfirm.net FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Court Strikes Class Claims in "Blunt" --------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned PRISCILLA BLUNT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:16-CV-2430-T- 30MAP (M.D. Fl.), Judge James S. Moody, Jr., of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denied the Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file second motion for class certification. On Aug. 24, 2016, the Plaintiff brought this putative class action against the Defendant for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act predicated on the Defendant's collection letter. Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's collection letter offered to resolve her time-barred debt without disclosing that the obligation was beyond the applicable statute of limitations. She also contends that the collection letter neglected to inform her that if she made a partial payment on the debt, the applicable statute of limitations could reset or begin anew. On Nov. 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed her first motion to extend Local Rule 4.04(b)'s 90-day deadline to file a Rule 23 class certification motion and for leave to conduct class discovery. On Nov. 22, 2016, the Court denied the motion without prejudice because the Defendant had not yet appeared in the case. The Order stated that the Plaintiff may refile her motion after the Defendant has appeared and after her counsel has adequately conferred with the Defendant's counsel on the issues contained in the motion. The deadline to file any motion for class certification is stayed during that time. On Nov. 30, 2016, the Defendant filed its answer, which was its first appearance in this case. On Dec. 15, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Compliance," which indicated that the Defendant did not agree with her request to seek an extension of time to file a motion for class certification. However, contrary to the Court's Nov. 22, 2016 Order, the Plaintiff did not refile her motion to extend the deadline to file a motion for class certification, despite the fact that the stay to file the motion had expired. Nor did she file a motion to conduct class discovery prior to the case management meeting. Instead, this litigation proceeded for over five months. During this time, there were several filings. In December, the Defendant moved to stay this action pending the resolution of appeals before the Eleventh Circuit that the Defendant believed involved substantially similar allegations to the facts of this case. The Court denied the Defendant's motion on Jan. 13, 2017. On Feb. 24, 2017, the parties filed their joint Case Management Report ("CMR"). The CMR was silent as to any issues related to class discovery, or the deadline to file a motion for class certification. The CMR also informed the Court that the parties did not have any disagreement or unresolved issues concerning discovery at this time. On Feb. 28, 2017, the Court entered the Case Management and Scheduling Order. The Scheduling Order set forth the following deadlines: Third-Party Joinder Cut-Off -- March 24, 2017; the Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure -- June 23, 2017; the Defendant's Expert Disclosure -- July 24, 2017; Discovery Deadline -- Aug. 25, 2017; and Dispositive Motion Deadline -- Sept. 25, 2017. On April 20, 2017, the Defendant provided discovery responses to the Plaintiff. Notably, it objected to any class-related discovery based on the Plaintiff's failure to timely move, under Rule 23, for class certification. On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion, requesting an extension of time to file a motion for class certification. Acknowledging that her motion is untimely, the Plaintiff argues "excusable neglect," stating that she never moved to strike her class allegations; the Defendant cannot establish prejudice; and that any delay was made in good faith. Based on the facts of this case, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff has not met her burden to establish excusable neglect. Therefore, the Court denied the Plaintiff's Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Class Certification and struck from the Complaint any class action allegations because the Plaintiff failed to timely move for class certification. A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/K6hFzE from Leagle.com. Priscilla Blunt, Plaintiff, represented by Alex A. Stern -- alexander.adam.stern@gmail.com -- Little Guy Law Firm. Priscilla Blunt, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Jarret Wolf -- bwolf@legaljones.com -- Jones Wolf and Kapasi, LLC, pro hac vice & Joseph Karl Jones, Jones Wolf and Kapasi, LLC, pro hac vice. Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dale Thomas Golden -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com. -- Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC. FLUSHING MARKET: "Huang" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- FANGRUI HUANG, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GW OF FLUSHING I, INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, GREAT WALL SUPERMARKET OF NY INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, FLUSHING MARKET, INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, GW SUPERMARKET OF NORTHERN BOULEVARD INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, GREAT WALL SUPERMARKET(QUEENS) INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, GREAT WALL SUPERMARKET OF GA INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, GREAT WALL SUPERMARKET OF MARYLAND INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, GREAT WALL SUPERMARKET OF BALTIMORE INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, GREAT WALL SUPERMARKET OF GERMANTOWN INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, C-MART SUPERMARKET II, INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, C-MART HERALD STREET, INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, GW SUPERMARKET OF HOUSTON, INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, GREAT WALL SUPERMARKET OF VA INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, GREAT WALL VA INC. d/b/a G W Supermarket, LI HUI ZHANG a/k/a Lihui Zhang, SAILU PAN a/k/a Sai Lu Pan a/k/a Sai Pan Lu, CHRISTINE WANG, and MIAO KUN FANG, the Defendants, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03181-PKC-JO (E.D.N.Y., May 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and/or attorneys' fees and costs under Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). According to the complaint, the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NYLL by engaging in a pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 in each workweek. The Defendants willfully failed to record all of the time that Plaintiff and similarly situated employees work or worked, including time worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Flushing Market is retail food store in the county of Queens, licensed by New York State Department.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762 1324 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com GALAXY RECYCLING: "Dominguez" Class Settlement Has Final Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned JUAN LUNA DOMINGUEZ et al., Plaintiffs, v. GALAXY RECYCLING INC. et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-7521 (LDW) (D. N.J.), Judge Leda Dunn Wettre of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the class settlement, the FLSA collective claim settlement, and a service award to Plaintiff Dominguez. Named Plaintiffs, Dominguez and Granados, were employees of defendants Galaxy and Joseph Smentkowski, Inc., doing business as Galaxy Carting or Smentkowski Garbage Removal, which performed residential waste collection. They contend that Defendant Gary Giordano was an officer or owner of those entities. They allege that the Defendants failed to pay them and similarly situated employees proper overtime wages for their work in excess of 40 hours each week. The Plaintiffs commenced this action on Dec. 7, 2012. Their First Amended Complaint, filed on consent on Oct. 30, 2013, asserts class and collective claims against the Defendants for overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New Jersey minimum wage law. United States District Judge Faith S. Hochberg granted a motion for conditional certification of the class for notification purposes under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on Sept. 20, 2013. The Plaintiffs, on April 24, 2015, moved for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), identifying the proposed class as all current and former employees of Galaxy or Joseph Smentkowski who performed work as drivers, driver's helpers, waste collectors, and loaders from Dec. 7, 2010 through the present; this does not include supervisors, officers, executive, managerial, or administrative personnel. On Dec. 10, 2015, United States District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo granted that motion and also denied a motion by the Defendants for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Following a settlement conference before United States Magistrate Judge James B. Clark, III, and two settlement conferences before the undersigned, the parties reached a tentative settlement. On Nov. 15, 2016, after the parties had consented to the undersigned's plenary jurisdiction over this action, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the parties' proposed settlement agreement and notice to class members. In this Order, the Court found, among other things, that the settlement was a non-collusive product of arm's length negotiations. It also set a schedule for class notification procedures; under this schedule, Feb. 13, 2017 was the deadline for class members to opt out of or object to the settlement. The Court has received no objections to the proposed settlement. The Plaintiffs now move for final approval of the class settlement, approval of the FLSA collective claim settlement, an award of counsel fees and costs, and approval of a service award to Plaintiff Dominguez. Judge Wettre held an in-person fairness hearing on April 26, 2017. She finds that there is a strong initial presumption of fairness given the circumstances of the proposed settlement agreement and that the Girsh and Prudential factors weigh in favor of approving the settlement as fair and reasonable. She also finds that the settlement provides 100% recovery for FLSA collective members and is a product of arm's length negotiations, there is nothing suggesting that it would otherwise frustrate the intent of FLSA. Moreover, she notes no incentive exists for inflating litigation costs, given that class counsel's aggregated fees and costs are effectively capped under the clear sailing provision, and any increase in claimed costs would simply reduce recoverable fees. For these reasons, Judge Wettre granted the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for final approval of the settlement of their class and FLSA collective claims, for an award of counsel fees and costs, for approval of a service award, and for dismissal of the action. A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 memorandum opinion is available at https://is.gd/sNtgQ0 from Leagle.com. Juan Luna Dominguez, Plaintiff, represented by Lloyd R. Amrinder, Esq. -- lambinder@vandallp.com -- Virginia & Ambinder, LLP. Juan Luna Dominguez, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Lee Newhouse, Esq. -- jnewhouse@vandallp.com -- Virginia & Ambinder, LLP. MARLON JOSE GRANADOS, Plaintiff, represented by Lloyd R. Amrinder, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Jack Lee Newhouse, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP. Fredy Barrios, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Lee Newhouse, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Lloyd R. Amrinder, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP. Juan Benedito, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Lee Newhouse, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Lloyd R. Amrinder, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP. Noel Carillo, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Lee Newhouse, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Lloyd R. Amrinder, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP. Carlos Escobar, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Lee Newhouse, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Lloyd R. Amrinder, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP. Santos Espinal, Plaintiff, represented by Jack Lee Newhouse, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Lloyd R. Amrinder, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP. Marlon Jose Granados, Plaintiff, represented by Lloyd R. Amrinder, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Jack Lee Newhouse, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP. Jose Huelit, Plaintiff, represented by Lloyd R. Amrinder, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP & Jack Lee Newhouse, Virginia & Ambinder, LLP. Galaxy Recycling Inc., Defendant, represented by George Karousatos -- g.karousatos@bdlawfirm.com -- Biancamano & Di Stefano, PC & James Passantino -- j.passantino@bdlawfirm.com -- Biancamano & Di Stefano, PC. Gary Giordano, Defendant, represented by George Karousatos, Biancamano & Di Stefano, PC & James Passantino, Biancamano & Di Stefano, PC. Joseph Smentkowski, Inc. d/b/a Galaxy Carting and d/b/a Smentowski Garbage Removal, Defendant, represented by James Passantino, Biancamano & Di Stefano, PC. GARDA CL: "Louis" Suit Moved to Eastern District of New York ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Jean-Parnell Louis and Charles J. Engel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Garda CL Atlantic, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 621225/2016, was removed on May 25, 2017 from the Supreme Court of NY County of Suffolk, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-03186-SJF-ARL to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein. Garda Cl was founded in 1996. The company's line of business includes providing detective, guard, and armored car services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neil Frank, Esq. FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 500 Bi-County Boulevard, Suite 465 Farmingdale, NY 11735 Telephone: (631) 756 0400 Facsimile: (631) 756 0547 E-mail: support2@laborlaws.com The Defendant is represented by: A. Michael Weber, Esq. Houston Adams Stokes, Esq., Ivie A Guobadia, Esq., LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 900 Third Avenue, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583 9600 Facsimile: (212) 832 2719 E-mail: mweber@littler.com hstokes@littler.com iguobadia@littler.com GREEN DOT: Nov. 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing in "Lewis" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled JASON LEWIS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. GREEN DOT CORPORATION, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv- 03557-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiffs' amended motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement; 2. preliminarily certifying class for purposes of settlement: "all cardholders, as identified in Green Dot Defendants' business records, who attempted to and were unable to use their Green Dot-issued, MasterCardprocessed cards to access or spend their account funds from May 15, 2016 through May 22, 2016 as a result of the Service Disruption"; 3. preliminary appointing plaintiffs Jason Lewis, Danielle Hall, and Justin Thornton as class representatives for settlement purposes; 4. preliminarily appointing John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group; Richard D. McCune and Joseph G. Sauder of McCune Wright Arevalo LLP; Jean Sutton Martin of Law Offices of Jean Sutton Martin PPLC; and Daniel C. Girard and Linh G. Vuong of Girard Gibbs LLP as class counsel for settlement purposes. 5. preliminarily finding that the terms of the Settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate, and comply with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 6. directing parties to carry out the settlement and claims process according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; and 7. appointing Epiq Systems as the Settlement Administrator. Pursuant to the settlement, defendants have already provided two benefits to compensate some class members for inconveniences and losses caused by the Service Disruption. First, most class members with an active Green Dot account received a two-month fee holiday during which they were not assessed any monthly maintenance fees. Second, class members who had an active Green Dot account in May and June 2016, "received credits to their accounts in the amount of $50.00 each." Green Dot issued approximately 58,275 Courtesy Credits, for a total of $2,913,750. Through the Fee Holiday and Courtesy Credits, Green Dot has provided more than $3.3 million to class members. Defendants will also provide prospective relief to class members as follows: (A) Tier 1 Claims -- Fee Holiday Extension: Each settlement class member will be entitled to a one-month extension of the Fee Holiday. This benefit may be provided, at Green Dot's election, via account credits, checks, or funds. This benefit is automatic and will not require class members to file claims. (B) Tier 2 Claims -- Payment for Losses Without Documentation: Class members "who attempted to and were unable to use their Prepaid Cards to access or spend their account funds from May 15, 2016 through May 22, 2016 and who claim to have suffered a financial or other loss as a result of the Service Disruption but do not have or do not wish to provide Reasonable Documentation will be eligible for a payment up to $100.00." However, any prior payments received by a class member from Green Dot "as restitution for the Service Disruption, other than the Fee Holiday, will be offset against the $100.00 (or lesser) payment." (C) Tier 3 Claims -- Payment for Substantiated Losses: Class members "who attempted to and were unable to use their Prepaid Cards to access or spend their account funds from May 15, 2016 through May 22, 2016 and who claim to have suffered a financial or other loss as a result of the Service Disruption and who provide Reasonable Documentation of Substantiated Losses will be eligible for a payment of the lesser of the amount of such loss or $750.00." However, any prior payments received by the class member from Green Dot "as restitution for the Service Disruption, other than the Fee Holiday, will be offset against the $750.00 (or lesser) payment." The Tier 2 claims are subject to an aggregate amount not to exceed $2 million ("Tier 2 Maximum"). If Tier 2 claims exceed the Tier 2 Maximum, each claim will be reduced on a pro rata basis. Combined across Tiers 2 and 3, Defendants agree to pay a guaranteed minimum of $1,500,000. If an insufficient number of valid and timely claims are submitted and paid to exhaust the Minimum Payment Amount, then the remaining funds shall be distributed to the following cy pres recipient, subject to Court approval: Consumer Action, a non-profit corporation that provides financial advocacy and education to consumers nationwide. A final approval (fairness) hearing is set for November 2, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6D of the First Street Courthouse, to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement as well as the award of attorney's fees and costs to class counsel, and service awards to the class representatives. Any class member who wishes to: (a) object to the settlement, including the requested attorney's fees, costs and incentive awards; and/or (b) exclude him or herself from the settlement must file his or her objection to the settlement or request for exclusion (i.e., the Exclusion Form) no later than September 26, 2017. Plaintiffs shall file a motion for an award of class representative incentive payments and attorney's fees and costs no later than August 26, 2017. Any objection to the motion for an award of class representative incentive payments and attorney's fees and costs, by class members, shall be filed by September 26. Class counsel shall, no later than October 12, file a reply addressing the objection. The Court said, "It is clear that the settlement does not improperly grant preferential treatment to the class representatives. As an initial matter, the $500 incentive award per class member is presumptively reasonable. See Dyer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 303 F.R.D. 326, 335 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (finding an incentive award of $5,000 presumptively reasonable). Further, the record reflects that the class representatives have taken on responsibility in litigating this case, and the class has benefitted from the time and effort they spent doing so. (See, e.g., Dkt. 90-4, Lewis Decl. at 15-16 (describing participation in this litigation and hours spent); Declaration of Danielle Hall in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement ("Hall Decl."); Declaration of Justin Thornton in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement ("Thornton Decl."). Plaintiffs state that they have reviewed and approve the settlement in this action. In short, because the parties agree that the settlement shall remain in force regardless of any incentive awards and the amount of the awards are presumptively reasonable, the court is persuaded that there is no conflict of interest between the named plaintiffs and absent class members." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7oZZtVeI GREENCLEANING ENTERPRISES: "Zamora" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- EDWIN F. ZAMORA, EDWIN A. ZAMORA, SANTIAGO VEGAS, JOSE GONZALEZ, LUIS MALDONADO, AND MARIA CARACHURE, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GREENCLEANING ENTERPRISES, INC. D/B/A SERVICEMASTER CLEAN, EAGLE MAINTENANCE COMPANY, INC. D/B/A SERVICEMASTER CLEAN., AND NKNB L.P. D/B/A NORTH AMERICAN STONE CO., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00390 (E.D. Tex., June 5, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants performing cleaning duties at North Texas municipal and community college facilities. Plaintiffs averaged working eighty or more hours per week performing these duties for Defendants. Defendants paid Plaintiffs straight time for each hour they worked, regardless of whether those hours exceeded forty in a workweek. In addition, Defendants altered the hours Plaintiffs and other employees reported in order to reduce the pay they received. Defendants also paid Plaintiffs under the names of various businesses to avoid producing paystubs showing the actual hours they were working -- which were almost always more than forty in a workweek. The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs have worked for Defendants performing cleaning duties at North Texas municipal and community college facilities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Javier Perez, Esq. Matthew R. Scott, Esq. SCOTT, PEREZ LLP Founders Square 900 Jackson Street, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75202 Phone: 214-965-9675 Fax: 214-965-9680 E-mail: matt.scott@scottperezlaw.com javier.perez@scottperezlaw.com GUARANTEED RATE: "Tadena" Suit Moved to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Benita Tadena, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, and as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of other "aggrieved employees" under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, the Plaintiff, v. Guaranteed Rate, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 34- 02017-00210217, was removed on May 26, 2017 from the Sacramento County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern District of California (Sacramento). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01103-KJM-AC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to her and other similarly situated current and former employees in California for unpaid wages and other related relief. These claims are based on Defendants' alleged failures to indemnify for all business expenses, fairly compete, provide accurate written wage statements, and timely pay final wages upon termination of employment. The Plaintiff brings this class action based on alleged violations of the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Order, and the Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Glenn Spivak, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 303 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 499 4730 Facsimile: (310) 499 4739 E-mail: david@spivaklaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Roxanne M. Wilson, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229 9500 Facsimile: (213) 625 0248 E-mail: rmwilson@mayerbrown.com HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED: Insurers Seek to Dismiss Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Boysen, writing for Law360, reports that nearly 30 major insurers, including State Farm, AIG and Allstate, on June 2 moved to gut a proposed class action accusing them of bad faith denial of claims stemming from a defective concrete outbreak in Connecticut, asking a federal court to toss the suit's most imposing claims. The suit alleges that the state's largest home insurance carriers conspired to prevent potentially billions of dollars' worth of coverage for homes whose foundations are crumbling due to defective concrete -- a problem that can cost up to $250,000 per home to fix and is estimated to affect roughly 35,000 homes across the eastern part of the state. The suit is seeking to certify a class of all homeowners with crumbling foundations in three Connecticut counties and is asking for, among other things, a declaratory judgment that all of the insurers must cover repairs to all of those foundations, as well as bad faith damages under the Connecticut Unfair Insurance Practices Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. In separate motions to dismiss the bad faith claims and strike the class allegations, the insurers say that in every instance, the claims will depend on the specifics of the homeowners' policies and foundation problems, and therefore won't fly in a "massive, unwieldy class action." "Plaintiffs cannot improperly seek to have the court ignore the facts and the policy language in favor of an overarching, and inevitably inaccurate, declaration," the insurers wrote in their joint motion to dismiss certain counts. "That such a broad declaratory judgment lumping all defendants together could possibly enter is wishful thinking." Connecticut's crumbling concrete epidemic has become a hugely contentious issue since local news reports forced it into the spotlight in 2015. Candidates for the state's gubernatorial race are treating it as a campaign issue and nearly a dozen hotly contested bills are currently stalled in committee. Requests to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for aid have been denied, twice. The problem stems from a mineral, pyrrhotite, contained in the concrete aggregate mined from a quarry in northeastern Connecticut that has provided the concrete for a large portion of the region's homes for the last 30 years. When pyrrhotite is exposed to water and air it oxidizes and expands, which can lead to cracking and ultimately the complete disintegration of pyrrhotite-laden concrete. As the problem came into focus over the last two decades or so, the suit says, the insurers changed the language in their policies to delete coverage for the problem by qualifying "collapse" in their policies with terms such as "abrupt" and "sudden," without notifying policyholders of the change in coverage. They then engaged in a widespread pattern of bad faith denial of claims as the problem came to light recently, despite knowing that many Connecticut district court cases had found that their policies still covered the problem, the suit says. The insurers dispute those claims, saying that state law isn't clear on whether or not they have to notify homeowners of coverage changes such as those alleged in the suit, adding that the denial of claims was done in good faith since the issue is complicated -- many of the one-off cases have also been decided in favor of insurers, for example. "Plaintiffs should not be allowed ... to transform good faith coverage disputes ... [into] broadly and vaguely alleged statutory claims against all defendants," the motion to dismiss certain claims said. Most of the insurers on June 2 also filed individual motions to dismiss the entire suit, which includes 22 named plaintiffs with individualized claims against each of the insurers, in addition to the class allegations. Regardless of the merits of the claims themselves, however, the insurers say they can't possibly be fit into the proposed class certification or the declaratory judgment, which one insurance law blog termed a "Mega DJ" shortly after the suit was filed last year. "Bad faith claims by [their] very nature require individualized allegations and proof," the motion to dismiss said, echoing the motion to strike's assertion that "a substantial portion of the putative class claims necessitates a fact-intensive investigation by expert witnesses and fact discovery on each individual claim." The testing of the concrete in each foundation, the relative structural stability of each foundation, each homeowner's specific policy language and its history of changes -- all of those, and many other issues, the insurers say, would need to be combed over in detail before any claims could advance. The homeowners' lead attorney Ryan Barry, of Barry Barall & Spinella LLC, knew his structuring of the case was relatively unusual, but he told Law360 in an earlier interview before the motions were filed that he was confident that it was the best way to get relief for the most homeowners affected by the crisis. "If the insurance companies continue to go down this path, it's going to crush the middle class in eastern Connecticut," Barry said. "The state government hasn't been able to do anything about it, and the federal government won't touch it. "The whole thing is just crying out for a solution, and that's what we're trying to craft with this case," he said. Barry and representatives for the insurers didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on June 2. The homeowners are represented by Ryan Barry, Esq. and Anthony J. Spinella, Esq. of Barry Barall & Spinella LLC, and Melissa A Federico, Esq. -- mfederico@murthalaw.com -- of Murtha Cullina LLP. The insurers are represented by Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq.