/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180511.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 11, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 95 Headlines 160 EAST 48TH: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. New York ABSA: VEB Mulls Class Action Over Steinhoff Scandal ACCELERATED FINANCIAL: Faces "Zimri" Suit in M.D. Florida ADAM'S APPLE: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in E.D. New York AFNI INC: $44,574 Settlement in "Heerema" Suit Okayed AGILITY ENERGY: "Burton" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification AGL: Liddell Power Station Closure May Prompt Class Action AIR INDIA: Lokhandwala Sues over Open Luggage, Lost Items ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit in D. Arizona AMEDISYS HOLDING: "Benco" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois APPLE INC: Grace & Potter Seek to Certify iPhone Users Class ASHBURN CORP: Judge Rejects Approval of Class Action Settlement ATL NIGHT: Underpays Waitresses, "Karettis" Suit Claims AUTOBAHN INC: July 10 Hearing on Ferrari, et al. Case Accord AXA EQUITABLE: 2d Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Class Action BARRICK GOLDSTRIKE: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Shaffmaster Says BAYVIEW LOAN: "Hackett" Suit Moved to District of Maryland BLUE CROSS: Faces "LP" Suit in D. Minnesota BOOZ ALLEN: Faces Securities Class Action in New York C.L. WILLIAMS: Court Certifies Class in "Barber" Suit CANADA: Class Action Over Excessive Trudeau Airport Noise Okayed CAPITAL ASSESSMENT: Kristensen Sues over Robocalls CAPREIT INC: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Dominique Claims CATERPILLAR: Class Members Get Less Money Than Expected CENTRAL CAL: Settles Truck Drivers' Class Action for $9.25MM CHAMPION PETFOODS: Misrepresents Dog Foods, "Hodge" Suit Alleges CHEWPOD USA: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Tolos Says CIBA INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged "Ponzi Scheme" CITY WINERY: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York CONNECTIONS COMMUNITY: Faces "Nash" Suit in D. Delaware CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Straczynski Sues over Spam Calls and Texts COURAGE TEAM: Underpays Delivery Workers, Tornado et al. Claim DAVE & BUSTER'S: Simpson Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA DC TRANSPORT: Faces "Bykov" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. DE VILLE ASSSET: Faces "Johnson" Suit in E.D. New York DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Metcalf Sues over Debt Collection Practices EAZE SOLUTIONS: Williams Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages EDISON BALLROOM: Dawson-Wainer Sues over Mandatory Charge EOG RESOURCES: Faces Little Land Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ERICSSON: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action EVANS TIRE: Ledergerber Sues over Product Warranty FACEBOOK INC: Admits Tracking Users Off-Site Amid Class Action FAIR COLLECTIONS: Faces "Ayuba" Suit in S.D. Texas FENG XING CORP: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Under FLSA FITNESS INT'L: Faces "Portis" Suit in S.D. New York FLOYD STANLEY: Faces Nationwide Mutual Suit in South Carolina FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Vesely" Suit in E.D. New York FRAN & SALS: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York G&G TOWING: Payouts in Towing Class Action Commence GALLIARD HOMES: Class Action Mulled Over Grenfell-Style Cladding GARDNER TRUCKING: Accused by Cuevas of Violating FCRA, Labor Code GLENN S. LYON: Martinez Balks at JD Sports Merger Deal GLOBAL SINKHOLE: "Rooney" Suit Seeks Overtimes Wages under FLSA GOOD GUYS: "Chagray" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA GOORIN BROS: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York GRANT CAFFE: Faces "Lopez" Suit in E.D. New York HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Denied in "Smith" Case HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action for Mismanaging Retirement Funds HOPE FOUND: Washington Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA HUMANA INC: Kinkead Seeks to Certify 4 Classes KALOBIOS PHARMA: Aug. 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set KELLER WILLIAMS: Koppel Sues over Spam Text Messages KELLER WILLIAMS: Wright Sues over Unsolicited, Autodialed Calls KIRSCHENBAUM PHILLIPS: Faces "Campagna" Suit in E.D. New York LDCM INTERNATIONAL: Reynozo Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA LIVE NATION: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action LIVE NATION: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Ruling in "Egan" Suit M & A PROJECTS: Faces "Cuxulic" Suit in E.D. New York M.L. ZAGER: Faces "Woo" Suit in E.D. New York MAGNUM SITEWORK: Orozco Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA MAURY COBB: Faces "Dash" Suit in E.D. New York MDL 2804: Williamstown City Joins Opioid Crisis Class Action MERCK & CO: Schwartz Pediatrics Sues over Rotavirus Vaccine Sales MERCK & CO: Electrical Workers' Plan Sues over Ezetimibe Sales METROPOLITAN LIFE: Morris Sues over "Reduced Pay at 65" Scheme MICHAEL REITER: "Chun" Suit Brought Before N.Y. Supreme Court MIDLAND CREDIT: "Loalbo" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania MONAT GLOBAL: "Botallico" Suit Moved to S.D. California MONSANTO COMPANY: Klodzinski Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup MRS BPO: Faces "Louis" Suit in E.D. New York NATIONAL RECOVERY: "Zirogiannis" Settlement Has Initial Approval NEW JADE FOUNTAIN: Faces "Lui" Suit in E.D. New York NOHO HOSPITALITY: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York OCWEN LOAN: TCPA Class Action Settlement Delayed P & M MANAGEMENT: Deceived Nursing Home Residents, Parsa Says PRIMESOURCE HEALTH: Certification of Collective Action Sought PRINCIPAL GLOBAL: Faces ERISA Class Action in Iowa PURDUE PHARMA: Rivers Sues over Health Insurance Premium Hike PURDUE PHARMA: Sardella Sues over Health Insurance Premium Hike RESOURCE CAPITAL: Aug. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set RIPPLE LABS: Faces "Coffey" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. ROCKAWAY CARS: "Gochez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA RSP PERMIAN: Rosenblatt Balks at Concho Resources Merger Deal RUSHMORE LOAN: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Sellers" Suit SAN GABRIEL TRANSIT: Fails to Pay All Wages Due, Garcia Says SAVANNAH LAW: "Dickens" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Georgia SHENANDOAH VALLEY JUVENILE: Class Action Certification Sought SLIDE FIRE: Faces Class Action Over Bump Stocks SENIOR HEALTHCARE: Faces "Ziegler" Suit in Wyoming ST. LOUIS RAMS: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Decision in "Pudlowski" SYSTEM ONE: Hobbs Seeks to Certify Collective Action TENET HEALTHCARE: 11th Cir. Upholds Class Action Dismissal TIRE CLUB: Trujillo Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Faces "Hardy" Suit in N.D. Alabama TWILIO CLOUD: Faces "Jozami" Suit in California Superior Court U.S. AVIATION: Haralson Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses US BANCORP: Removes "Leeson" Class Suit to N.D. West Virginia UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fowler Backs Bill to End Forced Arbitration UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Set to Receive Settlement Payout UNITED STATES: Faces "Nwaorie" Suit in S.D. Texas UNITED STATES: Seeks Appeals Ct. Review of "Garza" Suit Ruling VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Upson" Suit in E.D. New York VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Emission-Cheating Class Actions in Austria WALMART INC: Faces "Doe" Suit Alleging Extortion Under RICO Act WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Sales Tax Discrepancy * DOJ, FTC Continue to Scrutinize Class Action Settlements * EU Commission Presents Directive on Representative Actions * Existence of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements on the Rise Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $105.6MM Reserve at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had US$877.2MM Liability at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 20 Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has US$21.2MM A&E Reserves ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 31,660 Claims Pending at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Unit Still Defends Talc Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Sealed Air's Canadian Units Pending ASBESTOS UPDATE: Super. Ct. Affirms ConRail Summary Judgment ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Fryer-Knowles Dismissed in "Varney" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Metalcad Summary Judgment ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser Bid to Junk "Kilty" Claims Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies Weyerhaeuser Bid to Dismiss "Kappel" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Warning for Empty C & H Mineral Bldg ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brunel School Accused of Asbestos Cover-Up ASBESTOS UPDATE: Academy Closes After Asbestos Disturbance ASBESTOS UPDATE: Another Take-Home Asbestos Exposure in Calif. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Rips Through Asbestos-Containing House ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fragments Found at Nairn Academy ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dump Found on West Coast Beach ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConRail Off Hook for Asbestos Death ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Scheduled in Reinsurance Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tests Find Asbestos in Apartment Complex ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Disease Severity Highlighted ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Clair County Asbestos Trial Underway ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Clean-Up Resumes at Wonderland ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Asbestos Court Still Plaintiff's Playground ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Causes Problems on Apartment Demolition ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Fined EUR50K Over Worker's Asbestos Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bowling Club Site Fenced Off for Asbestos ********* 160 EAST 48TH: Faces "Marett" Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 160 East 48th Street Owner II LLC doing business as: The Buchanan. The case is styled Lucia Marett, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. 160 East 48th Street Owner II LLC doing business as: The Buchanan, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04072 (S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2018). The Buchanan is an apartment building in Arlington, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. ABSA: VEB Mulls Class Action Over Steinhoff Scandal --------------------------------------------------- Dewald van Rensburg, writing for City Press, reports that Absa is being targeted for damages in the Steinhoff scandal due to its involvement in the production of the disgraced company's 2015 prospectus to shareholders. VEB, the Dutch nonprofit organisation that has launched a class action against Stainhoff in the Netherlands, gave Absa, Barclays and Commerzbank notices on April 18. The notice "is an invitation to them to consult with VEB about an amicable settlement, failing which VEB may file a class action lawsuit under Dutch process law against the banks," VEB said. The banks all provided services to Steinhoff when it was producing two prospectuses in 2015 that preceded its listing in Frankfurt. "The prospectuses were misleading -- VEB questions whether the prospectuses properly represent Steinhoff's financial position. VEB concludes that the banks have -- in their respective roles and capacities -- acted wrongfully in respect of Steinhoff investors," the Dutch group said in a statement. VEB had earlier told City Press that it might target large firms that provided Steinhoff with services as it seeks to recoup some part of the billions which shareholders lost when the retail company's share price collapsed in December. It specifically mentioned auditor Deloitte as a possible source of funds due to its apparent failure to catch the misstatements in the Steinhoff books. The damage to shareholders was in the region of R200 billion after it was revealed in December that Steinhoff management had cooked the company's books. [GN] ACCELERATED FINANCIAL: Faces "Zimri" Suit in M.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Accelerated Financial Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Zimri Tapia, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Accelerated Financial Solutions, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18- cv-00613-BJD-JRK (M.D. Fla., May 7, 2018). Accelerated Financial Solutions, LLC is a collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor King, Esq. Mickler & Mickler 5452 Arlington Expy Jacksonville, FL 32211 Tel: (904) 725-0822 Fax: (904) 725-0855 Email: tjking@planlaw.com ADAM'S APPLE: Faces "Alvarez" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adam's Apple Fruits & Vegetables, LLC. The case is styled as Jose Alvarez, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Adam's Apple Fruits & Vegetables, LLC and John Doe, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02623 (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2018). Adam's Apple Fruits and Vegetables, LLC is in the Fruits business. It is a wholly owned business since 1989 and have cumulative produce industry business experience of over 55 years.