-- wackerman@sa.com -- Stephen E. Goldman, Esq.--sgoldman@rc.com -- and Jessica A.R. Hamilton, Esq. -- jhamilton@rc.com -- of Robinson & Cole LLP on the joint motion to strike the class allegations, and by Kieran W. Leary, Esq.--kleary@hl-law.com -- and Philip T. Newbury, Jr, Esq. -- pnewbury@hl-law.com -- of Howd & Ludorf LLC, and Robert A. Kole, Esq.--rkole@coate.com -- Amos Hugh Scott, Esq.--ahscott@choate.com and Matthew B. Arnould, Esq.-- marnould@coate.com -- of Choate Hall & Stewart LLP on the joint motion to dismiss. The case is Michael and Joyce Halloran et al. v. Harleysville Preferred Insurance Co. et al., case number 3:16-cv-00133, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. [GN] HEALTHCARE NATIONAL: Able Home Seeks Certification of 3 Classes --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled ABLE HOME HEALTH, LLC, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members, the Plaintiff, v. HEALTHCARE NATIONAL, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-04322 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify three classes: For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act: "(a) all persons with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Sec.1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Healthcare National, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) with respect to which defendant Healthcare National, LLC, does not have evidence of consent or an established business relationship prior to sending the fax"; For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act: "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Healthcare National, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) with respect to which defendant Healthcare National, LLC, does not have evidence of consent or an established business relationship prior to sending the fax"; and For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, and Count IV, alleging trespass to chattels: "(a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date five years prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant Healthcare National, LLC, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) with respect to which defendant Healthcare National, LLC, does not have evidence of consent or an established business relationship prior to sending the fax". The Plaintiff further asks the Court that it be appointed class representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cFXPb29z The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Heather Kolbus, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 HEALTHCARE SERVICES: "Rodriguez" Suit Moved to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Alexander Rodriguez, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Healthcare Services Group, Inc., a Foreign profit corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 17-07977-CA-01, was removed on May 26, 2017 from the 11th Judicial Circuit, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-21986-JEM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jose E. Martinez. Healthcare Services provides management, administrative and operating services to the housekeeping, laundry, linen, facility maintenance and dietary service departments of the healthcare industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416 5000 Facsimile: (305) 416 5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Angelique Groza Lyons, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP PO Box 1840 Tampa, FL 33601-1840 Telephone: (813) 223 7166 Facsimile: (813) 223 2515 E-mail: alyons@constangy.com HILTON GRAND: "Kasprzyk" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS KASPRZYK, STEVEN HUGHES, SHERRY SINGLETON, & ERIC WILSON, Individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HILTON GRAND VACATIONS COMPANY, LLC; HILTON GRAND VACATIONS MANAGEMENT, LLC; HILTON RESORTS CORPORATION; PARK HOTELS & RESORTS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv- 01393-RBH (D.S.C., May 26, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages owed to him and all other similarly situated employees, current and former under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendants required and/or permitted Kasprzyk and other similarly situated employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week, but failed to compensate them at the applicable overtime rates. The Defendants deducted wages, straight time, and overtime pay previously earned and paid to Plaintiff and others similarly situated in subsequent weeks from their commissions earned. Hilton Grand is based in Orlando, Florida with regional offices located in Las Vegas, Nevada, Oahu, Hawaii, New York City, Marco Island, Florida and Sanibel Island, Florida. The company develops, markets, and operates vacation ownership resorts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William J. Luse, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM J. LUSE, ESQ. 917 Broadway Street Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 Telephone: 843-839-4795 Facsimile: 843-839-4815 E-mail: lusewilliam@yahoo.com - and - Trang Q. Tran, Esq. 2537 South Gessner Road, Suite 104 Houston, TX 77063 Telephone: (713) 223 8855 Facsimile: (713) 623 6399 E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com HOYT TRANSPORTATION: "Pichardo" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- TOMMY PICHARDO, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOYT TRANSPORTATION CORP., JOSEPH TERMINI, SR., CHRIS J. TERMINI, JOSEPH TERMINI, JR., JANET TERMINI, and JOHN DOE, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03196-DLI- RLM (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. According to the complaint, although defendant recognizes tens of millions of dollars in gross revenue, it refuses to honor its legal obligation to comply with federal and state overtime pay and other wage laws, systematically depriving hundreds of past and current bus drivers of overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. This action is brought to obtain monetary relief arising from Defendants' violation of Plaintiffs and other bus drivers' federally and state law protected right to receive, inter alia, overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Hoyt Transportation provides bus transportation services to students with disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third A venue - 61h Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209 3933 Facsimile: (212) 209 7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL: "Chih" Suit Sues Over Balance Billing ---------------------------------------------------------- CHIH HUA LIU, an individual, on behalf of himself, the general public and those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL, an unknown business entity, PASADENA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, LTD, a California corporation, d/b/a HUNTINGTON HOSPITAL; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC622796 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 26, 2017), seeks reimbursement for unpaid charges from the patients by billing Plaintiff and the members of the Plaintiff Class for balance charges. This action arises from Defendants' illegal practices of "balance billing" in violation of the Knox-Keene Health Care Services Plan Act of 1975, California's Supreme Court held that the Knox-Keene Act prevents providers of emergency services and care must be resolved solely between the emergency room doctors, who are entitled to a reasonable payment for their services, and the [health care service plan], which is obligated to make payment. "Balance billing" is the practice of directly charging patients for the difference between the bill submitted to a patient's health care service plan and the amount actually paid by the patients' plan. Huntington Hospital is a 625-bed not-for-profit hospital in Pasadena, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mike Arias, Esq. Arnold C. Wang, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE & TORRIJOS LLP 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844 9696 Facsimile: (310) 861 0168 - and - Ying Xu, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ERIC K. CHEN 18725 Gale Avenue, Suite 228 City of Industry, CA 91748 Telephone: (626) 810 6163 Facsimile: (626) 810 3732 I & A RESTAURANT: Appeals Judgment in Sanchez Suit to 2nd Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants I & A Restaurant Corp., Franklin Vargas and Marilyn Vargas filed an appeal from the District Court's memorandum and order dated May 22, 2017, and judgment dated May 30, 2017, entered in the lawsuit styled Sanchez v. I & A Restaurant Corp., et al., Case No. 14-cv-726, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleged that he regularly worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked over 40 each week -- in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Sanchez was an employee of the Defendants. He worked as a cook at their restaurant located in Bronx, New York. I & A Restaurant Corp., doing business as El Economico, is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in Bronx, New York. The Defendants own, operate and control a Dominican Restaurant located at 5589 Broadway, in Bronx, New York, under the name of El Economico. Franklin Vargas and Marilyn Vargas own and operate El Economico. The appellate case is captioned as Sanchez v. I & A Restaurant Corp., et al., Case No. 17-1802, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee Tony Sanchez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua S. Androphy, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: jandrophy@faillacelaw.com Defendants-Appellants I & A Restaurant Corp., DBA El Economico, Franklin Vargas and Marilyn Vargas are represented by: Jason Moses Wolf, Esq. WOLF & WOLF, LLP 910 Grand Concourse Bronx, NY 10451 Telephone: (718) 410-0653 INVENTURUS KNOWLEDGE: "Flahive" Suit Sues Over Robocalls -------------------------------------------------------- JUDITH FLAHIVE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. INVENTURUS KNOWLEDGE SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-07570 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 26, 2017), seeks injunction requiring IKS to cease the transmission of all unauthorized automated voice calls to cellphones, and an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class, together with costs and attorneys' fees, under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). According to the complaint, IKS violated federal law by making unauthorized, automated telephone calls featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice to the cellphones of consumers throughout the nation ("robocalls"). By effectuating these unauthorized robocalls, Defendant has violated the called parties' statutory rights, privacy rights, and their property rights in their cellphones. Plaintiff and the other called parties have suffered actual, concrete harm robocalls, not only because the called parties were subjected to the aggravation and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies robocalls -- particularly calls using a prerecorded or non-human artificial voice -- but also because the called parties, like Plaintiff, frequently have to pay their cellular phone providers for the receipt of such calls, notwithstanding the fact that the calls violate federal law. IKS is a privately held Delaware corporation that provides calling technology and services to businesses in the healthcare industry throughout the nation. IKS is headquartered in New York and it conducts business in Illinois and elsewhere throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan M. Meyers, Esq. Paul T. Geske, Esq. David Gerbiev MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 6060I Telephone: (3I2) 893 7002 E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com pgeske@mcgpc.com dgerbie@mcgpc.com KAMRAN STAFFING: "Denny" Suit Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- WALTER DENNY individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiffs, v. KAMRAN STAFFING INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC661821 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2017), seeks monetary relief against Defendant to recover unpaid wages and benefits, interest, attorney's fees, costs and expenses and penalties pursuant to Labor Code. The Plaintiff is alleging that Defendant have engaged in a systematic pattern of wage and hour violations under California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant have increased their profits by violating state wage and hour laws by failing to pay minimum wages and overtime wages; failing to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu; and failing to authorize or permit rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu. Kamran owns and operates a staffing agency that is headquartered in Ontario, California. Deco is a light manufacturer headquartered in Commerce, California.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kashif Haque, Esq. Samuel A. Wong, Esq. Jessica I. Campbell, Esq. AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC 9811 Inrvine Center Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 379 6250 Facsimile: (949) 379 6251 KLUEVER & PLATT: Class Certification Sought in "Righeimer" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Diane Righeimer asks the Court to enter an order determining that the action entitled DIANE RIGHEIMER, on behalf of plaintiff and a class v. KLUEVER & PLATT LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-04170 (N.D. Ill.), alleging violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, may proceed as a class action against the Defendant. The class consists of (a) all individuals (b) to whom defendant directed a "Notice Required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act" by attaching it to a complaint (c) concerning property at the same address as the individual (d) during a period beginning one year prior to the filing of this action and ending 20 days after the filing of this action. The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9n1VGWOD The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Emiliya Gumin Farbstein, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603-1824 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com ccombs@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com efarbstein@edcombs.com LEXINGTON LAW: "Lebowitz" Suit Sues over Unsolicited Phone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- James Lebowitz, the Plaintiffs, v. John C. Heath, Attorney at Law PLLC d/b/a Lexington Law Firm, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 10973-RGS (D. Mass., May 26, 2017), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant and, in negligently and/or intentionally contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, on April 27, 2017, Defendant called Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in 7013 via an "automatic telephone dialing system" ("ATDS"), using an "artificial or prerecorded voice". This ATDS has the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers to be called, using a random or sequential number generator.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Herbert Weinberg, Esq. ROSENBERG & WEINBERG 805 Turnpike Street, Suite 201 North Andover, MA 01845 Telephone: (978) 208 2501 Facsimile: (978) 682 3041 E-mail: hweinberg@jrhwlaw.com LGI HOMES: "Selby" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled LORRIE SELBY AND SONIA AGUIRRE, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. LGI HOMES CORPORATE, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00100-ALM-KPJ (E.D. Tex.), the Plaintiffs seek conditional certification and court-supervised notice to: "all current and former Office Managers who worked for Defendant LGI Homes Corporate, LLC (LGI) at their project sites in Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Colorado, Tennessee, Washington, Oregon, and New Mexico (Potential Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs have met the lenient standards for notice to be issued to Potential Plaintiffs." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yIzJyYBW The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew R. Scott, Esq. Javier Perez, Esq. SCOTT & PEREZ LLP Founders Square 900 Jackson Street, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 965 9675 Facsimile: (214) 965 9680 E-mail: matt.scott@scottperezlaw.com javier.perez@scottperezlaw.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Sought in "Pimentel" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned JESUS PIMENTEL, DAVID R. WELCH, JEFFREY O'CONNELL, EDWARD LEE, WENDY COOPER, JACLYN BAIRD, ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ, RAFAEL BUELNA, and all persons similarly situated v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Case No. 2:14-cv-01371-FMO-E (C.D. Cal.), move for an order granting class certification of their proposed classes pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint each of the named Plaintiffs as Class representatives and the law firms of Blecher Collins & Pepperman, P.C., and Norris & Galanter LLP as co-lead Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on July 6, 2017, 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=vNWqSylT The Plaintiffs are represented by: Donald G. Norris, Esq. NORRIS & GALANTER LLP 500 South Grand Avenue, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 232-0855 Facsimile: (213) 286-9499 E-mail: dnorris@norgallaw.com - and - Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. Donald R. Pepperman, Esq. BLECHER COLLINS & PEPPERMAN P.C. 515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3334 Telephone: (213) 622-4222 Facsimile: (213) 622-1656 E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com dpepperman@blechercollins.com LOUISIANA: Class Certification Sought in "Little" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled EDWARD LITTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. COMMISSIONER THOMAS FREDERICK, in his judicial capacity as Commissioner of the 15th Judicial District of Louisiana; CHIEF JUDGE KRISTIAN EARLES, in his official capacity as Chief Judge of the 15th Judicial District of Louisiana; and SHERIFF MARK GARBER, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, the Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-00724-RGJ-PJH (W.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a declaratory and injunctive Plaintiff class consisting of: "all people who are or will be detained in the Lafayette Parish Jail because they are unable to pay a sum of money required by post-arrest secured money bail setting procedures. The Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint his counsel as class counsel in this action. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3OsyWYYp The Plaintiff is represented by: Katie M. Schwartzmann, Esq. Eric A. Foley, Esq. RODERICK & SOLANGE MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER 4400 S. Carrollton Ave. New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 620 2259 Facsimile: (504) 208 3133 E-mail: katie.schwartzmann@macarthurjustice.org eric.foley@macarthurjustice.org - and - William P. Quigley, Esq. 7214 Saint Charles Ave Campus Box 902 New Orleans, LA 70118-3538 Telephone: (504) 861 5590 Facsimile: (504) 861 5440 E-mail: quigley77@gmail.com - and - Charles Gerstein, Esq. Premal Dharia, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS CORPS 910 17th Street NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 670 4809 E-mail: charlie@civilrightscorps.org premal@civilrightscorps.org MADISON SQUARE: "Millien" Suit Moved to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Clint Millien and Felipe Kelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. The Madison Square Garden Company and MSGN Holdings, L.P., the Defendants, Case No. 652225, was removed on May 16, 2017 from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-04000-AJN to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Alison J. Nathan. The Madison Square Garden Company is an American sports and entertainment holding company based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chauniqua Danielle Young, Esq. Christopher McNerney, Esq. Ossai Miazad, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP (NYC) 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245 1000 Facsimile: (646) 509 2060 E-mail: cyoung@outtengolden.com cmcnerney@outtengolden.com omiazad@outtengolden.com The Defendants are represented by: Sam Scott Shaulson, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP (NEW YORK) 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309 6718 Facsimile: (212) 309 6273 E-mail: sshaulson@morganlewis.com MAGNI GROUP: Hoffman Sues over Migraine Relief Therapeutic Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- HAROLD M. HOFFMAN, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. THE MAGNI GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. BER-L-3635-17 (N.J. Super. Ct., May 25, 2017), seeks to redress nationwide injury inflicted by the Defendant on the United States consumer public through the advertisement, marketing, distribution and sale of an over-the-counter product, in tablet form, that makes therapeutic claims that are entirely false and lacking in even a scintilla of objective truth. According to Defendant's advertisements, including its website claims, promises and representations, and product labeling, Migraine Relief is allegedly comprised of a formulation of substances which have been repeatedly diluted to the point of non- existence; not even microscopic existence. In marketing and selling Migraine Relief to the U.S. consumer public, coupled with false and fabricated therapeutic claims, Defendant violates the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, by representing, in its advertising, on its web site and product label, and in promotional literature, that Migraine Relief has therapeutic effect on disease; and that it is efficacious in the prevention, mitigation, treatment and cure of disease, including but not limited to migraine headaches, including throbbing, pulsating and stabbing headaches, vertigo, and nausea. Defendant advertised, marketed, distributed and sold Migraine Relief in commerce throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold M. Hoffman, Esq. 240 GRAND A VENUE ENGLEWOOD, NJ 07631 Telephone: (201) 569-0086 E-mail: HOFFMAN.ESQ@VERIZON.NET MATTRESS FIRM: "Blair" Suit Seeks Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled PERRY BLAIR, on behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MATTRESS FIRM, INC., LARRY R. PACK ENTERPRISES, INC. and LARRY PACK, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-14119-JCZ-MBN (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for conditional class certification, judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of potential "opt-in" plaintiffs. This action arises from a "generally applicable rule, policy, or practice". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dCZTLAQH The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily A. Westermeier, Esq. Roberto Luis Costales, Esq. William H. Beaumont, Esq. BEAUMONT COSTALES LLC 3801 Canal Street, Suite 207 New Orleans, LA 70119 Telephone: (504) 534 5005 E-mail: eaw@beaumontcostales.com MDL 2492: "Roberts" Concussion Suit v. NCAA et al. Consolidated --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled JARROD BLAKE ROBERTS, the Plaintiff, v. THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, AND THE BIG 12 CONFERENCE, INC. a/k/a THE BIG TWELVE CONFERENCE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01548, was removed on May 16, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv- 03947 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge John Z. Lee. The Hudson case is being consolidated with MDL 2492 in re: National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete Concussion Injury Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 18, 2013. The actions before the Panel seek medical monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions. Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap; and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to centralization are preferable. In its December 18, 2013 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of concussions. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. John Z. Lee, United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:16-cv-08727. The NCAA is a non-profit association which regulates athletes of 1,281 institutions, conferences, organizations, and individuals. It also organizes the athletic programs of many colleges and universities in the United States and Canada, and helps more than 450,000 college student-athletes who compete annually in college sports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent P. Circelli, Esq. CIRCELLI WALTER & YOUNG PLLC 500 East 4th St., Suite 250 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (682) 703 2019 E-mail: vinny@cwylaw.com MDL 2782: Georgia Judge to Handle Hernia Mesh MDL ------------------------------------------------- R. Robin McDonald, writing for Daily Report, reports that nationally-watched litigation prompted by complications arising from a medical mesh implant used to treat hernias has been consolidated as multidistrict litigation and will be adjudicated in the Northern District of Georgia. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued the transfer order in In Re: Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh on June 2, assigning the case to U.S. District Judge Richard Story. Story, who has not previously handled multidistrict litigation, will preside over about 50 product liability cases pending against Johnson & Johnson and its corporate subsidiary Ethicon. The MDL panel has made a concerted effort to broaden the roster of federal judges with experience managing MDL dockets, and Story is a natural choice. A nearly 20-year veteran of the federal bench and former chief superior court judge of the Northeastern Judicial Circuit in Gainesville, he's presided over several sprawling class actions since he was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1998. Among them are a landmark race discrimination case against The Coca-Cola Co. that involved more than 2,000 class members and eventually settled for $192 million; nearly two-dozen suits by Mirant Corp. shareholders claiming that the gas energy marketer illegally manipulated California energy prices in 2000 and 2001 that Story dismissed with prejudice after six years of litigation; ongoing litigation against SunTrust Banks over its 401(k) savings plan involving a class of about 50,000 individuals; a class action against Wells Fargo that resulted in a $30 million settlement last year, and a class action--settled in 2015--on behalf of Georgia's deaf citizens against the state of Georgia over its failure to provide equal access to mental health services to those who were both deaf and developmentally disabled. Story also presided over former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell's racketeering trial in 2006. At least three of Story's colleagues have MDL experience. U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas Thrash has four pending MDLs and recently signed off on settlements involving Home Depot's 2015 massive data breach that affected an estimated 56 million customers. U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten earlier this year closed eight years of litigation in an antitrust MDL against Delta Air Lines and AirTran Airways over passenger baggage fees. U.S. District Judge William Duffey presided over multidistrict product liability litigation over defective hip implants that last year settled for $240 million. Attorney Henry Garrard III -- hgg@bbgbalaw.com -- of Blasingame, Burch, Garrard & Ashley who is spearheading the Physiomesh litigation, said on June 2 that defense counsel first suggested the Northern District of Georgia as a venue and recommended that the litigation be assigned either Story or Batten. Garrard said he agreed to both the Georgia venue and to assigning the cases to Story. William Gage--William.gage@butlersnow.com -- of the Jackson Mississippi office of Atlanta's Butler Snow represents Ethicon. "Both sides recognized he is a very experienced judge," Garrard said. "And, at the end of the day, both sides are desirous of fair treatment, and we believe that will occur in the Northern District of Georgia." [GN] The case is IN RE: ETHICON PHYSIOMESH FLEXIBLE COMPOSITE HERNIA MESH PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2782. MIAMINOLA ENTERPRISES: "Stevenson" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- CANTANYA STEVENSON, individually and on behalf of persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIAMINOLA ENTERPRISES, LLC, ENVIE FQ LLC, and HASAN ERGEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-05561 (E.D. La., June 5, 2017), alleges that Defendants routinely worked for Defendants more than 40 hours per week but was no paid overtime for all hours worked over forty in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Instead, Defendants operated under a scheme whereby they would transfer Plaintiffs from location to location for the purposes of avoiding and/or reducing the compensation owed to employees based on the FLSA's overtime requirement for hours worked over forty in a workweek. Plaintiffs were hired by Defendants to work in restaurants in New Orleans that are owned and operated by Defendants under the trade names "The Bean Gallery" and "Envie Expresson Bar and Caf??" as restaurant workers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Landry III, Esq. ROBERT B. LANDRY III, PLC 5420 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 204 Baton Rouge, LA 70808 Phone: (225) 349-7460 Fax: (225) 349-7466 E-mail: rlandry@landryfirm.com MIDWEST RECOVERY: "Qualls" Suit Seeks Certification of 2 Classes ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled TYANNA QUALLS, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS EX REL TYANNA QUALLS, the Plaintiffs, v, MIDWEST RECOVERY SYSTEMS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04237 (N.D. Ill.), Ms. Qualls asks the Court to certify these two classes: Count I: "(a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) from whom Midwest Recovery Systems, LLC sought to collect a loan made at more than 9% interest (c) by an entity which did not possess a bank or credit union charter and was not licensed by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (d) by communication with the consumer and/or credit reporting (e) where any such activity occurred on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action. Count II: "(a) all individuals (b) whose debts were reported to one or more credit bureaus by Midwest Recovery Systems, LLC (c) where Midwest Recovery Services, LLC used a date of first delinquency later than the date which it can referred to substantiate (d) where the "tradeline" was on the consumer's credit report on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action. The Plaintiff further requests that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=U8BCcO8H The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Emiliya G. Farbstein, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603-1824 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES: Wins Final OK of "Fequiere" Class Accord --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Renee Marie Bumb entered a final order approving the Class Settlement Agreement between the parties in the lawsuit styled DANNY FEQUIERE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MILSTEAD & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No. 1:15- cv-07541-RMB-AMD (D.N.J.). This Settlement Class is certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All consumers with a New Jersey address to whom Milstead & Associates, LLC mailed a written communication in the form of Exhibit A to the Plaintiffs Complaint during the period beginning October 15, 2014, and ending November 4, 2015 where the letter stated in relevant part: "4. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act entitles you to dispute the debt, or any portion thereof, within thirty (30) days of your receipt of this letter. If you do not dispute the debt within that period, it will be presumed to be valid." The Court approved a form of notice for mailing to the Settlement Class, and is informed that actual notice was sent by first class mail to approximately 2,286 Settlement Class members by First Class, Inc., the third-party settlement administrator. In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, Milstead will make these payments: (a) Milstead will create a class settlement fund of $5,000, which Class Counsel through the Settlement Administrator will distribute pro rata among those Settlement Class members who do not exclude themselves and who timely returned a claim form. Claimants will receive a pro rata share of the Class Recovery by check. Checks issued to Claimants will be void 60 days from the date of issuance; (b) Milstead will pay the Plaintiff $1,000; and (c) Milstead will pay Class Counsel $10,000 for their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the action. Class Counsel will not request additional fees or costs from Milstead or the Settlement Class members. A copy of the Final Approval Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fjXF15Fl MISSOURI: Church, et al. Seek to Certify Indigent Persons Class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled SHONDEL CHURCH, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 17-04057-CV-C- NKL (W.D. Mo.), Shondel Church, Randall Lee Dalton, Dorian Samuels, Viola Bowman, and Brian Richman ask the Court to certify a class of: "all indigent persons who are now or who will be during the pendency of this litigation, under formal charge before a state court in Missouri of having committed any offense the penalty for which includes the possibility of confinement, incarceration, imprisonment, or detention (regardless of whether actually imposed), and who are eligible to be represented by MSPD". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RMwxzSBK The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony E. Rothert, Esq. Jessie Steffan, Esq. Gillian Wilcox, Esq. Jason D. Williamson, Esq. ACLU OF MISSOURI FOUNDATION 906 Olive Street, Suite 1130 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 652 3114 Facsimile: (314) 652 3112 E-mail: arothert@aclu-mo.org E-mail: gwilcox@aclu-mo.org - and - Mae Quinn, Esq. Amy Breihan, Esq. MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER AT ST. LOUIS 3115 South Grand Boulevard, Suite 300 St. Louis, MO 63118 Telephone: (314) 254 8540 Facsimile: (314) 254 8547 E-mail: mae.quinn@macarthurjustice.org - and - Robert Sills, Esq. Aaron Scherzer, Esq. Matthew R. Shahabian, Esq. Evan Rose, Esq. Easha Anand, Esq. ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC: Paldo Sign Moves for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned PALDO SIGN AND DISPLAY COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. MILWAUKEE ELECTRIC TOOL CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, CITY ELECTRIC SUPLLY COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 1:17-cv-04155 (N.D. Ill.), moves for class certification pursuant to Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011). Paldo Sign proposes this class definition: 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) from whom Defendants did not obtain "prior express invitation or permission" to send fax advertisements, or (4) with whom Defendants did not have an established business relationship, or (5) where the fax advertisements did not include an opt-out notice compliant with 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a)(4)(iii). The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint it as the class representative, and to appoint its attorneys as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tChtbyfG The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Ross M. Good, 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 rkelly@andersonwanca.com rgood@andersonwanca.com NIBCO INC: Meadow, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclass ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CHAD MEADOW, JOHN and SUSAN PLISKO and KENNETH McLAUGHLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NIBCO, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-01124 (M.D. Tenn.), Chad Meadow, John and Susan Plisko and Kenneth McLaughlin move the Court for certification of these classes: Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) Class: "all individuals and entities that own structures physically located in Alabama, South Carolina, and Tennessee in which 1006 PEX tubing manufactured or sold by NIBCO, Inc. was or is currently installed (the "Class"). Excluded from the Class are governmental entities; NIBCO and its affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, and current and former officers, directors, agents, and representatives; and members of this Court and its staff"; Implied Warranty Subclass: "all individuals and entities that own structures physically located in Tennessee or South Carolina in which 1006 PEX tubing manufactured or sold by NIBCO, Inc. was or is currently installed and have experienced failure of the tubing; and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) Class all individuals and entities that own structures physically located in South Carolina in which yellow brass fittings manufactured or sold by NIBCO, Inc. were or are currently installed. Excluded from the Class are governmental entities; NIBCO and its affiliates, subsidiaries, employees, and current and former officers, director, agents, and representatives; and members of this Court and its staff". The Plaintiffs further ask that their counsel be appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g), and that Defendant NIBCO, Inc. be compelled to produce all information needed to achieve notice to class members, and that due notice be given to the class members, in accordance with Rule 23(c). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dnv6pyJt The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. Jacob M. Polakoff, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875 3000 Facsimile: (215) 875 4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net ldeutsch@bm.net jpolakoff@bm.net - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247 0080 Facsimile: (865) 522 0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Michael Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (202) 789 3960 Facsimile: (202) 789 1813 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LaDUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789 3960 Facsimile: (202) 789 1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339 6900 Facsimile: (612) 339 0981 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592 1500 Facsimile: (215) 592 4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com Attorneys for NIBCO, Inc. John L. Farringer IV, Esq. Andrea J. Sinclair, Esq. SHERRARD ROE VOIGT HARBISON, PLC 150 3rd Avenue South, Suite 1100 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 742 4200 E-mail: jfarringer@srvhlaw.com asinclair@srvhlaw.com - and - Jean Paul Bradshaw II, Esq. J.A. Felton, Esq. Kevin M. Kuhlman, Esq. Rachel E. Stephens, Esq. LATHROP & GAGE LLP 2345 Grand Boulevard, Suite 2200 Kansas City, MI 64108 (816) 292-2000 E-mail: jpbradshaw@lathropgage.com jfelton@lathropgage.com kkuhlman@lathropgage.com rstephens@lathropgage.com - and - J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq. Franco A. Corrado, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1701 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963 5000 E-mail: jgcooney@morganlewis.com fcorrado@morganlewis.com OGLETHORPE POWER: Dismissal of Former EMC Members' Suits Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the cases captioned WALKER et al., v. OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION et al., and SHAPIRO et al., v. OGLETHORPE POWER CORPORATION et al., Case Nos. A17A0384 and A17A0385 (Ga. App.), Judge Stephen Louis A. Dillard of the Court of Appeals of Georgia, Fourth Division, affirmed the trial court's dismissal orders in both cases. This consolidated appeal arises from two class actions brought on behalf of former and current members of various electric- membership corporations ("EMCs"), which are private, nonprofit, electric utilities owned by the members they serve. In Case No. A17A0384, former EMC members sued Oglethorpe, Georgia Transmission Corp. ("GTC"), Walton EMC, Jackson EMC, and Sawnee EMC, raising numerous claims, all of which were based, at least in part, on their assertion that they were entitled to refunds from the defendant EMCs of "patronage capital." Similarly, in Case No. A17A0385, current EMC members sued the same parties (except for Sawnee EMC), raising a variety of claims that were also generally based on their assertion that they were entitled to a refunds of patronage capital from the defendant EMCs. Ultimately, in separate orders, the trial court dismissed both complaints for several reasons, including lack of standing and failure to state a claim. In Case No. A17A0384, former members of the Walton, Jackson, and Sawnee EMCs appeal the trial court's dismissal of their complaint, arguing that the court erred by (i) applying the wrong legal standard applicable to a motion to dismiss; (ii) finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing; (iii) finding that the Plaintiffs' claims were time-barred; (iv) concluding that the Defendants have no obligation under any circumstances to refund patronage capital to their members; (v) finding that the Plaintiffs failed to state claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, and equitable relief; and (vi) applying the filed-rate doctrine. Similarly, in Case No. A17A0385, current members of the Walton and Jackson EMCs appeal the trial court's dismissal of their complaint, arguing that the trial court erred by finding that (i) they lacked standing; (ii) the EMC defendants have absolute discretion to never retire patronage capital, except upon dissolution; (iii) the Plaintiffs failed to state claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, and conspiracy; (iv) the plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief was improper; and (v) the Plaintiffs' claims against certain EMCs were derivative instead of direct. A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/YkUlfK from Leagle.com Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@jonesday.com -- for Appellant. Charles D. Gabriel -- cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com -- for Appellant. Samuel Parker Pierce, Jr. -- spierce@samuelpiercelaw.com -- for Appellant. Keri Patterson Ware -- kware@wmdlegal.com -- for Appellant. Robert E. Wilson -- bwilson@wmdlegal.com -- for Appellant. Charles Siegel, for Appellant. William Paul Lawrence, II, for Appellant. Kay Reeves, for Appellant. Larry D. Lahman, for Appellant. Roger L. Ediger, for Appellant. T. Joshua R. Archer -- jarcher@balch.com -- for Appellee. Thomas M. Byrne -- tombyrne@eversheds-sutherland.com -- for Appellee. Annalisa Marie Bloodworth, for Appellee. Malissa Anne Kaufold-Wiggins, for Appellee. Natalie Marie Christensen Beasman -- nbeasman@southernco.com -- for Appellee. Benjamin C. Morgan, for Appellee. Hardy Gregory, Jr., for Appellee. Anne H. Hicks, for Appellee. Hugh Brown McNatt -- hmcnatt@balch.com -- for Appellee. James A. Orr -- jamesorr@eversheds-sutherland.com -- for Appellee. PIPEFITTERS ASSOCIATION: Porter Seeks Class Action Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DUANE PORTER, KENNETH BLACK, RONALD BOUIE, RICKY BROWN, SAMUEL CLARK, FRANK CRADDIETH, DONALD GAYLES, STEVEN WILSON, and JEFFREY PICKETT, on their own behalves and on behalf of a class of all others who are similarly situated v. PIPEFITTERS ASSOCIATION LOCAL UNION 597, Case No. 1:12-cv-09844 (N.D. Ill.), seek to certify the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to redress alleged race discrimination and retaliation, and an action brought pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 to redress the alleged breach of the duty of fair representation and to provide appropriate relief to the Plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated African-American former and current members of Pipefitters Association Union Local 597. On September 20, 2016, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). The class is defined to include these individuals: All African-American persons who were members of Local 597 at any time from November 14, 2003 to the present date. The Court reserved ruling on the Plaintiffs' request for certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class pending clarification of the named Plaintiffs' current union membership status or the addition of a current union member as a class representative. While reserving its ruling on the Plaintiffs' request for certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class, the Court acknowledged the appropriateness of certifying a Rule 23(b)(2) class in this action. Consistent with the Court's Opinion and Order dated September 16, 2016, the Plaintiffs move to certify the action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and name Jeffrey Pickett as the class representative for purposes of seeking injunctive and declaratory relief pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lzkoJMOQ The Plaintiffs are represented by: Randall D. Schmidt, Esq. EDWIN F. MANDEL LEGAL AID CLINIC OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW SCHOOL 6020 South University Avenue Chicago, IL 60637 Telephone: (773) 702-9611 Facsimile: (773) 702-2063 E-mail: r-schmidt@uchicago.edu - and - Jamie Franklin, Esq. THE FRANKLIN LAW FIRM LLC 53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 803 Chicago, IL 60637 Telephone: (312) 662-1008 Facsimile: (312) 662-1015 E-mail: jsf@thefranklinlawfirm.com - and - Adam Goodman, Esq. Wesley Johnson, Esq. GOODMAN TOVROV HARDY & JOHNSON LLC 105 West Madison Street, 15th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 238-9592 E-mail: agoodman@goodtov.com wjohnson@goodtov.com The Defendant is represented by: Tom H. Luetkemeyer, Esq. Aimee E. Delaney, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 222 N. LaSalle St., Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 704-3056 E-mail: tluetkemeyer@hinshawlaw.com adelaney@hinshawlaw.com PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Sena" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned JACK SENA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-04327 (N.D. Ill.), Mr. Jack Sena asks the Court enter to certify a class of: "all individuals (b) whose credit reports defendant pulled (c) after the individual's alleged debt to defendant had been satisfied, released, paid, or discharged in bankruptcy, (d) which credit reports were pulled on or after a date two years (Count I) or one year (Count II) prior to the filing of this action". The Plaintiff asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturnr & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the classes. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FQm18m0E The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Tara L. Goodwin, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603-1824 Telephone: (312) 739 4200 Facsimile: (312) 419 0379 E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT: Kopplin, et al. Seek to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SHERYL KOPPLIN, TINA M. NYGAARD, LUCINDA SLOVINSKI, and KEITH D. SLOVINSKI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PROFESSIONAL PLACEMENT SERVICES, LLC; a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company; and, JOHN AND JANE DOES NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 25, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00810-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), Sheryl Kopplin, Tina M. Nygaard, Lucinda Slovinski, and Keith D. Slovinski ask the Court to certify a class of: "all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin, to whom Professional Placement Services LLC mailed a written collection communication, mailed a written communication substantially similar to the Letters including "Re: Aurora Health Care" and named an "Original Creditor" other than "Aurora Health Care" which communication was dated during the period June 8, 2016 and ending June 29, 2017". The Plaintiffs further ask that Stern Thomasson LLP be appointed counsel for the class. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, their respective officers, members, partners, managers, directors and employees, their respective immediate families, legal counsel for all parties to this action, and all members of their immediate families. This case involves multiple collection letters mailed out to Plaintiffs between June 2016 and April, 2017 which Defendant Professional Placement Services, LLC sent to Plaintiffs in an attempt to collect an alleged debt incurred for personal medical services. The Plaintiff claims Defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mS8rmrzq The Plaintiffs are represented by: Philip D. Stern, Esq. Heather B. Jones, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN & THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1315 Telephone: (973) 379 7500 Facsimile: (973) 532 5868 E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com andrew@sternthomasson.com heather@sternthomasson.com REALTY INCOME: Gellatly & Erquiaga Sue Over Inaccessible Parking ---------------------------------------------------------------- EMILY GELLATLY and OWEN ERQUIAGA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. REALTY INCOME CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00692-DSC (W.D. Pa., Mar., 2017), seeks to recover payment of costs of suit, and payment of reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Plaintiffs brought this action individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against the Defendant, alleging violations of Title III of ADA and its implementing regulations, in connection with accessibility barriers in the parking lots and paths of travel at various public accommodations that Defendant owns, operates, controls, and/or leases. Ms. Emily Gellatly has a mobility disability and is limited in the major life activity of walking. Because of this mobility disability, she depends upon a wheelchair for mobility. Mr. Owen Erquiaga was born with Spinal Bifida. He has a mobility disability and is limited in the major life activity of walking, which causes him to depend upon a wheelchair for mobility. The Plaintiffs have visited Defendant's facilities and were denied full and equal access as a result of Defendants' inaccessible parking lots and paths of travel. According to the complaint, Plaintiffs' experiences are not isolated -- Defendant has systematically discriminated against individuals with mobility disabilities by implementing policies and practices that consistently violate the ADA's accessibility guidelines and routinely result in access barriers at Defendant's parking facilities.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq. Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322 9243 RED ROBIN: $900,000 Settlement in "Brackley" Suit Approved ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned CASSANDRA BRACKLEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, and DANTE BUTLER, individually, the Plaintiffs, v. RED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS, TNC., RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., SWAN CONCEPTS, INC., RR FAYETTEVILLE LLC, RR HALFMOON LLC, RR LATHAM LLC, RR POUGHKEEPSIE LLC, JOHN A. SWAN, JR., an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00288-JMA-GRB. (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gary R. Brown entered an order: 1. granting final approval of the $900,000 settlement memorialized in the Settlement Agreement; 2. certifying a class for settlement purposes: "all individuals employed as servers in the State of New York by Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. or Red Robin International Inc. or Swan Concepts, Inc., RR Fayetteville LLC, RR Halfmoon LLC, RR Latham LLC, RR Poughkeepsie LLC, and/or John A. Swan, Jr., at any time during the period January 20, 20 l 0 to December 31, 2016. 3. appointing Shulman Kessler LLP and Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, as Class Counsel; 4. approving the Fair Labor Standard Act settlement. The settlement is the product of contested litigation to resolve bona fide disputes; and 5. approving the settlement and all terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, and finds that the settlement is, in all respects, fair, adequate, reasonable, and binding on all members of the Settlement Class. The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and awards Class Counsel $300,000.00 in attorneys' fees, which is one- third of the Total Settlement Amount, plus $3,690.20 in costs and expenses reasonably expended litigating and resolving the lawsuit. The fee award is justified by Class Counsel's work negotiating the settlement and conducting the litigation, the ultimate recovery, and the risk that Class Counsel undertook in bringing the claims. These amounts shall be paid from the Qualified Settlement Fund. The Court finds reasonable the service payments of $5,000 to Named Plaintiff and Class Representative Cassandra Brackley, $4,000 to Named Plaintiff Dante Butler, and $3,000 each to Opt-in Plaintiffs Kathleen Hempstead and Denise Gersitz in recognition of the services they rendered on behalf of the Class. This amount shall be paid from the Qualified Settlement Fund. The Court approves the Claims Administrator's fees of no more than $31,551. This amount shall be paid from the Qualified Settlement Fund. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GdTVLUx6 REGISTER TAPES: Court Certifies Settlement Classes in "Hamburger" ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ALLEN HAMBURGER, the Plaintiff, v. REGISTER TAPES UNLIMITED, INC., a Texas Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:11-cv-05770-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's renewed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement; 2. preliminarily certifying class for the purposes of settlement: Class for Purposes of Settling Alleged Violations of California Labor Code Section 2802 (Reimbursement of Expenses): "all individuals (hereafter "independent contractors") who were party to an independent contractor agreement with RTU to sell register tape advertising at any time from May 28, 2007 to the Effective Date and earned a commission from selling advertising for RTU in the State of California"; Class for Purposes of Settling Alleged Violations of California Labor Code Section 226(e) (Penalty for Alleged Failure to Provide Wage Statements): "all independent contractors with an independent contractor agreement with RTU to sell register tape advertising at any time from May 28, 2007 to the Effective Date and earned a commission from selling advertising for RTU in the State of California; however, no person shall be a member of this class for any period in which that person was carried on RTU's payroll as an employee and received wages, salary, commission checks or advances on commissions and a W-2 from RTU for that year; Class for Purposes of Settling Alleged Violations of California Labor Code Section 212 (For Alleged Out-of- Pocket Losses and Potential Penalties Resulting from Payment of Commissions with Out of State Checks: "all independent contractors with an independent contractor agreement with RTU to sell register tape advertising at any time from May 28, 2009 to December 31, 2010 and earned a commission from selling advertising for RTU in the State of California; Class for Independent Contractors Who Signed an Independent Contractor Agreement: "all independent contractors who signed an independent contractor agreement with RTU dated at any time from May 28, 2007 to July 31, 2016 to sell register tape advertising for RTU in the State of California"; 3. preliminary appointing plaintiff Allen Hamburger as class representative for settlement purposes; 4. preliminarily appointing N. Sarris Law, APC as class counsel for settlement purposes; and 5. directing parties to carry out the settlement and claims process according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The relief that will be available to the settlement class members will come from a non-reversionary $100,000 Settlement Fund. The Settlement Agreement provides that class counsel "will apply to the Court for, and RTU will not oppose, payment from the Settlement Fund of twenty-five percent (25%) of the Settlement Fund in attorneys' fees and up to $16,000.00 in costs[,]" and a $1,000 incentive payment for plaintiff for his services as class representative. If these fees and costs are approved, the Net Settlement Fund, which will be used to fund the payments to settlement class members, would be approximately $58,000. A final approval (fairness) hearing is set for September 14, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6D of the First Street Courthouse, to consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Settlement as well as the award of attorney's fees and costs to class counsel, and service award to the class representative. Any class member who wishes to appear at the final approval (fairness) hearing, either on his or her own behalf or through an attorney, to object to the settlement, including the requested attorney's fees, costs and incentive award, shall, no later than August 31, 2017, file with the court and serve on class counsel and defendant a Notice of Intent to Appear at Fairness Hearing. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=o5CHMveK RICKY'S GROUP: Faces "Young" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ricky's Group, Inc. The case is captioned as Lawrence Young, on Behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ricky's Group, Inc., Rikcy's Management, Inc., Ricky's Web, Inc., and Ricky's Salons, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-04013-LGS (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lorna G. Schofield.