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. AFNI INC: $44,574 Settlement in "Heerema" Suit Okayed ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled GEORGE F. HEEREMA, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AFNI, INC. and JOHN DOES 1 to 10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00244-JBC (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge James B. Clark, III entered an order certifying a settlement class consisting of: "all persons who reside in the State of New Jersey to whom AFNI, Inc. mailed a written communication, in connection with its attempt to collect a debt owed to Sprint, which included a statement that "[p]ayments made electronically to AFNI may be subject to a $4.95 processing fee" during the period beginning January 14, 2015, and ending January 14, 2016." In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, AFNI shall make the following payments: (a) AFNI will create the following two class settlement funds: Actual Damage Fund. AFNI will create an Actual Damage Fund of $499.95. Each Class Member who paid the $495 processing fee, and who timely returned a claim form will be entitled to receive a payment from the Actual Damage Fund in an amount equal to $4.95, the amount of the "processing fee" collected. Statutory Damage Fund. AFNI will also create a Statutory Damage Fund of $44,574.00, which will be distributed pro rata among those Class Members who did 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. Any portion of the Class Recovery remains unclaimed after the void date on the Claimants' checks, these remaining funds will be distributed as follows: i) first to pay the costs associated with providing notice to the Settlement Class and administering the Class Recovery up to $6,000.00; and (ii) any remainder thereafter shall be donated as a cy Pres award to Northeast New jersey Legal Services. (b) AFNI shall pay Plaintiff 4,000.00. (c) AFNI shall pay Class Counsel $71,000.00 for their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the action. Class Counsel shall not request additional fees or costs from AFNI or the Class Members A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rsQU7hd9 AGILITY ENERGY: "Burton" Suit Has Conditional Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ALEX BURTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AGILITY ENERGY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 7:17-cv-00204-DC (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge David Counts entered an order on May 4, 2018, granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of: "all current and former sand coordinators employed by Agility Energy, Inc., during the last three years who were paid a salary and shift rate." The Court further orders the Parties to confer in an attempt to agree upon the content and form of notice as well as an appropriate manner of distribution. Upon reaching an agreement, the Parties shall file a joint proposed notice for approval by the Court. If the Parties cannot agree on the form of the notice and method of distribution, Defendant shall file its objections to the proposed notice on or before May 18, 2018, and Plaintiff shall file his response to Defendant's objections on or before May 25, 2017. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5UhjMFd7 AGL: Liddell Power Station Closure May Prompt Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Joe Kelly, writing for The Australian, reports that liberal MP Craig Kelly has challenged competition chief Rod Sims to act against AGL for planning to close the Liddell coal-fired power station in NSW, arguing it could expose the company to "one of the largest class-action claims our nation has seen". Mr Kelly, the chairman of the Coalition's backbench committee on energy and the environment, said there was scope to take action against AGL under revamped misuse of market power provisions at section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act. In a letter to the chairman of the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, Mr Kelly said he disagreed with Mr Sims' argument that competition laws could not force a company to sell an asset. Mr Kelly, one of the leading members of the Monash Forum pushing for the government to build a new coal-fired power-station, said there was a precedent to take legal action. He cited a case in the late 1980s in which Queensland Wire -- a barbed wire producer -- had successfully constructed a case of misuse of market power against BHP after the mining giant refused to sell its "Y-bar", a product used to make picket fences. Mr Kelly warned Mr Sims there was a provision under section 82 of the act allowing consumers to form a class action if the closure of the coal-fired power station resulted in an increase in electricity prices. "AGL are playing a game of Russian roulette with the competition laws," Mr Kelly told The Australian. "It's not the ACCC that's their biggest concern, but a private class action from every consumer, business and industry in the nation that could suffer a loss through increased electricity prices from Liddell closing.'' Liberal Eric Abetz backed the push, saying the competition watchdog should do "everything within its power to deal with what is clearly a misuse of market power". Senator Abetz said the government should either reform competition law or nationalise Liddell if the ACCC did not have the power to force a sale. Competition law expert Hank Spier said it would be difficult to penalise AGL for not wanting to sell one of its assets. He said it would be "almost impossible" to prove the company was taking Liddell offline with the intention of reducing competition and increasing energy prices. [GN] AIR INDIA: Lokhandwala Sues over Open Luggage, Lost Items --------------------------------------------------------- TAYABALI LOKHANDWALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. AIR INDIA LTD. and AIR INDIA, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-CH-05715 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 2, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendant's failure to compensate Lokhandwala for the loss of his bag for over a month and for the permanent loss of his Personal Items. According to the complaint, in fiscal year 2014-2015 Air India generated worldwide revenues of 2.9 billion USD, with a net income of 86 million USD. As of July 2016, Air India flies to a total of 84 destinations including 48 domestic destinations within India and 36 international destinations including many cities in the United States. The Defendants operate flights to and from Chicago O'Hare International Airport ("O'Hare). On December 13, 2015 Lokhandwala purchased an airline ticket from Defendants. The ticket was for