[BN] Ricky's Group is doing business in the miscellaneous retail stores industry located in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. BRONSON LIPSKY LLP 630 Third Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 392 4772 Facsimile: (212) 444 1030 E-mail: dlipsky@bronsonlipsky.com RICH PRODUCTS: Must Send Class Members' Info to Ehrlich's Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Susan C. Bucklew granted the Plaintiffs' consent motion for an order permitting court supervised notice to employees in Florida of their opt-in rights in the lawsuit styled SCOTT EHRLICH, SALVATORE REALE, and GARY PRUSINSKI, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated in the state of Florida, Plaintiffs v. RICH PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Case No. 8:16-cv-03532- SCB-TGW (M.D. Fla.). The Court orders that: (1) By June 15, 2017, Defendant Rich Products Corporation will produce to Plaintiffs' counsel the names, last known addresses and telephone numbers, and dates of employment of the putative class members to enable notice to be issued to all individual putative class members; (2) Plaintiffs' counsel is authorized to mail the Revised Proposed Notice to the putative class members in accordance with the terms set forth in the Revised Notice. The Revised Notices must be mailed within 14 days of Plaintiffs' counsel receiving from Defendant the list of putative opt-ins; and (3) The Consent to Join Collective Action forms of the opt-in plaintiffs must be filed with the Court no later than 75 days after the date the Revised Notices are mailed. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z1Db8oyD RUSHMORE LOAN: Sellers Seeks to Certify Class of Fla. Consumers --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled RANDOLPH AND TABETHA SELLERS, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01106-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla.), seek certification of this Class: All Florida consumers who (1) have or had a residential mortgage loan serviced by Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, which Rushmore obtained when the loan was in default; (2) received a Chapter 7 discharge of their personal liability on the mortgage debt; and (3) were sent a mortgage statement dated September 11, 2013 or later, in substantially the same form as Mortgage Statement I and/or Mortgage Statement II, and was mailed to the debtor's home address in connection with the discharged mortgage debt. Randolph and Tabatha Sellers file their renewed motion for certification of the class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, to secure redress for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as representative and their attorneys as counsel for the Class. A copy of the Renewed Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Iv78gkle The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. P.O. Box 1870 Lady Lake, FL 32158 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com - and - Max Story, Esq. MAX STORY, P.A. 328 2nd Avenue North, Suite 100 Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250 Telephone: (904) 372-4109 Facsimile: (904) 758-5333 E-mail: max@maxstorylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Justin Wong, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP 600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 5200 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 885-3974 Facsimile: (404) 885-3900 E-mail: justin.wong@troutmansanders.com - and - John C. Lynch, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Telephone: (757) 687-7765 Facsimile: (757) 687-1504 E-mail: john.lynch@troutmansanders.com - and - Amy L. Drushal, Esq. TRENAM, KEMKER, SHCARF, BARKIN, FRYE, O'NEILL & MULLIS, P.A. 101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-7474 Facsimile: (813) 229-6553 E-mail: adrushal@trenam.com SANTA CLARA, CA: "Estorga" Class Conditionally Certified -------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned ROBERT ESTORGA, Plaintiff, v. SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-02668- BLF (N.D. Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification. Prior to his retirement effective June 1, 2015, Estorga was a VTA bus driver. He asserts that during his employment with VTA, VTA failed to pay him and other bus drivers for two types of travel time. One is the "start-end" travel time, in which Estorga claims that a bus driver would begin a shift at the "division," but would end the shift on the street, a geographical location distant from the "division." The second is unpaid travel time incurred by "mid-shift" travel, in which Estorga alleges he was required to travel from the end of his first bus run in Gilroy to the beginning of a second bus run starting in San Jose, for example. Estorga claims VTA's policies violate Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") overtime requirements for "hours worked." VTA claims that this suit is merely a collateral attack on the judgment entered in a separate suit, Rai v. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Case No. 12-cv-04344-PSG. An overview of the Rai suit is also recounted as it will be relevant to the Court's evaluation of Estorga's motion. In 2012, Beljinder Rai and other class representatives filed a class action and collective action complaint in this District asserting violation of FLSA and state labor laws due to VTA's failure to compensate bus drivers for two forms of travel time. Rai claimed that "Start-End Travel Time," and "Split-Shift Travel Time" required time and one-half overtime pay. The parties in the Rai suit proceeded through conditional certification of the collective action, motion for class certification and fact and expert discovery. Following numerous settlement conferences overseen by Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero, the parties came to an agreement in which VTA agreed to pay $4.2 million and to take certain steps to ensure compliance with applicable wage-and-hour laws. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 265 ("ATU") representing all bus and light rail operators at VTA but not a party to Rai, objected to the settlement. On May 17, 2016, the Court found ATU's objections and other objections to be untimely and without merit, and approved the final class action settlement. Plaintiff Estorga opted out of the settlement class, along with 16 other members. Apparently, none of these individuals opted-in to the FLSA collective action, either. On May 17, 2016, Estorga filed this suit. Now before the Court is Estorga's motion for conditional certification of a collective action under the FLSA. Judge Freeman granted in part Estorga's motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action as to persons who are or have been employed by the Santa Clara County Transportation Authority and perform or performed services as a bus operator who are not members of Rai settlement class. Such persons include VTA bus operators who opted out of the Rai settlement class, as well as bus operators who began their employment with the VTA after the opt-out request deadline in the Rai case. Judge Freeman denied in part Estorga's motion to conditionally certify an FLSA collective action as to persons who were members of the Rai settlement class. Judge Freeman further ordered the parties to meet and confer to modify the proposed notice and consent form consistent with the Court's ruling. An agreed-upon notice and consent form will be submitted to the Court for approval no later than June 30, 2017. After submission of an agreed-upon notice and consent form, VTA will produce a class list to Estorga's counsel within 10 days of that submission. A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/Bdfzca from Leagle.com. Robert Estorga, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Kerl Lunch -- unch@neyhartlaw.com -- Neyhart Anderson Flynn & Grosboll. Robert Estorga, Plaintiff, represented by William James Flynn -- wflynn@neyhartlaw.com -- Neyhart, Anderson, Flynn and Grosboll & Wan Yan Ling -- wling@neyhartlaw.com -- Neyhart Anderson Flynn and Grosboll. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Defendant, represented by Arthur A. Hartinger -- ahartinger@publiclawgroup.com -- Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP, Kevin P. McLaughlin -- mclaughlin@publiclawgroup.com -- Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP & Paul D. Ahn -- paul.ahn@vta.org -- Office of the General Counsel. SEECO INC: Fails to Convince Court to Decertify Smith Suit Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Brian S. Miller entered an order in the lawsuit titled CONNIE JEAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEECO, INC. n/k/a SWN Production (Arkansas), LLC, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00435-BSM (E.D. Ark.), denying: -- Defendants' motion to disqualify class counsel, remove the class representative and decertify the class; and -- Defendant DeSoto Gathering Company's motion for a one-week continuance. The Defendants' motion is denied because class counsel is adequate, Connie Jean Smith is an adequate class representative, and there is no reason this case cannot proceed as a class action, Judge Miller stated. Judge Miller also noted that the Plaintiff's counsel were successful in obtaining class certification, defending against the Defendants' well-researched summary judgment motions, and complying when directed to perform administrative tasks on behalf of the class. "Frankly, class counsel's performance thus far has been nothing short of impressive," Judge Miller wrote in the Order. DeSoto's motion to continue trial is denied because DeSoto is represented by other lawyers, who are capable of stepping up until lead counsel is available, Judge Miller opined. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LykZSE6M SEQUOIA SENIOR: Bid to Expunge Class Claim Under Plan Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Alan Jaroslovsky of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California denied Sequoia Senior Solutions, Inc.'s motion to expunge the class claim. Sequoia, a Chapter 11 debtor, is in the business of supplying care giver services to elderly, disabled or infirm clients. Prior to its Chapter 11 filing, it was the Defendant in a class action pending in state court. The complaint in that action alleged that Sequoia had a practice and policy of not paying its care-giver employees for time designated as "sleeptime" hours in violation of the California Labor Code, and that Sequoia failed to pay its employees proper overtime as required by recent California law. The Chapter 11 appears to be a direct result of the state court action. Sequoia listed each employee who might be a member of the class as a creditor with a zero amount stated for the claim. None of the individuals filed claims, but Claim # 8 was filed as a class claim on behalf named claimant Scott Russell and the same putative class. The putative class took no action in the case beyond filing the claim until Sequoia's plan came up for confirmation. It filed an objection, but never filed a motion to make Rule 7023 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure applicable to its claim, nor did it take any action to vote on the plan or to have the claim estimated for voting purposes. The court overruled the objection, finding that the plan meets the requirements of law for confirmation. The plan provides for a fund of about $150,000 to be shared by allowed unsecured claims. The issue now is whether the class claim should share in this fund or whether it should be expunged so that the class representative is the only employee paid anything on account of the alleged Labor Code violations. Judge Jaroslovsky denied the motion to expunge and granted the countermotion to apply Rule 7023, provided that such motion is granted for the purpose of sharing in the pot created by the plan for unsecured creditors and no other purpose. Judge Jaroslovsky at this time makes no ruling regarding certification of the class or the merits of the claim, and holds only that the request to apply Rule 7023 is timely and that the equities of the case militate in favor of allowing the claim to be asserted on behalf of employees if the other legal requirements can be met. The bankruptcy case is In re SEQUOIA SENIOR SOLUTIONS, INC., Debtor(s), No. 16-11036, (N.D. Cal.). A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 memorandum is available at https://is.gd/6hicro from Leagle.com. Sequoia Senior Solutions, Inc., Debtor, represented by David N. Chandler, Law Offices of David N. Chandler. Office of the U.S. Trustee, U.S. Trustee, represented by Margaret H. McGee, Office of the United States Trustee Phillip J. Burton Federal Building. SIRIUS XM: Broadcasters Closely Watching Flo & Eddie Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- John M. Gatti, Esq., Robert A. Jacobs, Esq., Prana A. Topper, Esq., and Emil Petrossian, Esq. of Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP in an article for Lexology, wrote: Why it matters: Is there a common law exclusive right of public performance for copyright holders of pre-1972 sound recordings? Because such sound recordings are not covered by the federal copyright laws, the issue becomes one of state law, and the way that question is ultimately answered in the courts could have serious financial ramifications to both copyright holders who own pre-1972 sound recordings and broadcasters who "perform" them. Both sides of the issue are closely watching a series of class action lawsuits filed in 2013 and 2014 in three states, including California and New York, by Flo & Eddie Inc. (F&E) against digital broadcasters Sirius XM Radio Inc. (SiriusXM) and Pandora Media Inc. (Pandora). The hefty amount that SiriusXM agreed to pay in past and prospective royalties under the terms of a settlement executed in California on the eve of trial in November 2016 is subject to reduction based on the favorable outcome of the other class action litigations. Indeed, that amount already has been reduced once because of a resolution in SiriusXM's favor in the New York litigation in February 2017. Read on for a recap of where things stand in this long-running--and potentially earth- shattering--royalties dispute. Detailed discussion: Is there a common law exclusive right of public performance for copyright holders of pre-1972 sound recordings? Because federal copyright law doesn't apply to such sound recordings, the question is one of state law. Federal and state courts in California, New York, and Florida have been grappling with the issue ever since F&E, a group comprised of members of the 1960s band The Turtles, simultaneously initiated a series of class action lawsuits in those states against SiriusXM in September 2013 and Pandora in October 2014. The class actions, which were filed in federal district courts, allege that digital broadcasters SiriusXM and Pandora infringe on the exclusive public performance rights of F&E and other similarly situated copyright owners of pre-1972 sound recordings when they "perform"--i.e., digitally broadcast--the copyright owners' pre-1972 sound recordings without licensing them. F&E claimed exclusive public performance rights under the state copyright and misappropriation statutes in the states where the class action litigations were filed. Here is a brief recap of where things currently stand with these long-running litigations: California: Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.: F&E filed its 2013 California putative class action (later certified) against SiriusXM in the Central District of California. In September 2014, Judge Philip Gutierrez ruled in F&E's favor, finding on summary judgment that, under Section 980(a)(2) of California's copyright statute, copyright ownership of a pre-1972 sound recording "includes the exclusive right to publicly perform that recording" under California law. In November 2014, Judge Gutierrez denied SiriusXM's motion for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit and set the case for trial to determine damages. In November 2016, F&E and SiriusXM settled the case on the eve of the trial, with SiriusXM agreeing to pay almost $100 million in past and future royalties, subject to reduction pending the outcome of the cases on appeal in New York, Florida and California (with respect to Pandora). The settlement amount and SiriusXM's exposure have already been reduced once to reflect the favorable resolution of the New York lawsuit by the Second Circuit in February 2017, discussed below. Judge Gutierrez approved the revised class action settlement on May 8, 2017. California: Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Pandora Media Inc.: F&E filed its putative class action against Pandora in the Central District of California in October 2014, and the case was again assigned to Judge Gutierrez. In February 2015, Judge Gutierrez denied Pandora's anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) motion after reiterating his earlier conclusion that Section 980(a)(2) of the California copyright statute provides copyright owners of pre-1972 sound recordings an exclusive right of public performance. Pandora appealed the denial of its motion to the Ninth Circuit. On March 15, 2017, the Ninth Circuit determined the issue to be one of state law and certified the following questions for the California Supreme Court to decide under California law: (1) whether "[u]nder Section 980(a)(2) of the California Civil Code . . . copyright owners of pre-1972 sound recordings that were sold to the public before 1982 possess an exclusive right of public performance," and (2) if not, whether "California's common law of property or tort otherwise grants copyright owners of pre-1972 sound recordings an exclusive right of public performance." Oral argument before the California Supreme Court has not yet been scheduled, but as mentioned above, the court's decision could potentially have an impact on the amount that SiriusXM ultimately will be required to pay under its settlement agreement with F&E. New York: Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.: F&E filed a putative class action against SiriusXM in the Southern District of New York in 2013. In November 2014, the district court ruled in F&E's favor, finding on summary judgment that copyright owners of pre-1972 sound recordings have the "exclusive public performance rights" in their sound recordings under New York common law. In February 2015, the district court granted SiriusXM's motion for interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit, which determined the question to be one of state law and certified the issue to the New York Court of Appeals. In December 2016, the New York Court of Appeals answered the certified question in the negative, holding that New York's common law of copyright does not recognize an exclusive right of public performance for copyright holders of pre-1972 sound recordings. Shortly thereafter, on February 16, 2017, the Second Circuit directed the district court to dismiss F&E's lawsuit with prejudice. The amount that SiriusXM was obligated to pay under the California settlement discussed above was reduced to reflect this favorable outcome for SiriusXM. Florida: Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.: F&E filed a putative class action against SiriusXM in the Southern District of Florida in 2013. In July 2014, the district court ruled in SiriusXM's favor, finding on summary judgment that Florida common law does not recognize an exclusive right of public performance in pre-1972 sound recordings. F&E appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, and like the Second and Ninth circuits, the Eleventh Circuit on June 29, 2016, certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court. A decision by the Florida Supreme Court is pending and, again, its decision could have an impact on the ultimate amount SiriusXM will be required to pay under its settlement with F&E in the California case. [GN] SISTERS OF CHARITY: Faces "Towles" Suit over Pension Plan Funding ----------------------------------------------------------------- KAREN TOWLES, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SISTERS OF CHARITY OF LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEMS, a Colorado Non-profit corporation; and the Members of the BENEFIT ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE of the SCL Health Systems Retirement Plan, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 03952-SJO-PLA (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2017), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as necessary and appropriate, including enjoining the Defendants from further violating the duties, responsibilities, and obligations imposed on them by Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) with respect to a pension plan. This case is about whether Defendant properly maintains its pension plans under the ERISA. According to the complaint, SCL failed to do so, erroneously contending that it is exempt from those requirements as a "Church Plan." SCL's claim of "Church Plan" status for its pension plans fails under both ERISA and the First Amendment, to the detriment of its thousands of employees. SCL operated the St. Johns Hospital in Santa Monica, California and 8 other hospitals in the United States. SCL is the Employer responsible for maintaining the Retirement Plans and is therefore the Plan Sponsor within the meaning of ERISA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Geoffrey V. White, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEOFFREY V. WHITE 21-C Orinda Way No. 324 Orinda, CA. 94563 Telephone: (415) 373 8279 Facsimile: (415) 484 7692 E-mail: gvwhite@sprynet.com SPAN-AMERICA MEDICAL: Berg Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Savaria -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BERG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPAN-AMERICA MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., JAMES D. FERGUSON, RICHARD C. COGGINS, THOMAS F. GRADY, JR., DAN R. LEE, THOMAS J. SULLIVAN, THOMAS D. HENRION, LINDA D. NORMAN, ROBERT H. DICK, TERRY ALLISON RAPPUHN, SAVARIA CORPORATION, and SAVARIA (SC) INC., the Defendants, Case No. 6:17- cv-01399-MGL (D.S.C., May 26, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing a Proposed Transaction, under Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This action stems from a proposed transaction announced on May 1, 2017, pursuant to which Span-America Medical Systems, Inc. will be acquired by Savaria Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Savaria (SC) Inc. On May 1, 2017, Span-America's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, Savaria commenced a tender offer, set to expire on June 15, 2017, and stockholders of Span-America will receive $29.00 per share in cash. On May 17, 2017, defendants filed a Solicitation/Solicitation Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Solicitation Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Solicitation Statement false and misleading. Span-America Medical manufactures therapeutic support surfaces, medical bed frames, patient positioners, mattress overlays and wheelchair.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sima Bhakta Patel, Esq. Andrew A. Mathias, Esq. NEXSEN PRUET, LLC P. O. Drawer 10648 Greenville, SC 29603 Telephone: (864) 282 1163 Facsimile: (864) 477 2631 E-mail: spatel@nexsenpruet.com amathias@nexsenpruet.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, Delaware 19803 Telephone: (302) 295 5310 Facsimile: (302) 654 7530 E-mail: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324 6800 Facsimile: (484) 631 1305 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com SYSTEMATIC CONTROL: Gargonnu Seeks OT wages Under Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------ Hasani Gargonnu, the Plaintiff, v. Systematic Control Corporation, and Neil Carbone, the Defendant, Case No. 707295/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 26, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including unpaid overtime wages and unpaid vacation time, under the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff complains under the NY Civil Practice Law and Rules 901, on behalf of himself and a class of other similarly-situated current and former employees who were employed by defendant as manual workers, within the six-year period preceding the filing of this action to the date of disposition of this action, that he and they: were employed by defendant within the State of New York as manual workers; entitled to maximum liquidated damages (for the period after April 9, 2011) and interest for being paid overtime wages and non-overtime wages later than weekly; and 3) entitled to costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the NYLL. Systematic Control is a family-owned-and-operated heating and air conditioning company since 1968.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue, Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740 1000 Facsimile: (718) 740 2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com TWO JINNS: Certification of Settlement Class Sought in "Shelby" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled GAYLA SHELBY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TWO JINNS, INC. DBA ALADDIN BAIL BONDS, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-03794-AB-GJS (C.D. Cal.), the parties will move the Court on June 26 at 10:00 a.m. for final approval of the parties' class action settlement. Specifically, Plaintiff moves for certification of a settlement class; appointment of class counsel and class representatives; final approval of the Parties' proposed settlement; and, approval of the proposed plan to provide notice to the class. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2MGUm6I5 The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert. W. Hicks, Esq. Kenneth R. Wright, Esq. ROBERT W. HICKS & ASSOCIATES 600 West Broadway 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Web: www.rwhlaw.com TURNCO LLC: Faces "Shepard" Labor Suit Alleging Misclassification ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRYAN SHEPARD, on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, V. TURNCO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01678 (S.D. Tex., June 5, 2017), alleges that Defendant TurnCo, LLC required Plaintiff Bryan Shepard to work more than forty hours in a workweek without overtime compensation. Defendant allegedly misclassified Plaintiff and all other similarly situated workers throughout the United States as exempt from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant TurnCo, LLC is an oilfield services company that provides specialized inspection services to its clients in the oil and gas industry. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an inspector.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (713) 523-0001 Fax: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Knew It Was Underpaying Drivers -------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Fishbein, writing for Gothamist, reports that Uber admitted to failing to account for New York's sales tax and injury compensation fee while taking its commission from drivers, an apparent accounting error dating back to November 2014 that cost drivers millions of dollars. Uber has promised to pay drivers back with interest, but according to a new report in the Times, the company knew about the issue since at least 2015, despite claiming they only just realized the mistake. When Uber announced the accounting error, the company said they discovered the violation of the terms of service agreement while updating its contract. "We made a mistake and we are committed to making it right by paying every driver every penny they are owed, plus interest, as quickly as possible," Rachel Holt, regional general manager of Uber in the U.S. and Canada, told Gothamist in an email at the time. "We are working hard to regain driver trust, and that means being transparent, sticking to our word, and making the Uber experience better from end to end." But the Times reports that a small update to Uber's contract dating back to December 2015 suggests the company was aware that it was wrongly taking commission on gross fares. In November 2014, the contract read that Uber's commission would be taking on "net" fares, i.e., those that are pretax, and that if cities "require taxes to be imputed in the fare," like in New York, "Uber shall calculate the service fee based on the fare net of such taxes." Then, according to the Times, in December 2015 Uber replaced the phrase "imputed in the fare" to "calculated on the fare," which suggests the company was trying to clarify that they wouldn't take commission on full fares that included tax. But even after the tweak, the company continued to take too much commission. The change was "very powerful circumstantial evidence that they understood that their calculation of the commission was wrong," plaintiffs attorney Richard Emery told the paper. "It seems clear that they were looking at it." Uber declined to comment on the Times' report. It's also noteworthy that the issue of over-calculating commission came up in class action lawsuit filed by the Taxi Workers Alliance last year. The TWA argued that Uber "violated" the terms of service agreement by taking "the taxes and BCF surcharge amounts entirely from the Driver's portion, on top of the Service Fee that Uber states will be the only deduction from Driver-earned fares." Uber told Gothamist they were not aware of TWA's assertion at the time. Meanwhile, a number of Uber drivers in New York say the reimbursement they're being offered by the company--an average of about $900 per driver--is inadequate, and Gizmodo reported earlier that some drivers think Uber's trying to distract them from pursuing claims in a class action lawsuit from last year, which asserted that Uber took sales tax from drivers' fares instead of from riders. "They are trying to cop to the cheaper fix rather than admitting the larger problem with taking out the sales tax from driver's pay when they should have been assessing it on top of the fare," driver Tim Cavaretta, who is named in the suit, told Gizmodo. "I think they thought they could get away with it. Now that they know they are clearly caught on that count, they are trying to appease drivers with that and hope we don't stick it to them on the larger issue." [GN] UNION PACIFIC: Landowners Appeal Right-of-Way Suit Ruling --------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Martin Wells, Susan Wells and Sandra L. Hinshaw filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit entitled Martin Wells, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00718-JVS-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Santa Ana. The appellate case is captioned as Martin Wells, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al., Case No. 17-80098, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs moved the Court for an order certifying a class and a sub-class of landowners, who own or have owned land in fee adjoining and underlying the railroad right-of-way granted under the Land Grants, or through condemnation, under which the pipeline is located within the State of California.