travel on an Air India-operated flight, which departing from Mumbai on January 13, 2016 and arrived at O'Hare on January 14, 2016, with a short layover in Delhi (the "Flight"). On January 13, 2016, Lokhandwala arrived at the airport in Mumbai and checked his luggage (Tag No. BK27HXX) pursuant to his free bag allowance (the "Luggage"). Later that day, Lokhandwala boarded the Flight. Once the Flight arrived in Chicago, Lokhandwala deplaned, went to the appropriate baggage claim area, and determined that his Luggage had been lost. Lokhandwala immediately reported the missing Luggage to representatives for Defendants. Representatives for Defendants began sending missing luggage reports to Lokhandwala via e-mail (the "Missing Luggage Reports") in an effort to locate his luggage. The Missing Luggage Reports contained pictures and other information about luggage lost on Air India operated flights arriving at O'Hare on particular days. The Missing Luggage Reports demonstrate that Defendants are losing Air India passengers' luggage at an alarming rate. Accordingly, Missing Luggage Reports evince Defendants' systemic failure to handle passenger's luggage with appropriate care. More than three weeks after his Flight, Lokhandwala's Luggage was found. Thereafter, when Lokhandwala arrived at O'Hare to claim his lost Luggage, he found the bag open. Lokhandwala became immediately concerned that his open bag -- which had been out of his possession for over a month -- was missing items. While at O'Hare, Lokhandwala asked Defendant's representatives to allow him to weigh the bag in order to compare that weight to the bag's weight at check-in. While at O'Hare, Lokhandwala weighed the bags three different times in seriatim, with the scale used by Defendants' showing a different weight each time. Lokhandwala complained to Defendants' representatives at O'Hare that the scales were unreliable. Lokhandwala checked his Luggage by hand and determined that a pair of pants and a jacket were missing (the "Personal Items"). On February 23, Lokhandwala followed-up with an email to ordbagstatus@airindiausa regarding his Personal Items, which addressed the issue with the weights. On March 4, 2016, Defendants sent an email to Lokhandwala denying his request for compensation for the lost items, stating that "[s]ince there is no loss of weight, we are unable to entertain you [sic] claim for compensation." Air India Limited is a company that was incorporated under the Companies Act of 1956. It owns Air India. Air India is the flag carrier airline of India and the third largest airline in India in terms of passengers carried.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam S. Tracy, Esq. THE TRACY FIRM, LTD. 141 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 2172 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: 312 754 9499 Facsimile: 630 689 9471 E-mail: at@tracyfirm.com ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit in D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alcon Laboratories Incorporated. The case is styled as America's Health and Resource Center Limited and Affiliated Health Group Limited named as Illinois Corporation, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiffs v. Alcon Laboratories Incorporated, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Unknown Parties named as John Does 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-mc-00006-JGZ (D. Ariz., May 4, 2018). Alcon Laboratories, Inc. markets and distributes eye care products. The company offers ophthalmic pharmaceuticals, surgical equipment, and contact lenses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J Cohen, Esq. Bock Hatch Lewis & Oppenheim LLC 134 N LaSalle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 658-5500 Fax: (312) 658-0000 Email: danieljaycohen209@gmail.com - and - Molly Stemper Gantman, Esq. Bock Hatch Lewis & Oppenheim LLC 134 N LaSalle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 658-5500 Fax: (312) 658-5555 Email: molly@classlawyers.com - and - Phillip A Bock, Esq. Bock & Hatch LLC 134 N LaSalle St., Ste. 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 658-5500 Fax: (312) 658-5555 Email: phil@bockhatchllc.com AMEDISYS HOLDING: "Benco" Suit Moved to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Kathy Benco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Amedisys Holding, LLC and Amedisys Illinois, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2018-L-000266, was removed from the Circuit Court of Dupage County, Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago) on May 2, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-cv-03150 to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ethan G Zelizer, Esq. HR LAW COUNSEL, LLC 3108 State Route 59, Suite 124-205 Naperville, IL 60565 Telephone: (630) 551 8374 E-mail: ethan@hrlawcounsel.com Attorneys for Defendants: Craig Robert Annunziata, Esq. Jason D Keck, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 10 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3450 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 346 8061 E-mail: cannunziata@laborlawyers.com jkeck@laborlawyers.com APPLE INC: Grace & Potter Seek to Certify iPhone Users Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled CHRISTINA GRACE and KEN POTTER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv- 00551-LHK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court for an order on August 2, 2018: 1. granting certification of a nationwide class of: "all owners of Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in the United States who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating systems on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S devices"; 2. appointing Christina Grace and Ken Potter as Class Representatives; 3. appointing Jill M. Manning of Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Daniel L. Warshaw of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP, John Austin Curry of Caldwell Cassady & Curry LLP, and David F.E. Tejtel of Friedman Oster & Tejtel PLLC, as Class Counsel; and 4. In the alternative, certifying a California state class defined as: "all owners of Apple iPhone 4 or Apple iPhone 4S devices in California who on April 16, 2014, had iOS 6 or earlier operating systems on their iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S devices." A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1rKbylDW Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Counsel for the Class: Allan Steyer, Esq. Jill M. Manning, Esq. D. Scott Macrae, Esq. STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP One California Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 421 3400 Facsimile: (415) 421 2234 E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com jmanning@steyerlaw.com smacrae@steyerlaw.com - and - PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP Bruce L. Simon, Esq. Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Alexander L. Simon, Esq. 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433 9000 Facsimile: (415) 433 9008 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com dwarshaw@pswlaw.com asimon@pswlaw.com - and - David F.E. Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 240 East 79th Street, Suite A New York, NY 10075 Telephone: (646) 661 5881 E-mail: dtejtel@fotpllc.com - and - Bradley W. Caldwell, Esq. Jason D. Cassady, Esq. John Austin Curry, Esq. CALDWELL CASSADY & CURRY 2101 Cedar Springs Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 888 4848 E-mail: bcaldwell@caldwellcc.com jcassady@caldwellcc.com acurry@caldwellcc.com ASHBURN CORP: Judge Rejects Approval of Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge has rejected approval of a class action settlement that drew an unusual objection from the U.S. Justice Department, but one that it withdrew. U.S. District Judge Renee Bumb in New Jersey found on April 17 that "many fundamental and important questions remain unanswered" about the settlement, which gave credits to customers of an online wine retailer while awarding $1.2 million to plaintiffs lawyers. Her ruling comes even as the Justice Department, which challenged the deal along with 10 other individual objectors and 19 attorneys general, did "an about-face" in supporting the settlement after lawyers made several changes. "How can a court determine, with a reasonable amount of certainty, that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 23(e), when it has many unanswered questions?" Judge Bumb wrote. "It cannot, and must not." "In sum," she concluded, "too many questions remain, and without answers, the Court is unequipped to approve the parties' settlement." A DOJ spokeswoman declined to comment. "The Court's decision is unfortunate since this was an excellent settlement as evidenced by the huge class participation rate and by the fact that DOJ, the AGs, and even the majority of the professional objectors, could find no fault in the deal as presented for Final Approval," plaintiffs attorney James Cecchi, of Roseland, New Jersey-based Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, wrote in an email. Suzanne Schiller, a partner at Manko Gold Katcher Fox in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania, who represented the defendant, Ashburn Corp., which does business as Wines 'Til Sold Out, declined to comment. Three plaintiffs sued in 2016, claiming to represent a class of consumers who alleged that Wines 'Til Sold Out falsely advertised wine at discounted prices based on original prices that never existed or that the retailer inflated. Judge Bumb dismissed most of the claims. She granted preliminary approval of the settlement on Nov. 16. Under the original deal, class members would get credits toward future wine purchases of between 20 cents to $2.25 per bottle for a total settlement value of $10.8 million. Lawyers, on the other hand, would get $1.7 million. After lawyers filed a motion for final approval, the DOJ filed a statement of interest on Feb. 16 in the case, claiming the settlement provided "extremely limited value" while giving a "windfall payment" to class counsel. The statement, filed by Joshua Rothman, a trial attorney at the Consumer Protection Branch in the DOJ's Civil Division in Washington, D.C., said the credits were akin to coupons that the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 discouraged. The move came days after former Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand suggested in a speech at a Federalist Society luncheon in Washington, D.C., that the department would ramp up its review of fairness in class action settlements. CAFA requires that certain officials, including the U.S. attorney general, get notifications of class action settlements. Although the DOJ has intervened in settlements only a handful of times, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a stronger stance against class actions. The state attorneys general, which included Arizona and Texas, filed an amicus brief outlining similar concerns about the credits. They noted that the settlement required class members to purchase large amounts of wine within a year in order to use credits applied per bottle. Plaintiffs lawyers made some changes: They added a $500,000 cash fund for unused credits, reduced their fee request to $1.2 million and lengthened the period of time in which credits could be used to 18 months. On March 27, the DOJ notified the court that it had changed its mind about its objection because plaintiffs lawyers, with whom its representatives had met earlier that month, "substantially improved the overall structure and value of the proposed settlement in response to the United States' and others' concerns." "Each of these revisions represents a material improvement to the proposed settlement -- providing more actual value to class consumers," Rothman wrote. In the April 17 order, Judge Bumb wrote that the DOJ's "about- face" had no "helpful explanation (indeed, none at all)." Burt Rublin -- rublin@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard Spahr said that while the federal government's renewed involvement in class action settlements was notable, so was the court's ultimate decision. "While DOJ's participation in the class settlement approval process is guaranteed to shine a bright spotlight on the challenged settlement and lead to increased scrutiny by the Court, the Wines case demonstrates that courts will not necessarily rubber-stamp the position taken by DOJ," he said. Among Judge Bumb's concerns: The cash fund was possibly insufficient, the settlement was "largely devoice of any numbers" and many class members had purchased wine that was different from that of the plaintiffs who brought the case. When asked to explain, lawyers said both sides said they wanted to have those claims released as part of the settlement. "This answer is not only inadequate, but unsettling to the Court," Judge Bumb wrote. "Without such explanation, the Court is deprived of the opportunity to probe the reason for doing so: do the lawyers win, and the class loses, nor not?" [GN] ATL NIGHT: Underpays Waitresses, "Karettis" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------- BRIANA KARETTIS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ATL NIGHT LIFE GROUP, LLC and ANWAR SHARIF, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01921-MLB (N.D. Ga., May 2, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory damages for all unpaid wages at the minimum rate, award of liquidated damages in an equal amount, interest, and award of fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly forced Plaintiff and similarly situated waitresses to make telephone