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners, MARTIN WELLS; SUSAN WELLS, as Trustrees of the Martin and Susan Wells Revocable Trust; and SANDRA L. HINSHAW, as Trustee of the Sandra L. Hinshaw Living Trust, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Norman E. Siegel, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com - and - Thomas Scott Stewart, Esq. STEWART, WALD & MCCULLEY, LLC 2100 Central, Suite 22 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 303-1500 Facsimile: (816) 527-8068 E-mail: stewart@swm.legal Defendant-Respondent UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, successor to Southern Pacific Transportation Company, is represented by: Joe Rebein, Esq. John K. Sherk, III, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 2555 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 474-6550 Facsimile: (816) 421-5547 E-mail: jrebein@shb.com jsherk@shb.com - and - Tammy Beth Webb, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP One Montgomery Tower, Suite 2700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 E-mail: tbwebb@shb.com Defendants-Respondents SFPP, L.P., formerly known as Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc.; KINDER MORGAN OPERATING L.P. "D"; and KINDER MORGAN G.P., INC., are represented by: M. Ray Hartman, III, Esq. Catherine O'Connor, Esq. Steven Marc Strauss, Esq. Summer Jerre Wynn, Esq. COOLEY LLP 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121-1909 Telephone: (858) 550-6453 E-mail: rhartman@cooley.com coconnor@cooley.com sms@cooley.com swynn@cooley.com UNITED STATES: Faces Amgen Suit in District of Columbus ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States Department of Health and Human Services. The case is captioned as AMGEN INC., the Plaintiff, v. THOMAS E. PRICE, In his official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services, and SCOTT GOTTLIEB, M.D., in his official capacity as Commissioner of Food and Drugs Administration, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01006-RDM (D.C., May 25, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Randolph D. Moss.[BN] The United States Department of Health and Human Services, also known as the Health Department, is a cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government. The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine Emily Stetson, Esq. Susan Margaret Cook, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 13th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1109 Telephone: (202) 637 5491 Facsimile: (202) 637 5910 E-mail: cate.stetson@hoganlovells.com susan.cook@hoganlovells.com The Defendants are represented by: Charles John Biro, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 450 Fifth Street, NW, Room 6509 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 307 0089 E-mail: charles.biro@usdoj.gov UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Kotlyar Sues Over Unauthorized Phone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- LENA KOTLYAR, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER, an Illinois corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-07571 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., May 26, 2017), seeks injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unauthorized telephone calls using a prerecorded or artificial voice and an award of actual and statutory damages to the class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. According to the complaint, in an effort to collect unpaid bills for medical services, Medical Center, a regional healthcare provider, violated federal law by making unauthorized telephone calls using a prerecorded or artificial voice (robocalls) to the telephones of individuals throughout the country. By effectuating these unauthorized robocalls, Defendant has violated the called parties' statutory and privacy rights and has caused the call recipients actual harm, not only because the called parties were subjected to the aggravation and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies unsolicited automated calls- particularly calls using a prerecorded or non-human artificial voice - but also because the called parties, like Plaintiff, must frequently pay for the calls they receive or incur a usage allocation deduction from their calling plans, notwithstanding that the calls were made in violation of specific legislation on the subject.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan M. Meyers, Esq. Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. William P. Kingston, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Fl. Chicago, IL 6060 1 Telephone: (312) 893 7002 Facsimile: (312) 275 7895 E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com eturin@mcgpc.com wkingston@mcgpc.com UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO: Faces Class Action Over TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a woman claims the University of Chicago Medical Center called her on her cell phone to collect a debt she didn't owe, alleging in a new class action lawsuit that the hospital owes her money, as well as potentially thousands of others who received the allegedly improper debt collection robocalls. On May 26, plaintiff Lena Kotlyar, identified in court documents only as an Illinois resident, filed her putative class action suit in Cook County Circuit Court against the University of Chicago hospital group. Kotlyar is represented in the action by attorneys Evan M. Meyers, Esq., Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. and William P. Kingston, Esq. -- info@mcgpc.com -- of McGuire Law P.C., of Chicago. According to the complaint, Kotlyar received a call on her mobile phone in April from the University of Chicago Medical Center, asking her to call them back at a phone number listed in the complaint as 844-843-3594. Kotlyar alleged the call was in reference to "an apparent effort to collect on a debt owed by a prior patient." "Plaintiff is not now, nor ever has been, a patient of Defendant (University of Chicago Medical Center), nor has she ever had any other relationship with Defendant," the complaint said. Kotlyar alleged she then received several more calls over the weeks that followed from the University of Chicago hospital organization, which she alleged were "numerous additional misdirected calls on her cellular telephone . . . that featured an artificial or prerecorded voice in an apparent effort to collect a debt owed by a delinquent patient of Defendant." Kotlyar said the calls came despite her "repeated" attempts to inform the University of Chicago Medical Center "that the phone number that Defendant had been calling did not belong to one of Defendant's patients and that Defendant did not have permission to call that number." "However, Plaintiff's complaints were repeatedly ignored by Defendant and Defendant's unauthorized robocalls continued unabated," the complaint said. The lawsuit alleges the University of Chicago Medical Center "as an ordinary business practice" collects phone numbers from its patients, partially to use to "collect on unpaid accounts" through calls placed "through a predictive dialer featuring a prerecorded or artificial voice." However, the complaint asserts the hospital "spurns procedures necessary to confirm that the telephone numbers to which Defendant places robocalls actually belong to the persons who supposedly provided them," resulting in improper calls placed to people who were never patients and owe the hospital no debt. The complaint alleges these calls were placed in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In her complaint, Kotlyar alleged this has likely happened to "hundreds, if not thousands" of others. She has asked the court to expand the lawsuit to include many of those others in additional classes of plaintiffs. Specifically, Kotlyar asked the court to agree to create two classes, including everyone in the U.S. who, in the last four years, received misplaced robocalls from the University of Chicago Medical Center, and those who, in the last four years, told the hospital they no longer wished to receive those calls. The lawsuit asks the court to order the hospital to stop making the calls, and pay the plaintiffs $500-$1,500 for each call wrongly placed, as can be allowed under the TCPA, plus attorney fees. Cook County Case No. 2017-CH-07571 [GN] VENTURE DATA: Court Certifies Class in "Mey" Suit ------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DIANA MEY, individually and on behalf of a class of persons and entities similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. VENTURE DATA, LLC and PUBLIC OPINION STRATEGIES, the Defendants, Case No. 5:14-cv-00123-JPB-JES (N.D.W.Va.), the Hon. Judge Preston Bailey entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification of: "all persons in the United States to whom, on June 11, August 19, or September 9, 2014, Venture Data placed a call on his or her cellular telephone line, using the Pro-T-S or CFMC dialer, and as part of a Public Opinion Strategies survey"; 2. denying Defendant Public Opinion Strategies, LLC's motion to exclude Plaintiff's Expert Report and Testimony; 3. granting Defendant Public Opinion Strategies, LLC's motion for Leave to File Surreply; and 4. denying as moot Public Opinion Strategies, LLC's motion to exclude Plaintiff's new and untimely Expert Declaration. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IkmGgTjm WESTAUB II: Faces "Munguia" Suit Over FLSA, NY Labor Law Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- EDUARDO MUNGUIA and JUAN ORTIZ, on behalf of themselves and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, v. WESTAUB II LLC d/b/a LE COQ RICO, ANTOINE WESTERMANN and FRANCIS STAUB, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04180 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2017), alleges that Defendants paid Plaintiffs at hourly rates below the prevailing minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs are employed as cooks, dishwashers, hosts/hostesses, bartenders, barbacks, servers, runners, and bussers, employed by Defendants at the Le Coq Rico Restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 YAZAKI NORTH: Court Dismisses OPPA Claims in "Sutka" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul D. Borman of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, granted the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss the case captioned TODD SUTKA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. YAZAKI NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant, Case No. 17- 10669 (E.D. Mich.). In this putative class action, Plaintiff Sutka alleges that his employer, the Defendant, misclassified him and other employees in similar positions as exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and consequently failed to pay them overtime compensation to which they were entitled. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages under the FLSA, as well as liquidated damages for late payment of wages under the Ohio Prompt Pay Act ("OPPA"). Before the Court is the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss. It seeks dismissal of the Plaintiff's OPPA claim only, citing language in the statute that limits recovery of liquidated damages to cases involving unpaid wages that are not in dispute. Accordingly, the issue presented is largely one of statutory interpretation. The Court held a hearing on the motion on May 26, 2017. Because the Court finds that the Defendant's interpretation is supported by the case law interpreting the relevant statutory text, the Court granted the Defendant's partial motion to dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/BQDnsk from Leagle.com. Todd Sutka, Plaintiff, represented by Robert W. Cowan, Bailey Peavy Bailey PLLC. Todd Sutka, Plaintiff, represented by Philip J. Goodman. Yazaki North America Inc., Defendant, represented by Allan S. Rubin -- RubinA@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Paul Anthony Caligiuri -- Paul.Caligiuri@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C.. ZB N.A.: Faces "Evans" Suit Over IMG Fraudulent Investment Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- RONALD C. EVANS, an individual; JOAN M. EVANS, an individual; DENNIS TREADAWAY, an individual; and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ZB, N.A., a national banking association, dba California Bank & Trust, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-01123-WBS-DB (E.D. Cal., May 26, 2017), seeks to recover special and consequential damages, treble damages, exemplary and/or punitive damages, pre-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the California Penal Code. This is a class action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of more than 50 people against defendant ZB, N.A., for knowingly providing substantial assistance to a $125 million fraudulent scheme initiated by International Manufacturing Group, Inc. The agent acting on behalf of IMG was Deepal Wannakuwatte. IMG and Wannakuwatte have each filed for bankruptcy so the automatic stay prevents claims from being prosecuted against them in the District Court. According to the complaint, CB&T's knowing assistance included making millions of dollars in loans to IMG, which enabled the fraudulent scheme to grow and caused innocent investors, including the class members, to entrust their money to IMG. No later than October 2009, CB&T discovered IMG was operating a fraud on investors and could not repay the loans issued to IMG by CB&T. CB&T discovered that IMG had been misrepresenting to its investors that it had a legitimate wholesale import business in which it purchased actual product. IMG, however, was not actually in the business of purchasing actual product. IMG had no income from its purported wholesale import business. CB&T had actual knowledge that IMG had no income from its purported wholesale import business. Instead of terminating the banking relationship and taking an underwriting loss on the debt owed to CB&T by IMG, CB&T conspired with IMG, and substantially assisted IMG, taking affirmative actions to ensure that the scheme to lull additional investors based on the fraud survived long enough for CB&T to be repaid its principal, and to make over $2.5 million in profit.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert L. Brace, Esq. 1807 Santa Barbara Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 845 8211 E-mail: rlbrace@rusty.lawyer - and - Michael P. Denver, Esq. HOLLISTER & BRACE 1126 Santa Barbara Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 963 6711 Facsimile: (805) 965 0329 E-mail: mpdenver@hbsb.com - and - Robert A. Curtis, Esq. Aaron L. Arndt, Esq. FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP 15 West Carrillo Street Santa Barbara CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 962 9495 Facsimile: (805) 962 0722 E-mail: rcurtis@foleybezek.com aarndt@foleybezek.com ZOOMPASS HOLDINGS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that a class action complaint was filed against Zoompass Holdings, Inc. (Other OTC: ZPAS) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Zoompass securities between April 24, 2017 and May 24, 2017 for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Zoompass' officers and directors. Zoompass develops a mobile money platform that enables brands to transform their financial interactions with customers. According to the complaint, Zoompass represented in its filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that the company "did not have any promoters at any time during the past five fiscal years." Zoompass' share price had increased significantly in previous months; yet, the company's press releases lacked justification for the sharp surge in growth. The complaint alleges that the company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") was deeply involved in a pump-and-dump scheme fueled by a nearly $2 million stock promotion campaign, which was the true reason for the rise in the company's stock price. On May 9, 2017, Zoompass disclosed that the OTC Markets Group, Inc. requested Zoompass to "comment on recent trading and potential promotional activity." On this news, Zoompass' stock fell $1.67 per share, or over 45%. Seeking Alpha released an article on May 25, 2017, suggesting that Zoompass' CEO was directing another fraudulent scheme in a similarly ill-fated company. On this news, shares of Zoompass fell over $0.70 per share, or over 23%, to close at $2.25 per share on May 25, 2017. Zoompass Shareholders Have Legal Options Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. Leonid Kandinov Robbins Arroyo LLP Tel No: (619) 525-3990 E-mail: LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com [GN] ZUFFA LLC: Must Produce Disputed Docs in UFC Antitrust Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CUNG LE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ZUFFA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL (D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Challenge Work Product Designation. The case is a civil antitrust action under Section 2 of the Sherman Act for treble damages and other relief arising out of allegations of Zuffa's anti-competitive scheme to maintain and enhance a monopoly power in the market for promotion of live elite professional Mixed Martial Arts fighter bouts and monopsony power of the market for live elite professional MMA fighter services. The named Plaintiffs bring suit against Zuffa, operating under the trademark Ultimate Fighting Championship or "UFC". They claim that the UFC has engaged in an illegal scheme to eliminate competition from would-be MMA promoters by systematically preventing them from gaining access to resources critical to successful MMA promotions, including by imposing extreme restrictions on UFC fighters' ability to fight for would- be rivals during and after their tenure with the UFC. The amended complaint claims that as part of its scheme, UFC controls not only fighter careers, but also takes and expropriates the rights to their names and likeliness in perpetuity. As a result of this conduct, UFC fighters are paid a fraction of what they would earn in a competitive marketplace. In the current motion, the Plaintiffs challenge the Defendant's designation of three documents produced in discovery in this case as covered by the work product privilege. Zuffa Bates-stamped and produced the three documents at issue in response to the Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Document No. 23 seeking documents analyzing the effect of contractual terms on fighter compensation or on Zuffa's strategies, revenues and profitability. However, it subsequently sought to claw back the documents asserting they are entitled to work product protection. The three documents at issue involve a proposal by a third-party human resources consultant, Mercer (U.S.) Inc. to produce a fighter pay assessment, the stated objective of which was to guide future compensation and benefits program design, including fighter pay (base and incentives) and benefit levels. The first document is a memorandum by Cathy Shepard, a non- attorney employee of Mercer, dated Sept. 27, 2013. It seeks documents and information that Mercer intended to use to develop a "fighter pay assessment" for Zuffa and specifies the documents requested. The second document challenged is an email Bates- stamped ZFL-1824835. The Mercer (Shepard) memo was attached to this document which consists of an email chain between Mr. Hendrick and Mr. Campbell between September 30th and October 1st, 2013, to schedule a call "with some outside consultants." The third document is a Mercer presentation Bates-stamped ZFL-0557588. It is a draft presentation entitled "Fighter Pay/Project Update and Methodology Discussion" dated March 18, 2014. Magistrate Leen granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Challenge Work Product Designation and ordered Zuffa to produce the three disputed documents. Zuffa is also directed to produce all documents containing the facts and non-opinion work product on which Mercer relied on in conducting its proposed study, and any documents containing or disclosing Mercer's findings, conclusions, and recommendations in connection with its proposed fighter pay program review and design/fighter pay assessment study. The parties' Motions to Seal related to the motion are granted. A full-text copy of the Court's June 9, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/AeeWUs from Leagle.com. Kyle Kingsbury, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice. Kyle Kingsbury, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager -- bschrager@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Daniel H. Silverman -- dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Eric L. Cramer -- ecramer@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Frederick S. Schwartz -- fredschwartzlaw.com - - Law Office of Frederick S. Schwartz, pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, pro hac vice, Justin C. Jones, Jones Lovelock, Kevin Rayhill -- krayhill@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Patrick F. Madden -- pmadden@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Richard A. Koffman -- rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Don Springmeyer -- dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Jerome Elwell -- jelwell@warnerangle.com -- Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice, Matthew Sinclair Weiler -- mweiler@saverilawfirm.com -- The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice & Robert Maysey -- rmaysey@warnerangle.com -- Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice. Mac Danzig, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Eugene A. Spector -- espector@srkw-law.com -- Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC, pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, pro hac vice, William Caldes -- bcaldes@srkw-law.com -- Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC, pro hac vice, Bradley Scott Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Matthew Sinclair Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice & Michael C. Dell'Angelo -- mdellangelo@bm.net. Dennis Lloyd Hallman, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric L. Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Justin C. Jones, Jones Lovelock, Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Matthew Sinclair Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice & Michael C. Dell'Angelo. Gabe Ruediger, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Eugene A. Spector, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC, pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, pro hac vice, William Caldes, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC, pro hac vice, Bradley Scott Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Matthew Sinclair Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice & Michael C. Dell'Angelo. Pablo Garza, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Bradley Scott Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric L. Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Frederick S. Schwartz, Law Office of Frederick S. Schwartz, pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, pro hac vice, Justin C. Jones, Jones Lovelock, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Patrick F. Madden, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Richard A. Koffman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Jerome Elwell, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice, Matthew Sinclair Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Michael C. Dell'Angelo & Robert Maysey, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice. Brandon Vera, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Bradley Scott Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Daniel H. Silverman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Eric L. Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Frederick S. Schwartz, Law Office of Frederick S. Schwartz, pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, pro hac vice, Justin C. Jones, Jones Lovelock, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Patrick F. Madden, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Richard A. Koffman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Jerome Elwell, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice, Matthew Sinclair Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Michael C. Dell'Angelo & Robert Maysey, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice. Darren Uyenoyama, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, William Caldes, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC, pro hac vice, Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. & Michael C. Dell'Angelo. Luis Javier Vazquez, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Bradley Scott Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Daniel H. Silverman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Eric L. Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Frederick S. Schwartz, Law Office of Frederick S. Schwartz, pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, pro hac vice, Justin C. Jones, Jones Lovelock, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Patrick F. Madden, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Richard A. Koffman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Jerome Elwell, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice, Matthew Sinclair Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice & Robert Maysey, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice. Cung Le, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Bradley Scott Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Daniel H. Silverman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Eric L. Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Frederick S. Schwartz, Law Office of Frederick S. Schwartz, pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, pro hac vice, Justin C. Jones, Jones Lovelock, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Jerome Elwell, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice, Matthew Sinclair Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Patrick F. Madden, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Richard A. Koffman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Robert Maysey, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice. Zuffa, LLC, Defendant, represented by Abby L. Dennis -- adennis@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Brent K. Nakamura -- bnakamura@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Donald J. Campbell, Campbell & Williams, Evan Edmund North, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Marcy N. Lynch, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Nicholas A. Widnell, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Rory L. Skaggs, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Ross P. McSweeney -- rmcsweeney@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Stacey K. Grigsby -- sgrigsby@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, J. Colby Williams, Campbell & Williams, Richard J. Pocker, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Steven Holtzman -- sholtzman@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, pro hac vice, Suzanne Jaffe Nero -- snero@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice & William A. Isaacson -- wisaacson@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Judge Recuses Himself in "Standridge" ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, issued an order, finding himself disqualified in the case captioned ROY STANDRIDGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 17- cv-03183-MMC (N.D. Calif.), recusing himself from the case and asked that the case be reassigned pursuant to the provisions of the Assignment Plan. A full-text copy of the Order dated June 7, 2017, is available at http://tinyurl.com/ycy8ssukfrom Leagle.com. Roy Standridge, Plaintiff, represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite, Esq. -- mhite@levinsimes.com -- LEVIN SIMES LLP. Roy Standridge, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon S. Patel, Esq. - - spatel@levinsimes.com -- Levin Simes LLP & William A. Levin, Esq. -- wlevin@levinsimes.com -- Levin Simes LLP. Cynthia Standridge, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon S. Patel, Levin Simes LLP & William A. Levin, Levin Simes LLP. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Michele Cherie Barnes, Esq. - - michele.barnes@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & Peter Edward Soskin, Esq. -- peter.soskin@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP. Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc. FKA Atwood & Morrill, Defendant, represented by Emily Diane Bergstrom, Esq. -- ebergstrom@bkscal.com -- Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Canon Troy Young, Esq. -- cyoung@bkscal.com -- Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer & Mark S. Kannett, Esq. -- mkannett@bkscal.com -- Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cleaver-Brooks Dropped as Defendant in "Roper" --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Thomas S. Zilly of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, approved a stipulation between Plaintiff William Roper and Carol Roper, individually and as a marital community, and Defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., that all of Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., may be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, reserving to Plaintiffs their claims against all other parties. The case is WILLIAM ROPER, and CAROL ROPER, individually and as a marital community, Plaintiffs, v. BORGWARNER MORSE TEC, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 2:16-cv-01453-TSZ (W.D. Wash.). A full-text copy of the Order dated June 6, 2017, is available at http://tinyurl.com/yc6rewr9from Leagle.com. William Roper, Plaintiff, represented by Michael David Myers, MYERS & COMPANY. William Roper, Plaintiff, represented by Tammy C. Barcenilla, NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, pro hac vice. Carol Roper, Plaintiff, represented by Michael David Myers, MYERS & COMPANY & Tammy C. Barcenilla, NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC, pro hac vice. BorgWarner Morse Tec, Inc, Defendant, represented by Richard D. Ross, SELMAN BRIETMAN LLP. Brand Insulations, Inc, Defendant, represented by David A. Shaw, WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS & Malika Johnson, WILLIAMS KASTNER. CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D. Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP & Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP. Crane Co, Defendant, represented by G. William Shaw, K&L GATES LLP & Ryan J. Groshong, K&L GATES LLP. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D. Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP & Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP, Brian D. Zeringer, SEDGWICK LLP & Christopher S. Marks, SEDGWICK LLP. Goulds Pumps, Inc, Defendant, represented by Ronald C. Gardner, GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC. IMO Industries, Inc, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL & Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES & Kevin J. Craig, GORDON & REES LLP. Lone Star Industries, Inc, Defendant, represented by Howard (Terry) I. Hall, FOLEY & MANSFIELD, Melissa K. Roeder, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & Zackary A. Paal, FOLEY & MANSFIELD. Metalclad Insulation, LLC, Defendant, represented by Katherine M. Steele, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard G. Gawlowski, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON. Saberhagen Holdings, Inc, Defendant, represented by Timothy Kost Thorson, CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN. Schneider Electric USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles Serko, SEDGWICK LLP, Barry Neal Mesher, SEDGWICK LLP & Rachel Tallon Reynolds, SEDGWICK LLP. Thomas Dee Engineering Co Inc, Defendant, represented by Aaron P. Riensche, OGDEN MURPHY WALLACE PLLC. Trane US, Inc, Defendant, represented by Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON & REES & Kevin J. Craig, GORDON & REES LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Bid to Seal Papers --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four, affirmed the order denying J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc.'s motion to seal material in the court file of the settled wrongful death case filed by the widow and children of William Paulus, who died as a result of mesothelioma. According to the Court of Appeals, during litigation, plaintiffs' counsel filed memorandum papers, which attached portions of the record from other litigation, including a memorandum from J-MM's house counsel to an executive of that firm discussing the risk- benefit exposure of the firm with respect to its product containing asbestos. The document was clearly labeled as confidential under the attorney-client privilege. No objection was raised at that time with respect to the attorney-client privilege. Shortly after the trial court denied summary adjudication motion, counsel for J-MM moved to seal the papers and references to the other litigation. The Court of Appeals finds no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling denying J-MM's motion to seal the materials. The Court of Appeals points out that the parties in this case agree that the materials were not cited in the moving or opposition papers on the summary judgment motion. While the documents were not sealed, they were also not admissible over attorney-client objection, the Court of Appeals held. The appeals case is ELAINE MARGIE PAULUS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Defendant and Appellant, No. B269904 (Cal. App.). A full-text copy of the decision dated June 8, 2017, is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybxm734gfrom Leagle.com. Manion Gaynor & Manning, John T. Hugo, Carrie Lin and Abigal P. Adams for Plaintiffs and Respondents. Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett and Brian P. Barrow for Defendant and Appellant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Graham Testimony in "Sweredoski" -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Rosie K. Sweredoski filed the instant Motion in Limine to Preclude the Testimony of Defendant Crane Co.'s Expert Witness, Dr. Michael Graham. The Plaintiff argues that Dr. Graham is not qualified to provide expert testimony regarding the causation of asbestos-related diseases and that, under Rhode Island Rule of Evidence 702, the Court should preclude the witness from testifying to matters outside the scope of his expertise. The Defendant contends that Dr. Graham is a qualified pathologist with relevant experience in matters of asbestos-related diseases and causation. The Defendant maintains that the Court should not preclude Dr. Graham's testimony under Rule 702 or, in the alternative, should withhold ruling until trial when the expert witness can provide his qualifications to the Court. The Superior Court of Rhode Island, PROVIDENCE, SC, finds that Dr. Graham is sufficiently qualified and skilled in order to testify to issues of causation and/or asbestos-related illnesses under Rhode Island's Rule 702. Furthermore, the anticipated subject of Dr. Graham's testimony is relevant, within his area of expertise, and -- since he has reviewed Mr. Sweredoski's case -- is based on an adequate factual foundation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine to preclude the testimony of expert witness Dr. Graham is denied. The case is ROSIE K. SWEREDOSKI, as Personal Representative of the Estate of DOUGLAS A. SWEREDOSKI, and Individually Recognized as Surviving Spouse, Plaintiff, v. ALFA LAVAL, INC., et al., Defendants, C.A. No. PC-2011-1544 (R.I. Sup.). A full-text copy of the decision dated June 9, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/JCHhFV from Leagle.com. Robert J. Sweeney, Esq.; Donni E. Young, Esq., For Plaintiff. David A. Goldman, Esq.; Kendra A. Bergeron, Esq., for Defendant. ASBESTOS UPDATE: SCOTUS Won't Review $3.6MM Verdict Toss -------------------------------------------------------- Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reported that the U.S. Supreme Court on June 12 declined to hear an appeal in a series of Florida state court decisions overturning a $3.6 million jury verdict over alleged asbestos exposure on a Carnival Corp. cruise ship. The high court denied a writ of centauri to the widow of deceased Italian shipboard electrician Benedetto Emanuele Caraffa in her attempt to overrule the findings of state trial and appeals judges that there was not enough evidence of asbestos exposure to justify the jury's verdict. Caraffa, who spent 15 years working as an electrician on cruise ships, was diagnosed with stage 5 squamous cell carcinoma in his lungs in March 2001. A former chief engineer for the cruise line testified at trial that he believed there was asbestos on the ships based on what he was taught in nautical school -- that asbestos was the most common insulator used in engine rooms and machine spaces, where Caraffa worked. Caraffa's widow sought more than $10 million in the suit. After a nine-day trial in December 2014, a jury awarded her $10 million for pain and suffering, $192,000 in damages and $128,000 in lost earnings. The jurors found that Caraffa, a smoker who quit 20 years before his diagnosis, was 65 percent at fault for his death, reducing the award to $3.6 million. Two months later, Judge Jacqueline Hogan Scola granted Carnival's motion for a directed verdict, saying there was insufficient proof of asbestos exposure and she should not have allowed the case to go to a jury. On appeal Caraffa argued doctors had found asbestos in Caraffa's lungs and that a witness said Caraffa could have been exposed to asbestos in the workplace, while Carnival claimed the amount of asbestos found in his lungs was not enough to cause asbestosis and that the witness in question -- who did not know where Caraffa worked or what his responsibilities were -- could only say there was a possibility of exposure. Florida's Third District Court of Appeal shot down the appeal in a one-paragraph opinion in October. Counsel for Caraffa and Carnival did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Caraffa is represented by: Michael A. Winkleman, Esq. Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman PA One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1776 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, FL 33131 Toll-Free: (877) 233-1238 Telephone: (305) 373-3016 Fax: (305) 373-6204 Carnival is represented Catherine E. Stetson, Esq. -- cate.stetson@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan Lovells US LLP. The case is Giovanna Settimi Caraffa v. Carnival Corp., case number 16-1074 in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Florida appellate case is Giovanna Settimi Caraffa v. Carnival Corp., case number 3D15-356, in the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida. ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Withholds Oroville Asbestos Records --------------------------------------------------------------- The Sacramento Bee reported that in the latest skirmish over transparency at the troubled Oroville Dam, a Northern California activist group has sued state officials alleging they're illegally withholding information about potentially toxic asbestos. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Worker Says CSX Liable for Cancer --------------------------------------------------------- Noddy A. Fernandez, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reported that a maintenance worker is suing a railway company, alleging that its negligence surrounding employees' asbestos exposure led to his cancer diagnosis. Timothy Latimer filed a complaint on May 5 in St. Clair County Circuit Court against CSX Transportation Company alleging violation of the Federal Employer's Liability Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that, between 1976 and 1988, while employed with defendant, plaintiff was exposed to asbestos and other toxic substances which caused him to develop bladder cancer and/or prostate cancer with diagnosis in 2016. As a result, Latimer claims he suffered great pain, loss of enjoyment of life, mental anguish and medical expenses. The plaintiff holds CSX responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to provide employees a reasonably safe place to work, failed to warn Latimer of the true nature and hazardous effects of the asbestos and failed to conduct adequate, if any, industrial hygiene, epidemiological or medical studies related to asbestos and its effect on employees. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks judgment in an amount in excess of $50,000, plus costs of suit and other further relief as the court may deem just and proper. He is represented by William P. Gavin and Catherine E. Gavin of Gavin Law Firm and Ryan Brennan of The Brennan Law Firm PC, both of Belleville. St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 17-L-249 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Sprayers Face Higher Mesothelioma Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Strauss, writing for survivingmesothelioma.com, reported that workers whose job it was to apply spray-on asbestos insulation may be at even higher risk for lung cancer and malignant mesothelioma than other types of asbestos workers. A Finnish study of four different groups of asbestos workers found that asbestos sprayers had a standardized incidence ratio (SIR) for malignant mesothelioma as much as 100 times that of the general population. The Danger of Spray-On Asbestos For decades, asbestos was prized for its strength and heat resistance and was a popular component of spray-on insulation. Before new asbestos regulations were put into place in the early 1980s, spray-on insulation could contain up to 50 percent asbestos. Lightweight and inexpensive, sprayed asbestos was considered one of the most efficient fireproofing materials for coating beams, girders and other structural elements. Today, asbestos is recognized worldwide as a toxin and the primary cause of mesothelioma. Scientists now know that most people who contract pleural mesothelioma have inadvertently inhaled microscopic asbestos fibers such as those released into the air when asbestos spray is applied. The fibers stay in the body, triggering chronic irritation and inflammation that can cause healthy cells to become cancerous. Measuring Mesothelioma Incidence To measure the incidence of mesothelioma among various types of asbestos workers, scientists with the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health used data from the Finnish Cancer Registry through 2012. They focused on four different groups of asbestos workers -- those who worked in asbestos mines, patients with a lung-scarring disease called asbestosis, asbestos sprayers, and a group of workers who had already take part in a screening study of asbestos exposure at work. The team measured how common it was for members of each group to receive either a mesothelioma diagnosis or a diagnosis of lung cancer. "The SIR for mesothelioma varied from about threefold to greater than 100 fold in the different cohorts," writes study author Pia Nynas in Safety and Health at Work. "Asbestos sprayers were at the highest risk of mesothelioma and lung cancer." But the other cohorts included in the study were not unaffected by their asbestos work. According to the report, every group had a high SIR for mesothelioma. Those in the screening group, who had the lowest level of asbestos exposure, also had the lowest incidence of mesothelioma, which, say the authors, "might suggest dose-responsiveness between asbestos exposure and mesothelioma." Source: Nynas, P, et al, "Cancer Incidence in Asbestos-Exposed Workers: An Update on Four Finnish Cohorts", June 2017, Safety and Health at Work, pp. 169-174 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Research Group Spreads Awareness ---------------------------------------------------------- The Asbestos Research Group announced that new information concerning asbestos have been released. The findings raise the probability that more individuals are at risk for asbestos exposure due to resurgence and secondhand exposure. The company is not only bringing awareness to the facts but offering representation to victims as well. "We have been fighting for victims of asbestos exposure for 20 years," stated a company representative. "We help people with mesothelioma and other conditions caused by asbestos exposure by educating, answering questions and representing them as well." Asbestos is a mineral, naturally occurring, which was once hailed as being near magical. It was heat resistant and held insulating properties as well, making it perfect for construction of fire- proof vests, construction materials and a myriad of other products. It was used in homes, mixed with cement and even woven into fabric. It was so coveted, the military employed its use in every service branch. The problem emerged when it was realized that asbestos exposure was dangerous and deadly. The culprit of such illnesses as mesothelioma (a type of cancer), asbestos was banned in over 50 countries, excluding the United States although its use has been reduced. For decades, those who suffer from asbestos exposure related medical conditions, as well as their families, have had to fight to be treated and compensated. It's been a rough road that the Asbestos Research Group has helped pioneer and plow through. But the new findings are troubling, according to a spokesperson for the company. "It's doubtful that anyone will come knocking on doors to let people know of the new findings and the television news is too busy with other reports to take time out to notify the public so it's up to organizations like ours to spread the word that there are reasons to believe asbestos exposure may affect many more than previously thought. And it's also our job to let them know there is hope . . . and there is help." The resurfacing of asbestos in the southern United States like Alabama, Mississippi and Missouri, has served as a wake-up call for reassessing the dangers of asbestos exposure. Once thought to be a problem of the past, new research is proving that occupational exposure, especially in the southern states, is a present danger that needs to be addressed. New findings are also coming to light that secondhand asbestos exposure is a much larger concern than it was thought to be in years gone by. Those who have been exposed to asbestos through their job occupation or any other means, those who have been around those who have been exposed, and those who have been diagnosed with mesothelioma may be entitled to clinical trials and other programs. They may also be eligible for compensation by the responsible companies. It is important to be aware of these rights and the resources available through a knowledgeable channel such as the Asbestos Research Group. For those who have been affected by asbestos exposure or even suspect that they may have been through occupational sources, secondhand contact or any other means, more information concerning asbestos exposure can be found on the company website. Media Contact: Company Name: Asbestos Research Group Contact Person: Kenneth Soh Email: contact@asbestosresearchgroup.com Phone: 1 877-296-6086 Country: United States Website: http://www.asbestosresearchgroup.com ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Going to Prison for Faulty Cleanup -------------------------------------------------------------- Malcolm Hall, writing for CantonRep.com, reported that a contractor has been ordered to spend nearly two years in prison and repay nearly $900,000 for failure to properly handle and dispose of asbestos during a cleanup of the former Stark Ceramics property on the eastern edge of Canton. Russell Stewart, operator of the Chardon-based demolition company that had the contract to clean the site, got a 21-month prison term. The sentence was handed down on June 13 in U.S. District Court in Youngstown after Stewart, 48, previously pleaded guilty to improper asbestos demolition and failure to timely dispose of waste. Stewart also was ordered by the court to pay $876,228 in restitution. The court case stems from the improper manner Stewart, through his company Chemstruction, handled the asbestos waste in the former Stark Ceramics plant at 600 W. Church St. The plant is close to East Canton and is within a 851.55-acre annexation the city of Canton took in land from Osnaburg and Canton townships in 2007. Stewart, who had a contract with Stark Ceramics to demolish the complex, failed to remove asbestos, in violation of environmental and industry standards. Asbestos is a potential health threat if it becomes airborne or is washed off the property during a rainfall. Stewart's demolition project at the Stark Ceramics complex went from November 2011 through January 2013. An inspection at the site in 2012 revealed asbestos remained in some crushed panels. Another survey showed asbestos was present throughout the site, according to a statement from the U.S. Attorney's office in Cleveland. As a result of Stewart's failure to properly abate the asbestos, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency came in and conducted a cleanup at a cost of about $800,000, according to the statement from the U.S. Attorney's office. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mother Finds Health Hazard in Drywall Compound --------------------------------------------------------------- Al Vaughters, writing for WIVB.com, reported that an Amherst mother of three learned a hard lesson during a home repair project, when asbestos was discovered in some of the building material used in her pre-1980 house. Asbestos is a well-known health hazard that can cause serious illness. Until about 50 years ago, asbestos was considered a miracle fiber- as a fire retardant, superior heat insulation, and it resists chemical stains, so it was used just about everywhere for safety purposes. Then in the 1970's scientists discovered it can cause lung cancer and other chronic respiratory ailments, and although the government has curtailed the use of asbestos in most residential settings, it is still in older buildings, houses, even in the joint compound used to smooth drywall seams. "Annie", the name we will use for the Amherst mother who requested anonymity, was forced to stay in a hotel with her family, when a simple plumbing repair turned up the asbestos in the old joint compound. "It was very scary, knowing that I could not be in the house," recalled Annie after an asbestos abatement company removed the hazardous material from the affected area of her home, where a pipe had burst. Because Annie's house was built before 1980, the contractor that was hired to do the repairs, also brought in an environmental lab that discovered the asbestos, "They took samples of the walls, the ceiling--any drywall--and it subsequently came back positive for asbestos in what they call drywall tape." Older homes might also have asbestos in the insulation lining the outer walls, covering the hot water pipes, and in the floor and ceiling tiles, said Jeffrey Haynes, president of Fibertech Environmental Services. "Since it is resistant to heat, it is impermeable to chemicals, and they found it good in fireproofing which is why it is in so many different products, including the spray on fireproofing." Haynes suggested do-it-yourselfers have to assume the old joint compound does contain asbestos, unless it is a newer build, and handymen should always use a mask--preferably with a respirator-- since asbestos fibers are microscopic. "You always wear a mask, but you monitor the workers to make sure they are having a sufficient protection level. So, for example, a half face respirator, you make sure that is sufficient for them." Those asbestos dangers might put a damper on some do-it-yourself projects involving drywall. Haynes added, the more reputable home improvement contractors will hire a testing firm to check for asbestos and lead paint, which protects their workers, and the homeowners. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Firm Suggests Reducing Risks on Exposure --------------------------------------------------------- PBC Today reports that more awareness needs to be raised about the hazards associated with asbestos exposure in soil on developed land in the UK says Neil Munro, director of Acorn Analytical Services. Neil claimed he is commonly seeing cases where asbestos is only being detected during subsequent groundworks or after the redevelopment of brownfield sites and believes that this is a cause for concern and needs attention. He said: "Existing and historical asbestos Approved Codes of Practices (ACoPs) and guidance materials have primarily focused on the risk of asbestos in buildings. Until recently, there hasn't been any specifically focused guidance relating to asbestos in soils which has led to a general lack of knowledge of the risks in this area. "Asbestos may be present in any building constructed up until the year 2000. With previously developed land or so-called 'brownfield' sites, asbestos may have become entrained in soil due to historical demolition activities, where asbestos had not been fully removed from site structures before demolition. "With the government introducing incentives for the redevelopment of brownfield sites, the amount of sites being worked on -- and the risk of asbestos exposure -- is only increasing. "Identifying asbestos in soil late in the process of developing a site may lead to delays and expensive retrospective remediation. However, more importantly, the uncontrolled release of fibre caused by groundwork machinery could lead to contamination of workers and the surrounding areas." According to figures from the Health and Safety Executive, around 5,000 people die from asbestos-related diseases every year and Neil believes that raising awareness of the hazards associated with asbestos exposure in soils now will help protect those exposed to asbestos. Neil is calling for more safety protocols, including expert training to be put in place by developers to reduce risks across all sites. He said: "Training and competence are vital to ensuring that asbestos in soils is effectively dealt with and managed accordingly. Awareness training for those planning projects as well as those on the ground should be undertaken by all parties, while pre-project desktop reviews and full site surveys should be the first port of call. "I'd also like to see robust working practices established to efficiently deal with any remediation involved, and effective post-completion record keeping for works completed and planning for any remaining asbestos issue on site." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fear for 87 Gourock Homes --------------------------------------------------- Eric Baxter, writing for Greenock Telegraph, reported that shocked residents at a Gourock high rise have hit out after discovering their homes could contain potentially deadly asbestos. People living in Eastern View -- where old heating systems are to be ripped out and replaced at a cost of GBP4m -- have slammed bosses at River Clyde Homes (RCH) after learning that asbestos insulation boards are located behind boilers in their homes. The Tele understands concerns have been raised that some people had put coat hook screws into the boards -- possibly many years ago -- potentially disturbing and releasing asbestos. Three of the 87 flats have had their boiler cupboards sealed to prevent access -- and all residents have been told NOT to go into the cupboards. They have been advised that, if they want to adjust their heating controls, they must phone RCH's heating number, and an engineer will be sent out to do it. Hamish MacLeod, secretary of the Eastern View Tenants' and Residents' Association, described the situation as 'ludicrous'. Mr MacLeod said: "We were told that RCH was going to 'encapsulate' the boards with some sort of plastic paint, but this has been done in only three flats, and now we believe they want to take out all the boilers. "We have many vulnerable, elderly people in this block and some with medical conditions, and this is no way to treat them." Mr MacLeod says RCH have said air tests have shown no asbestos has escaped, but he pointed out that some people were still going into their cupboards to adjust boilers. He added: "It's understandable that people don't want the hassle of having to wait for an engineer every time they want to adjust their heating, but are they putting themselves in danger by going into the cupboards?" Officials from RCH are due to meet residents at the town's Gamble Halls this afternoon to answer questions in a bid to allay their fears. Gary Wilson, executive director of property, said: "The proposed works to upgrade the heating system at Eastern View are part of a GBP20m initiative to help reduce fuel poverty in Inverclyde. "Outdated and uneconomical heating systems will be replaced with modern, energy-efficient local heating systems that will result in warmer homes and reduced fuel bills for tenants, while ensuring homes meet new energy efficiency standards set by the Scottish Government. "Buildings of the age and design of Eastern View generally contain asbestos materials. "This is not unusual. "Asbestos is not a risk to health unless it is damaged or disturbed. "As the safety of our tenants is our number one priority, and to ensure the asbestos in the boiler cupboards cannot be disturbed until it can be removed safely as part of the heating replacement works, we have taken the precaution of sealing these cupboards. ASBESTOS UPDATE: EPA Gives Update on Libby Cleanup Efforts ---------------------------------------------------------- The US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made significant progress in recent years understanding the extent of Libby Amphibole asbestos (LA) contamination at and near the former vermiculite mine. The purpose of this article is to provide an update on which forest-use activities pose ongoing risk, which don't and how investigation results are being used to make decisions in this area, also known as Operable Unit 3 (OU3) of the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site. As part of the Remedial Investigation and Human Health Risk Assessment for the Libby Superfund site (EPA, 2015), EPA did extensive sampling of air, soil, mine waste, tree bark, duff and other environmental media within OU3. We also tested the air in areas known to be contaminated in OU3 during recreation, logging, firefighting and other activities to determine the potential for human exposures. After years of studying a large 40,000-acre area including the former mine and surrounding forest, EPA and our partners -- U.S. Forest Service, Montana Department of Environmental Quality and Montana Department of Natural Resources -- have identified an area of about 10,000 acres surrounding the mine that has the highest levels of contamination. EPA is currently in discussions with W.R. Grace to determine the best methods to reduce contamination and limit exposures in this area. EPA, our partners and W.R. Grace will be evaluating different treatment technologies that can be implemented in different areas of the forest to reduce exposures to LA in soil, duff and tree bark. Some of these technologies may include removal of contaminated duff/soil, forest thinning for fire management and covering the contaminated duff/soil with slash, mulch or gravel. There may also be management techniques such as logging in the wetter months of the year rather than drier months to reduce the potential for LA-laden dust to be generated during logging activities and result in excessive exposures. Since higher asbestos exposures have been detected during activity based sampling for fire suppression and mop-up activities, it is important to reduce the potential for large, persistent fires in the areas of high LA contamination near the mine. This is why we have a joint plan in place with Lincoln County and other local, state and federal agencies to ensure an expedited response in the case of a wildfire in the vicinity of OU3. Additionally, W.R. Grace is beginning efforts this summer to build fire-breaks to reduce the likelihood that fire would spread and clearing roads so there is better access to support a quick response. These efforts are welcome as we work together to define the long-term remedy for OU3 that will ensure protection for firefighters and loggers. It should be noted that the human health risk assessment determined recreational activities in OU3 such as hiking, camping, ATV riding, and fishing are not considered hazardous with regard to LA exposures. The only exception to this would be hiking along Rainy Creek and digging in the mine by rock hounds and trespassers. Residents and visitors should continue to refrain from trespassing on the mine property owned by W.R. Grace. EPA expects to share a proposed cleanup plan for OU3 by the end of 2019. We look forward to working with the community on plans for long-term site management. As always, EPA welcomes questions and comments from the community regarding the Superfund activities in and around Libby and Troy. Please don't hesitate to contact me at mckean.deborah@epa.gov or call EPA's Libby office at 406-293-6194. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos to be Removed from Cottondale Elem. ------------------------------------------------------------- Drew Taylor, writing for Tuscaloosa News, reported that Cottondale Elementary School will be going through a process to remove some asbestos found in the building. The Tuscaloosa County Board of Education has approved a contract of $99,960 to Tri-State Abatement of Brookwood to remove asbestos in the ceiling area around three hallways in the school. Jeff Crocker, director of operations and maintenance for the Tuscaloosa County School System, said the work involved removing pipe insulation and pipe elbows that contain asbestos. Crocker said the work is being done as the school undergoes work to install additional wiring for increase its technological capabilities and improve security surveillance. "We're addressing it so they can do what they need to do," Crocker said. Both Crocker and Superintendent Walter Davie maintained that the asbestos is not friable, meaning it is not airborne or broken. When airborne, asbestos can present health risks if breathed in, including mesothelioma. However, Davie said the asbestos in question is located above the ceiling, which leaves people out of danger. No test results were given by school administrators. "There's a lot of asbestos in buildings around this town, but if it's sealed or in a contained area, there's no harm," Davie said. Asbestos can be commonly found in older buildings. Cottondale Elementary was completed in 1955. "It's been a non-friable and presents no harm to students, faculty or staff," Davie said. The abatement will take roughly three or four weeks to complete. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rockwell Automation Still Faces Suits at March31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rockwell Automation, Inc., is still facing personal injury lawsuits filed by people claiming exposure to asbestos in certain product components, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "We (including our subsidiaries) have been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos that was used in certain components of our products many years ago. Currently there are a few thousand claimants in lawsuits that name us as defendants, together with hundreds of other companies. In some cases, the claims involve products from divested businesses, and we are indemnified for most of the costs. However, we have agreed to defend and indemnify asbestos claims associated with products manufactured or sold by our former Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses prior to their divestiture by us, which occurred on January 31, 2007. "We are also responsible for half of the costs and liabilities associated with asbestos cases against the former Rockwell International Corporation's divested measurement and flow control business. But in all cases, for those claimants who do show that they worked with our products or products of divested businesses for which we are responsible, we nevertheless believe we have meritorious defenses, in substantial part due to the integrity of the products, the encapsulated nature of any asbestos-containing components, and the lack of any impairing medical condition on the part of many claimants. We defend those cases vigorously. Historically, we have been dismissed from the vast majority of these claims with no payment to claimants. "We have maintained insurance coverage that we believe covers indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for claims arising from our former Allen-Bradley subsidiary. Our insurance carrier entered into a cost share agreement with us to pay the substantial majority of future defense and indemnity costs for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims. We believe that this arrangement will continue to provide coverage for Allen-Bradley asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of the asbestos liability. "We also have rights to historic insurance policies that provide indemnity and defense costs, over and above self-insured retentions, for claims arising out of certain asbestos liabilities relating to the divested measurement and flow control business. We initiated litigation against several insurers to pursue coverage for these claims, subject to each carrier's policy limits, and the case is now pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court. In September 2016, we entered into settlement agreements with certain insurance company defendants, and we continue to pursue our claims against the remaining defendants. We believe these settlement agreements will continue to provide partial coverage for these asbestos claims throughout the remaining life of asbestos liability. "The uncertainties of asbestos claim litigation make it difficult to predict accurately the ultimate outcome of asbestos claims. That uncertainty is increased by the possibility of adverse rulings or new legislation affecting asbestos claim litigation or the settlement process. Subject to these uncertainties and based on our experience defending asbestos claims, we do not believe these lawsuits will have a material effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. "We have, from time to time, divested certain of our businesses. In connection with these divestitures, certain lawsuits, claims and proceedings may be instituted or asserted against us related to the period that we owned the businesses, either because we agreed to retain certain liabilities related to these periods or because such liabilities fall upon us by operation of law. In some instances, the divested business has assumed the liabilities; however, it is possible that we might be responsible for satisfying those liabilities if the divested business is unable to do so. "In connection with the spin-offs of our former automotive business, semiconductor systems business and avionics and communications business, the spun-off companies have agreed to indemnify us for substantially all contingent liabilities related to the respective businesses, including environmental and intellectual property matters. "In conjunction with the sale of our Dodge mechanical and Reliance Electric motors and motor repair services businesses, we agreed to indemnify Baldor Electric Company for costs and damages related to certain legal, legacy environmental and asbestos matters of these businesses arising before January 31, 2007, for which the maximum exposure would be capped at the amount received for the sale." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/FPJBw0 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tenneco Has Less Than 500 Cases at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Tenneco Inc. is facing less than 500 active and inactive cases by claimants alleging health problems as a result of 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 March 31, 2017. The Company states, "...for many years we have been and continue to be subject to lawsuits initiated by claimants alleging health problems as a result of exposure to asbestos. Our current docket of active and inactive cases is less than 500 cases nationwide. A small number of claims have been asserted against one of our subsidiaries by railroad workers alleging exposure to asbestos products in railroad cars. The substantial majority of the remaining claims are related to alleged exposure to asbestos in our automotive products although a significant number of those claims appear also to involve occupational exposures sustained in industries other than automotive. We believe, based on scientific and other evidence, it is unlikely that claimants were exposed to asbestos by our former products and that, in any event, they would not be at increased risk of asbestos-related disease based on their work with these products. Further, many of these cases involve numerous defendants, with the number in some cases exceeding 100 defendants from a variety of industries. Additionally, in many cases the plaintiffs either do not specify any, or specify the jurisdictional minimum, dollar amount for damages. As major asbestos manufacturers and/or users continue to go out of business or file for bankruptcy, we may experience an increased number of these claims. We vigorously defend ourselves against these claims as part of our ordinary course of business. In future periods, we could be subject to cash costs or charges to earnings if any of these matters are resolved unfavorably to us. To date, with respect to claims that have proceeded sufficiently through the judicial process, we have regularly achieved favorable resolutions. Accordingly, we presently believe that these asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse impact on our future consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/bej54v ASBESTOS UPDATE: MLIC Still Defending Suits at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------- MetLife, Inc.'s unit, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MLIC), is still defending itself against asbestos-related lawsuits generally focusing on activities from 1920's to 1950's, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "MLIC is and has been a defendant in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. MLIC has never engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing, or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products nor has MLIC issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to companies in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing, or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products. The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect to certain research, publication and other activities of one or more of MLIC's employees during the period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege that MLIC learned or should have learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health risks. MLIC believes that it should not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims asserted against MLIC. MLIC employs a number of resolution strategies to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances. "Claims asserted against MLIC have included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning the health risks associated with asbestos. MLIC's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual allegations) include that: (i) MLIC owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute, or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs; (ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of MLIC; (iii) MLIC's conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv) plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts have granted motions dismissing claims against MLIC, while other trial courts have denied MLIC's motions. There can be no assurance that MLIC will receive favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases brought to date have settled, MLIC intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials. "As reported in the 2016 Annual Report, MLIC received approximately 4,146 asbestos-related claims in 2016. During the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, MLIC received approximately 1,104 and 1,386 new asbestos-related claims, respectively. The number of asbestos cases that may be brought, the aggregate amount of any liability that MLIC may incur, and the total amount paid in settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary significantly from year to year. "The ability of MLIC to estimate its ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty, and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims, the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of disease in pending and future claims, the impact of the number of new claims filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in the law in the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the possible impact of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against MLIC when exposure to asbestos took place after the dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts. "The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable. It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are recorded, based on information currently known by management, management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a material effect on the Company's financial position. "The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. MLIC's recorded asbestos liability is based on its estimation of the following elements, as informed by the facts presently known to it, its understanding of current law and its past experiences: (i) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims already asserted against MLIC, including claims settled but not yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability for asbestos claims not yet asserted against MLIC, but which MLIC believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant assumptions underlying MLIC's analysis of the adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to asbestos litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii) the cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims. "MLIC reevaluates on a quarterly and annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States, assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of new claims filed against it and other defendants and the jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its regular reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation, MLIC has updated its liability analysis for asbestos-related claims through March 31, 2017." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/aR86TT ASBESTOS UPDATE: Energy Fuels Still Faces Claims at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Energy Fuels Inc. is still facing claims over an alleged asbestos exposure resulting from the operation of the White Mesa Mill, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "In November 2012, the Company was served with a Plaintiff's Original Petition and Jury Demand in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, claiming unspecified damages from the disease and injuries resulting from mesothelioma from exposure to asbestos, which the Plaintiff claims was contributed to by being exposed to asbestos products and dust while working at the White Mesa Mill. "The Company does not consider this claim to have any merit, and therefore does not believe it will materially affect our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. In January, 2013, the Company filed a Special Appearance challenging jurisdiction and certain other procedural matters relating to this claim. No other activity involving the Company on this matter has occurred since that date." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/nLLBQ3 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Has $53.7MM Accrued Liability at March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Colfax Corporation has accrued asbestos liability of US$53,680,000 and long-term asbestos liability of US$325,251,000 as of March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The accrued liability represents current accruals for probable and reasonably estimable asbestos-related liability cost that the Company believes the subsidiaries will pay, overpayments by certain insurers and unpaid legal costs related to defending themselves against asbestos-related liability claims and legal action against the Company's insurers, which is included in Accrued liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. On the other hand, the long-term liability is included in Other liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company states, "Following a Delaware Supreme Court ruling on September 12, 2016, the Company received US$20.6 million of previously unreimbursed costs funded by the Company in defense and settlement of asbestos claims from insurance companies during the three months ended March 31, 2017. Certain matters, including potential interest which could be awarded to a specific subsidiary, are subject to further rulings from the Delaware courts. While the outcome is uncertain, none of these matters is expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations or cash flows of the Company. "Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/TuHKbB ASBESTOS UPDATE: MRC Global Faces 515 Exposure Suits at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- MRC Global Inc. still defends itself against approximately 515 lawsuits involving around 1,135 claims related to asbestos exposure as of March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "We are one of many defendants in lawsuits that plaintiffs have brought seeking damages for personal injuries that exposure to asbestos allegedly caused. Plaintiffs and their family members have brought these lawsuits against a large volume of defendant entities as a result of the defendants' manufacture, distribution, supply or other involvement with asbestos, asbestos containing-products or equipment or activities that allegedly caused plaintiffs to be exposed to asbestos. These plaintiffs typically assert exposure to asbestos as a consequence of third- party manufactured products that our MRC Global (US) Inc. subsidiary purportedly distributed. As of March 31, 2017, we are named a defendant in approximately 515 lawsuits involving approximately 1,135 claims. No asbestos lawsuit has resulted in a judgment against us to date, with a majority being settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved. Applicable third-party insurance has substantially covered these claims, and insurance should continue to cover a substantial majority of existing and anticipated future claims. Accordingly, we have recorded a liability for our estimate of the most likely settlement of asserted claims and a related receivable from insurers for our estimated recovery, to the extent we believe that the amounts of recovery are probable. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these claims and proceedings. However, in our opinion, the likelihood that the ultimate disposition of any of these claims and legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements is remote." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/mILjJD ASBESTOS UPDATE: Noble Corp. Faces 43 Asbestos Suits at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Noble Corporation plc still defends itself against 43 asbestos- related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "We are from time to time a party to various lawsuits that are incidental to our operations in which the claimants seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages for personal injury, including injuries purportedly resulting from exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities. At March 31, 2017, there were 43 asbestos related lawsuits in which we are one of many defendants. These lawsuits have been filed in the United States in the states of Louisiana and Mississippi. We intend to vigorously defend against the litigation. We do not believe the ultimate resolution of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/NI9nEq ASBESTOS UPDATE: Univar Faces Less Than 285 Claims at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- There were fewer than 285 asbestos-related claims pending against Univar Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "The Company is subject to liabilities from claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. The claims result primarily from an indemnification obligation related to Univar USA Inc.'s 1986 purchase of McKesson Chemical Company from McKesson Corporation ("McKesson"). Univar USA is also a defendant in a small number of asbestos claims. As of March 31, 2017, there were fewer than 285 asbestos-related claims for which the Company has liability for defense and indemnity pursuant to the indemnification obligation. The volume of such cases has increased in recent quarters. Historically, the vast majority of the claims against both McKesson and Univar USA have been dismissed without payment. The Company does incur costs in defending these claims. While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these matters, it does not believe, based upon currently available facts, that the ultimate resolution of any of these matters will have a material effect on its overall financial position, results of operations or cash flows. However, the Company cannot predict the outcome of any present or future claims or litigation and adverse developments could negatively impact earnings or cash flows in a particular future period." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/r9oqSq ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Still Faces PI Claims at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- BNSF Railway Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that it is still facing a number of personal injury claims related to asbestos exposure. BNSF Railway states, "The Company is party to a number of personal injury claims by employees and non-employees who may have been exposed to asbestos. The heaviest exposure for certain BNSF Railway employees was due to work conducted in and around the use of steam locomotive engines that were phased out between the years of 1950 and 1967. However, other types of exposures, including exposure from locomotive component parts and building materials, continued after 1967 until they were substantially eliminated at BNSF Railway by 1985. "BNSF Railway assesses its unasserted asbestos liability exposure on an annual basis during the third quarter. BNSF Railway determines its asbestos liability by estimating its exposed population, the number of claims likely to be filed, the number of claims that will likely require payment and the estimated cost per claim. Estimated filing and dismissal rates and average cost per claim are determined utilizing recent claim data and trends. "Throughout the year, BNSF Railway monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims and expected claim payments and will record adjustments to the Company's estimates as necessary. "Based on BNSF Railway's estimate of the potentially exposed employees and related mortality assumptions, it is anticipated that unasserted asbestos claims will continue to be filed through the year 2050. The Company recorded an amount for the full estimated filing period through 2050 because it had a relatively finite exposed population (former and current employees hired prior to 1985), which it was able to identify and reasonably estimate and about which it had obtained reliable demographic data (including age, hire date and occupation) derived from industry or BNSF Railway specific data that was the basis for the study. BNSF Railway projects that approximately 65, 80 and 95 percent of the future unasserted asbestos claims will be filed within the next 10, 15 and 25 years, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/3v1WGf ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Faces 35,560 Claims at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. is defending itself against 35,560 claims related to asbestos exposure, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "Of the 35,560 pending claims as of March 31, 2017, approximately 18,300 claims were pending in New York, approximately 800 claims were pending in Texas, approximately 4,700 claims were pending in Mississippi, and approximately 200 claims were pending in Ohio, all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits. "The Company has tried several cases resulting in defense verdicts by the jury or directed verdicts for the defense by the court. The Company further has pursued appeals of certain adverse jury verdicts that have resulted in reversals in favor of the defense. "In the fourth quarter of 2016, we extended our estimate of the asbestos liability, including the costs of settlement or indemnity payments and defense costs relating to currently pending claims and future claims projected to be filed against us through the generally accepted end point of such claims in 2059. Our estimate of the asbestos liability for pending and future claims through 2059 is based on the projected future asbestos costs resulting from our experience using a range of reference periods for claims filed, settled and dismissed. Based on this estimate, we recorded a US$227 million additional liability in the fourth quarter of 2016." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/yEA7ph ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Has US$674MM Liability at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Crane Co. recorded US$674 million aggregate asbestos liability at March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the field, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by the Company concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed, amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from filing to disposition of the claim. "The methodology used by HR&A to project future asbestos costs is based on the Company's recent historical experience for claims filed, settled and dismissed during a base reference period. The Company's experience is then compared to estimates of the number of individuals likely to develop asbestos-related diseases determined based on widely used previously conducted epidemiological studies augmented with current data inputs. "Those studies were undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would be filed against the Company and estimates the aggregate settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement costs by disease during the reference period. "This methodology has been accepted by numerous courts. After discussions with the Company, HR&A augments its liability estimate for the costs of defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from the Company which is based upon discussions with its defense counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of the Company's asbestos liability for pending and future claims using a range of reference periods based on claim experience and covering claims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period. "The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are (1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against the Company, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims, (3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against the Company and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by the Company. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor predominates in determining the liability estimate. "In the Company's view, the forecast period used to provide the best estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and costs is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors, including the number and type of claims being filed each year; the jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any legislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and the likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the federal level. In addition, the dynamics of asbestos litigation in the tort system have been significantly affected by the substantial number of companies that have filed for bankruptcy protection, thereby staying any asbestos claims against them until the conclusion of such proceedings, and the establishment of a number of post-bankruptcy trusts for asbestos claimants, which have been estimated to provide US$36 billion for payments to current and future claimants. These trend factors have both positive and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos litigation in the tort system and the related best estimate of the Company's asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods. Accordingly, the Company's management continues to monitor these trend factors over time and periodically assesses whether an alternative forecast period is appropriate. "With the assistance of HR&A, effective as of December 31, 2016, the Company extended its estimate of the asbestos liability, including the costs of settlement or indemnity payments and defense costs relating to currently pending claims and future claims projected to be filed against the Company through the generally accepted end point of such claims in 2059. The Company's previous estimate was for asbestos claims filed or projected to be filed through 2021. The Company's estimate of the asbestos liability for pending and future claims through 2059 is based on the projected future asbestos costs resulting from the Company's experience using a range of reference periods for claims filed, settled and dismissed. "Based on this estimate, the Company recorded an additional liability of US$227 million as of December 31, 2016. This action was based on several factors which contribute to the Company's ability to reasonably estimate this liability through 2059. First, the number of mesothelioma claims (which although constituting approximately 10% of the Company's total pending asbestos claims, have consistently accounted for approximately 90% of the Company's aggregate settlement and defense costs) being filed against the Company and associated settlement costs have stabilized. Second, there have been generally favorable developments in the trend of case law which has been a contributing factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity and related settlement costs. Third, there have been significant actions taken by certain state legislatures and courts that have reduced the number and types of claims that can proceed to trial, which has been a significant factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity. Fourth, recent court decisions in certain jurisdictions have provided additional clarity regarding the nature of claims that may proceed to trial in those jurisdictions and greater predictability regarding future claim activity. Fifth, the Company has coverage-in-place agreements with almost all of its excess insurers, which enables the Company to project a stable relationship between settlement and defense costs paid by the Company and reimbursements from its insurers. Sixth, annual settlements with respect to groups of cases with certain plaintiff firms have helped to stabilize indemnity payments and defense costs. Taking these factors into account, the Company believes that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos liability for pending claims and future claims to be filed through 2059. "In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate, the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In developing this estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-place and other settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors. "These additional factors include the financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/yEA7ph ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Group Defends 16 PI Suits at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Vector Group Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that its subsidiary, Liggett Group LLC, is "currently" a defendant in 16 multi-defendant personal injury cases in Maryland that allege claims arising from asbestos and tobacco exposure. The Company states, "The tobacco defendants, including Liggett, moved to dismiss the cases. In the past, motions to dismiss have generally been successful, typically resulting in the dismissal without prejudice of the tobacco company defendants. Recently, however, a Maryland intermediate appellate court ruled, in Stidham, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., that dismissal of tobacco company defendants may not be appropriate where the asserted injury is based on both asbestos and tobacco exposure ("synergy cases"). In May 2016, the Court of Appeals for Maryland (Maryland's highest court) heard oral argument on the appeal of the intermediate appellate court's decision. In July 2016, the Court of Appeals ruled that joinder of tobacco and asbestos cases may be possible in certain circumstances, but plaintiffs must demonstrate at the trial court level how such cases may be joined while providing appropriate safeguards to prevent embarrassment, delay, expense or prejudice to defendants and 'the extent to which, if at all, the special procedures applicable to asbestos cases should extend to tobacco companies.' The Court of Appeals remanded these issues to be determined at the trial court level. It is possible that Liggett and other tobacco company defendants will not be dismissed from pending synergy cases, and may be named as defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions in Maryland going forward, including approximately 20 additional synergy cases currently pending in Maryland state court." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/776tPL ASBESTOS UPDATE: SPX Had US$604.1MM Liabilities at April 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- SPX Corporation has recorded liabilities of US$604.1 million for asbestos product liability matters at April 1, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 1, 2017. The Company states, "Our asbestos-related claims are typical in certain of the industries in which we operate or pertain to legacy businesses we no longer operate. It is not unusual in these cases for fifty or more corporate entities to be named as defendants. We vigorously defend these claims, many of which are dismissed without payment, and the significant majority of costs related to these claims have historically been paid pursuant to our insurance arrangements. During the three months ended April 1, 2017, our insurance recoveries for asbestos-related matters, net of payments, were US$9.0 million, which included cash proceeds received during the period of US$8.5 million related to a settlement reached with an insurance carrier. During the three months ended April 2, 2016, our payments for asbestos-related matters, net of insurance recoveries, were US$1.3 million. A significant increase in claims, costs and/or issues with existing insurance coverage (e.g., dispute with or insolvency of insurer(s)) could have a material adverse impact on our share of future payments related to these matters, and, as such, have a material impact on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. "We have recorded insurance recovery assets associated with the asbestos product liability matters, with such amounts totaling US$554.0 million and US$564.4 million at April 1, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, and included in "Other assets" within our condensed consolidated balance sheets. These assets represent amounts that we believe we are or will be entitled to recover under agreements we have with insurance companies. The assets we record for these insurance recoveries are based on a number of assumptions, including the continued solvency of the insurers, and are subject to a variety of uncertainties. Our current assumptions for estimating these assets may not prove accurate, and we may be required to adjust these assets in the future, which could result in additional charges to earnings. These variances relative to current expectations could have a material impact on our financial position and results of operations. "During the three months ended April 1, 2017 and April 2, 2016, there were no changes in estimates associated with the liabilities and assets related to our asbestos product liability matters." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/wQ4W1D ASBESTOS UPDATE: Roper Tech, Units Still Defend Suits at March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Roper Technologies, Inc., disclosed in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that it or its subsidiaries have been named defendants along with numerous industrial companies in asbestos-related litigation claims in certain U.S. states. The Company states, "No significant resources have been required by Roper to respond to these cases and Roper believes it has valid defenses to such claims and, if required, intends to defend them vigorously. Given the state of these claims it is not possible to determine the potential liability, if any." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/mjpCzU ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 19 Cases at April 2 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc. has 19 pending asbestos cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended April 2, 2017. The Company states, "Certain of the Company's subsidiaries are among numerous defendants in a number of cases seeking damages for exposure to silica or to asbestos containing materials. The Company currently has three pending silica cases and 19 pending asbestos cases. To date, 1,492 silica cases and 48 asbestos cases have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits against AMCOL or American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our acquisition of AMCOL. One new asbestos case, previously disclosed in the Company's most recent Annual Report on Form 10-K, was filed in the first quarter of 2017, and a second new asbestos case was filed subsequent to the end of the first quarter. No asbestos or silica cases were dismissed during the quarter. Most of these claims do not provide adequate information to assess their merits, the likelihood that the Company will be found liable, or the magnitude of such liability, if any. Additional claims of this nature may be made against the Company or its subsidiaries. At this time management anticipates that the amount of the Company's liability, if any, and the cost of defending such claims, will not have a material effect on its financial position or results of operations. "The Company has settled only one silica lawsuit, for a nominal amount, and no asbestos lawsuits to date (not including any that may have been settled by AMCOL prior to completion of the acquisition). We are unable to state an amount or range of amounts claimed in any of the lawsuits because state court pleading practices do not require identifying the amount of the claimed damage. The aggregate cost to the Company for the legal defense of these cases since inception continues to be insignificant. The majority of the costs of defense for these cases, excluding cases against AMCOL or American Colloid, are reimbursed by Pfizer Inc. pursuant to the terms of certain agreements entered into in connection with the Company's initial public offering in 1992. Of the 19 pending asbestos cases all except two allege liability based on products sold largely or entirely prior to the initial public offering, and for which the Company is therefore entitled to indemnification pursuant to such agreements. The two exceptions pertain to one pending asbestos case against American Colloid Company, and one for which no period of alleged exposure has been stated by plaintiffs. Our experience has been that the Company is not liable to plaintiffs in any of these lawsuits and the Company does not expect to pay any settlements or jury verdicts in these lawsuits." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/m0iamr ASBESTOS UPDATE: AMETEK Still Defends Asbestos Suits at March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMETEK, Inc., still defends itself against a number of asbestos- related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. AMETEK states, "The Company (including its subsidiaries) has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related lawsuits. Certain of these lawsuits relate to a business which was acquired by the Company and do not involve products which were manufactured or sold by the Company. In connection with these lawsuits, the seller of such business has agreed to indemnify the Company against these claims (the "Indemnified Claims"). The Indemnified Claims have been tendered to, and are being defended by, such seller. The seller has met its obligations, in all respects, and the Company does not have any reason to believe such party would fail to fulfill its obligations in the future. To date, no judgments have been rendered against the Company as a result of any asbestos-related lawsuit. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the claims being asserted and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in these matters." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/iDf9gM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Enstar Had US$217.1MM Liability at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Enstar Group Limited recorded US$217.1 million for indemnity and defense costs for pending and future claims at March 31, 2017, determined using standard actuarial techniques for asbestos- related exposures, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The amount is reflected in "Other liabilities" of its financial statement. The Company states, "We acquired Dana Companies, LLC ("Dana") on December 30, 2016. Dana continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in the normal course of business and is separately managed. "Other liabilities included US$217.1 million and US$220.5 million for indemnity and defense costs for pending and future claims at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, determined using standard actuarial techniques for asbestos-related exposures. Other liabilities also included US$2.2 million and US$2.3 million for environmental liabilities associated with Dana properties at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. "Other assets included US$130.9 million and US$133.0 million at March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, for estimated insurance recoveries relating to these liabilities. The recorded asset represents our assessment of the capacity of the insurance agreements to provide for the payment of anticipated defense and indemnity costs for pending claims and projected future demands. The recognition of these recoveries is based on an assessment of the right to recover under the respective contracts and on the financial strength of the insurers. The recorded asset does not represent the limits of our insurance coverage, but rather the amount we would expect to recover if the accrued indemnity and defense costs were paid in full." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/Hd1S0n ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mallinckrodt Had 11,700 PI Cases at March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- There were approximately 11,700 asbestos-related cases pending against Mallinckrodt public limited company as of March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976, the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of products containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on the Company's property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to the Company. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to defend these lawsuits. When appropriate, the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of March 31, 2017, there were approximately 11,700 asbestos-related cases pending against the Company. "The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that were incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company's estimate of its liability for pending and future claims is based on claims experience over the past five years and covers claims either currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years. The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos- related proceedings, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the ultimate resolutions of all known and anticipated future claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/iSC60w ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Corp. Has 37,000 AO Respiratory Claimants ---------------------------------------------------------------- There were approximately 37,000 claimants as of March 31, 2017, in pending cases asserting claims against Cabot Corporation's American Optical Corporation in connection with respiratory products, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "We have exposure in connection with a safety respiratory products business that a subsidiary acquired from American Optical Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset purchase transaction. The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO brand and disposed of that business in July 1995. In connection with its acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in certain circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities, including costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in settlements and judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to the 1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary. "In exchange for the subsidiary's assumption of certain of AO's respirator liabilities, AO agreed to provide to the subsidiary the benefits of: (i) AO's insurance coverage for the period prior to the 1990 acquisition and (ii) a former owner's indemnity of AO holding it harmless from any liability allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to May 1982. "The respirator liabilities generally involve claims for personal injury, including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis, allegedly resulting from the use of respirators that are alleged to have been negligently designed and/or labeled. Neither Cabot, nor its past or present subsidiaries, at any time manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing products. At no time did this respiratory product line represent a significant portion of the respirator market. "As of March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016, there were approximately 37,000 and 38,000 claimants, respectively, in pending cases asserting claims against AO in connection with respiratory products. We have a reserve to cover our expected share of liability for existing and future respirator liability claims. At March 31, 2017 and September 30, 2016, the reserve was US$19 million and US$21 million, respectively. Cash payments related to this liability were approximately US$2 million in the first six months of both fiscal 2017 and 2016." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/CMmz5x ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Units Had 27,000 PI Claims at March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- There were approximately 27,000 pending claims against ITT Inc. subsidiaries as of March 31, 2017, filed in various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of 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 March 31, 2017. The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps LLC, have been sued, along with many other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims generally allege that certain products sold by our subsidiaries prior to 1985 contained a part manufactured by a third party (e.g., a gasket) which contained asbestos. To the extent these third-party parts may have contained asbestos, it was encapsulated in the gasket (or other) material and was non-friable. As of March 31, 2017, there were approximately 27 thousand pending claims against ITT subsidiaries, including Goulds Pumps LLC, filed in various state and federal courts alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. "Frequently, plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure. Our experience to date is that a majority of resolved claims are dismissed without any payment from ITT subsidiaries. Management believes that a large majority of the pending claims have little or no value. In addition, because claims are sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved claim can fluctuate significantly from period to period. ITT expects more asbestos- related suits will be filed in the future, and ITT will continue to aggressively defend or seek a reasonable resolution, as appropriate. "Estimating our exposure to pending asbestos claims and those that may be filed in the future is subject to significant uncertainty and risk as there are multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity, quality, quantity and resolution of claims. Any predictions with respect to the variables impacting the estimate of the asbestos liability and related asset are subject to even greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens. In light of the variables and uncertainties inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestos exposures, although it is probable that the Company will incur additional costs for asbestos claims filed beyond the next 10 years, which additional costs may be material, we do not believe there is a reasonable basis for estimating those costs at this time. "The asbestos liability and related receivables reflect management's best estimate of future events. However, future events affecting the key factors and other variables for either the asbestos liability or the related receivables could cause actual costs or recoveries to be materially higher or lower than currently estimated. Due to these uncertainties, as well as our inability to reasonably estimate any additional asbestos liability for claims which may be filed beyond the next 10 years, it is difficult to predict the ultimate cost of resolving all pending and unasserted asbestos claims. We believe it is possible that future events affecting the key factors and other variables within the next 10 years, as well as the cost of asbestos claims filed beyond the next 10 years, net of expected recoveries, could have a material adverse effect on our financial statements." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/coc6Zc ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Has US$942.9MM Liability at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------- ITT Inc. had recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability of US$942.9 million as of March 31, 2017, for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "We record a liability for pending asbestos claims and asbestos claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years. While it is probable that we will incur additional costs for future claims to be filed against the Company, a liability for potential future claims beyond the next 10 years is not reasonably estimable due to the variables and uncertainties inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and potential recoveries. As of March 31, 2017, we have recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years of US$942.9 million, including expected legal fees, and an associated asset of US$367.3 million which represents estimated recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net asbestos exposure of US$575.6 million. "As part of our ongoing review of our net asbestos exposure, each quarter we assess the most recent qualitative and quantitative data available for the key inputs and assumptions, comparing the data to expectations on which the most recent annual liability and asset estimates were calculated. Based on this evaluation, the Company determined that no change in the estimate was warranted for the quarter ended March 31, 2017 other than the incremental accrual to maintain a rolling 10-year forecast period. The net asbestos charge for the three months ended March 31, 2017 and 2016 was US$14.9 million and US$15.4 million, respectively. Additionally, during the first quarter of 2016, we entered into a settlement agreement with an insurer to settle responsibility for multiple insurance claims, resulting in a benefit of US$2.6 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/coc6Zc ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 71 Cases at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., faces 71 asbestos cases pending as of March 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. Aerojet Rocketdyne states, "The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and Illinois. There were 71 asbestos cases pending as of March 31, 2017. "Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. As of March 31, 2017, the estimated loss and accrued amount on a pending claim was US$0.3 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/pon0xT ASBESTOS UPDATE: NL Industries Still Defends 103 Cases at Mar 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- NL Industries, Inc. still defends itself against 103 asbestos- related cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2017. The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in various lawsuits in several jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of occupational exposure primarily to products manufactured by our former operations containing asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust. In addition, some plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos from working in various facilities previously owned and/or operated by us. There are 103 of these types of cases pending, involving a total of approximately 588 plaintiffs. In addition, the claims of approximately 8,687 plaintiffs have been administratively dismissed or placed on the inactive docket in Ohio state court. We do not expect these claims will be re-opened unless the plaintiffs meet the courts' medical criteria for asbestos-related claims. We have not accrued any amounts for this litigation because of the uncertainty of liability and inability to reasonably estimate the liability, if any. To date, we have not been adjudicated liable in any of these matters. "Based on information available to us, including: * facts concerning historical operations, * the rate of new claims, * the number of claims from which we have been dismissed, and * our prior experience in the defense of these matters, we believe that the range of reasonably possible outcomes of these matters will be consistent with our historical costs (which are not material). Furthermore, we do not expect any reasonably possible outcome would involve amounts material to our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. We have sought and will continue to vigorously seek, dismissal and/or a finding of no liability from each claim. In addition, from time to time, we have received notices regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought against former subsidiaries, including notices provided to insurers with which we have entered into settlements extinguishing certain insurance policies. These insurers may seek indemnification from us. "In addition to the litigation, we and our affiliates are also involved in various other environmental, contractual, product liability, patent (or intellectual property), employment and other claims and disputes incidental to present and former businesses. In certain cases, we have insurance coverage for these items, although we do not expect additional material insurance coverage for environmental matters. "We currently believe the disposition of all of these various other claims and disputes, individually and in the aggregate, should not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity beyond the accruals already provided." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/T0qgUQ ********* 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. Agravantefor, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2017. 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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381- 8268. * * * End of Transmission * * *