solicitations to clients and to attend events for the benefit of Defendants off the clock and without compensation. The Defendants also failed to maintain proper time records for hours worked by Plaintiff and other waitresses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ainsworth Dudley, Esq. DUDLEY LAW, LLC Suite 200, Building One 4200 Northside Parkway Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: (404) 687 8205 E-mail: adudleylaw@gmail.com - and - Vincent M. Tilley, Esq. VINCE TILLEY, P.C. 1870 The Exchange, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30330 Telephone: (770) 989 7334 E-mail: vtilley@lawnet.org AUTOBAHN INC: July 10 Hearing on Ferrari, et al. Case Accord ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled STEVE FERRARI, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. AUTOBAHN, INC. dba AUTOBAHN MOTORS, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00018-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Steve Ferrari, Michael Keynejad, Patricia Rubin, John Diaz, Ray Gapasin, and Harold Fethe will move the court on July 10, 2018, for an order: 1. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement they have reached with Defendants Sonic Automotive, Inc. and Autobahn, Inc. in this matter; 2. providing minor alterations to the settlement administration procedure suggested during consultations with a potential settlement administrator. The proposed changes would improve the efficiency of the administration process and ensure that the cost of administration remains within the limits agreed by the Parties in the Settlement Agreement, thereby maximizing the benefit to the Class; 3. granting provisional certification of the Class for purposes of settlement only; 4. appointing Plaintiffs Steve Ferrari, Michael Keynejad, Patricia Rubin, John Diaz, Ray Gapasin, and Harold Fethe to serve as Class Representatives; 5. appointing Varnell & Warwick, P.A. and Franck & Associates as Class Counsel; 6. approving the Parties' proposed notice program as set forth in the Settlement and directing that notice be disseminated to the Class pursuant to the notice program provided in the Settlement; 7. approving the Parties' proposed Claim Form, and approving the procedures set forth in the Settlement for Class Members to submit claims, receive vouchers, redeem vouchers, receive redemption checks, exclude themselves from the Class, and object to the Settlement; 8. setting a schedule for the final approval process and for Plaintiffs' motion for service Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class awards to the named plaintiffs and attorneys' fees and costs; and 9. staying all non-settlement related proceedings in this case against the Autobahn Defendants, pending final approval of the proposed Settlement. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ETUCzJWA Attorneys for Plaintiffs Herman Franck, Esq. Elizabeth Betowski, Esq. FRANCK & ASSOCIATES 910 Florin Road, Suite 212 Sacramento, CA 95831 Telephone: (916) 447 8400 Facsimile: (916) 447 0720 - and - Janet Varnell, Esq. Brian Warwick, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A COMPLEX CONSUMER LITIGATION P.O. Box 1870 Lady Lake, FL 32158 Telephone: (352) 753 8600 Facsimile: (352) 504 3301 E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com ivarnell@varnellandwarwiek.com AXA EQUITABLE: 2d Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Bosch, Esq. -- cbosch@sheppardmullin.com -- and John Stigi, Esq. -- jstigi@sheppardmullin.com -- of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that in O'Donnell v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Co., No. 17-cv- 1085, 2018 WL 1720808 (2d Cir. Apr. 10, 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed an order dismissing a variable annuity policyholder's putative class action against AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company ("AXA") as precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA"), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78bb(f). Plaintiff alleged that AXA breached its contractual duties by employing a new strategy for its variable annuity policies without obtaining proper approval from the New York State Department of Financial Services ("DFS"). AXA allegedly misled the regulator by failing to adequately inform and explain the significance of the changes to its insurance product in documentation submitted to DFS. The Court held that because the plaintiff and putative class members were unaware of the defendant's alleged misrepresentation to DFS, the misrepresentation could not have been "in connection with" a purchase or sale of securities, and thus could not be governed by SLUSA. This decision establishes important limits on SLUSA preclusion and the scope of the United States Supreme Court's seminal SLUSA decision, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Dabit, 547 U.S. 71 (2006). In November 2008, plaintiff purchased a variable deferred annuity policy from AXA, which provided that AXA could invest assets at its discretion and make certain material changes to the policyholder's account as permitted by law. New York Insurance Law Section 4240(e) required that AXA provide DFS with information about the proposed changes and await approval. AXA filed the required documentation, which DFS approved, and AXA subsequently introduced the AXA Tactical Manager Strategy ("ATM Strategy"), a volatility management strategy that allowed AXA to limit its own equity exposure to market volatility while potentially limiting policyholders' gains. In 2011, DFS entered into a Consent Order finding that "[t]he absence of detail and discussion in the filings regarding the significance of the implementation of the ATM Strategy had the effect of misleading the Department regarding the scope and potential effects of the ATM Strategy." Had DFS been properly informed, it may have required that existing policyholders affirmatively opt into the new approach. Following entry of the Consent Order, plaintiff brought a putative class action in Connecticut state court alleging that AXA breached its contractual duties when it implemented the ATM Strategy without obtaining the required approval from DFS. AXA removed the action to federal court, where O'Donnell moved to remand the action to state court and AXA cross-moved to dismiss the complaint as precluded by SLUSA. Under SLUSA, a class action is properly removed to federal court and dismissed where the state action (1) is a "covered class action," (2) based on state statutory or common law, (3) concerning a covered security, and (4) alleges that defendants made a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with the purchase or sale of the security. The question in O'Donnell was whether the fourth requirement had been satisfied. The Court explained that "[h]ere, AXA invites us to conclude that O'Donnell has pled a [SLUSA-covered] claim in a context where the alleged misrepresentation was made to a regulator and unknown to the holders of the securities. We decline this invitation." The Court concluded that the misrepresentation could not have been made "in connection with" the decision to buy or sell a covered security "for the simple reason that it was unknown to the [securityholders]." Citing Dabit, AXA argued that "it is enough that the alleged fraud coincide' with a securities transaction -- whether by the plaintiff or by someone else." However, the Second Circuit refused to extend Dabit to reach a situation where, as here, no link could be drawn between the misrepresentation and the inaction of a securityholder. The Second Circuit took a limiting view of the broad language of Dabit in determining that the mere temporal overlap of a holder's passive retention of a security and an alleged misrepresentation unknown to the holder fails the "in connection with" requirement for SLUSA preclusion. The decision appears poised to foreclose certain defendants from invoking SLUSA preclusion to achieve dismissal of actions, while creating a corresponding opportunity for plaintiffs to pursue class action suits that might have seemed dubious under pre-O'Donnell precedent. [GN] BARRICK GOLDSTRIKE: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Shaffmaster Says ------------------------------------------------------------- GREG SHAFFMASTER on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BARRICK GOLDSTRIKE MINES INC.; BARRICK GOLD CORPORATION; and DOES 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-00205 (D. Nev., May 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime pay, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff and all other similarly situated non-exempt hourly employees pursuant to a uniform policy and agreement, expressed in writing and imposed by law, to comply with all state and federal laws, including payment of overtime premiums to employees at the correct overtime rate. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff overtime premium pay of one and one-half his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. Plaintiff's situation is similar to those he seeks to represent because Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and all other Class Members overtime premiums at the correct rate. The Defendants employ, and have employed, in excess of 1,000 Class Members within the applicable statute of limitations periods. By failing to include bonuses and other non- discretionary payments in the total sum earned before dividing by hours worked, Defendants failed to pay the correct hourly rate for overtime hours worked. Defendants' unlawful conduct has been widespread, repeated, and willful. Defendants knew or should have known that its policies and practices have been unlawful and unfair. The Defendants also discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the FMLA by refusing to provide Plaintiff with any information regarding his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, by refusing to provide Plaintiff with FMLA-protected leave to care for his father, and by ultimately terminating Plaintiff for taking such leave. The Defendants' actions were intentional, willful, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights under the FMLA. Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc. provides gold mining operations. It produces gold. The company was incorporated in 1976 and is based in Elko, Nevada. Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Barrick Gold Corporation.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Mark R. Thierman, Esq. Joshua D. Buck, Esq. Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq. THIERMAN BUCK LLP 7287 Lakeside Drive Reno, NE 89511 Telephone: (775) 284 1500 Facsimile. (775) 703 5027 E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com josh@thiermabuck.com joshh@thiermanlaw.com BAYVIEW LOAN: "Hackett" Suit Moved to District of Maryland ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Richard Hackett and Megan Hackett, on their behalf and on behalf of three classes of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC; and The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee for the Certificate Holders of the CWALT, Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2006-OA19, the Defendants, Case No. 444494-V, was removed from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt) on May 2, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv- 01286-PX to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Paula Xinis. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC operates as a mortgage loan servicer and debt collector in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip R Robinson, Esq. CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC 8737 Colesville Road, Suite 308 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 448 1304 E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com Attorneys for Defendants: Andrew North Cook, Esq. K AND L GATES LLP 1601 K St NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 778 9106 Facsimile: (202) 778 9100 E-mail: andrew.cook@klgates.com BLUE CROSS: Faces "LP" Suit in D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota. The case is styled L.P. by and through her father, J.P., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, Defendant, Case No. 0:18-cv-01241-MJD-DTS (D. Minn., May 3, 2018). Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota offers health care plans and resources in the state of Minnesota.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles N Nauen, Esq. Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tel: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: cnnauen@locklaw.com - and - David W Asp, Esq. Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP 100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55401-2179 Tel: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: dwasp@locklaw.com - and - Susan E Ellingstad, Esq. Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP 100 Washington Ave S Ste 2200 Mpls, MN 55401-2179 Tel: (612) 339-6900 Fax: (612) 339-0981 Email: seellingstad@locklaw.com BOOZ ALLEN: Faces Securities Class Action in New York ----------------------------------------------------- Harris, St. Laurent & Chaudhry LLP and Mark Kelly, Esq. on April 18 disclosed that on April 9, 2018, they filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of Paul Kocourek, in his individual capacity and as trustee for The Paul Kocourek Trust ("Kocourek") against Booz Allen Hamilton ("BAH" or the "Company") and certain former BAH executives. The action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserts claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all those who sold or exchanged BAH securities in connection with the sale of BAH's Government Division to The Carlyle Group ("Carlyle") in 2008 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants engaged in a fraudulent plan to sell the Government Division to Carlyle at a significant discount. To implement this scheme, Defendants made false and misleading statements to BAH shareholders about the sales process and the value of the Government Division, many of which were included in an Information Circular distributed to BAH shareholders on May 22, 2008. Defendants intended to deceive BAH's shareholders so that they would vote to tender their stock at $763 per share, far below its actual value. The sale to Carlyle closed on July 31, 2008. Nearly two years later, on June 21, 2010, Carlyle published a Form S-1 filing in connection with its planned IPO of the Government Division, which disclosed new information demonstrating that certain of the statements contained in the Information Circular were false and misleading, that BAH shareholders received consideration for their shares that Defendants knew was insufficient, and that Defendants personally benefitted from the sale at the expense of BAH's shareholders. If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from April 18, 2018. Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion for appointment as Lead Plaintiff is June 18, 2018. Any member of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed Class. If you wish to discuss this lawsuit or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Yonaton Aronoff, Esq. by telephone at 917-512-9488, or by email at yaronoff@sc-harris.com. Harris, St. Laurent & Chaudhry LLP is a boutique trial law firm that routinely handles investor rights cases. Mr. Kelly regularly represents clients in securities litigation. [GN] C.L. WILLIAMS: Court Certifies Class in "Barber" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Carlton Barber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. C.L. Williams Enterprises, Inc., and Charles Williams, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-12429-JEL-SDD (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Judith E. Levy entered an order on May 4, 2018, conditionally certifying a class. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=91WsNBgh CANADA: Class Action Over Excessive Trudeau Airport Noise Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Woodhouse, writing for The Suburban, reports that residents living adjacent to the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Airport, namely those in Dorval, Saint-Laurent, Ahuntsic-Cartierville and Mont- Royal and find the night flight schedule trying, might be able to sleep a little easier soon as the advocacy group LPDMT has been authorized by the Superior Court of Quebec to continue a class action suit against the airport. "This is good news for the rights of citizens who are subjected to excessive noise, day and night," said LPDMT (Les Pollues de Montreal-Trudeau) Board President Pierre Lachapelle. Mr. Lacahapelle highlighted part of Judge Chantal Tremblay's recent comments noting that "The allegations of the request for authorization and the supporting documentation are sufficient to justify a case against Montreal-Trudeau Airport. "The suit seeks a decrease in the noise created by airplanes overflying Montreal and reasonable compensation for the population affected by it," noted the board president. "Are faults occurring with the management of the soundscape as well as the procedures for approaching and taking off from Montreal-Trudeau Airport?" asked the group's lawyer, Gerard Samet. "Should the norms that apply to airplane noise be public, and if so, who is to make them public? If they are not public, is it a fault to not make them public?" [GN] CAPITAL ASSESSMENT: Kristensen Sues over Robocalls -------------------------------------------------- JOHN KRISTENSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ASSESSMENT GROUP INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-21752-KMW (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, around December 2017, the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -9711, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. There was a significant pause prior to the Defendant trying to solicit its services to Plaintiff. The Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. The Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone number (786) 540-3862 confirmed to be Defendant's number. Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). During all relevant times, the Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The Plaintiff is not a customer of Defendant's services and has never provided any personal information, including his cellular telephone number, to Defendant for any purpose whatsoever. Such calls constitute solicitation calls pursuant to 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) as they were attempts to promote or sell Defendant's services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq. FLORIDA LEGAL LLC 14 NE First Ave, Suite 1001 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 901 2209 E-mail: Ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law CAPREIT INC: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime, Dominique Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- STUART FRITZ DOMINIQUE, an individual, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. CAPREIT, INC., a Maryland corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-00231-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., April 9, 2018), alleges violation of the (1) Fair Labor Standards Act relating to unpaid wages and overtime, and (2) Florida Constitution relating to unpaid overtime. CAPREIT, Inc., is a Maryland corporation headquartered in Rockville, Maryland. CAPREIT owns and manages multifamily housing communities. CAPREIT operates rental and condominium apartment homes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq. YORMAK EMPLOYMENT & DISABILITY LAW 9990 Coconut Road Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Telephone: (239) 985-9691 Facsimile: (239) 288-2534 E-mail: byormak@yormaklaw.com - and - David M. Buckner, Esq., Seth E. Miles, Esq. Brett E. von Borke, Esq. BUCKNER + MILES 3350 Mary Street Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 964-8003 E-mail: david@bucknermiles.com seth@bucknermiles.com vonborke@bucknermiles.com CATERPILLAR: Class Members Get Less Money Than Expected ------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Fisher, writing for Land Line, reports that even after winning a large class action lawsuit against Caterpillar for its failed C13 and C15 engines, class members eventually walked away with significantly less than expected. An administrative error underestimated the number of claims, drastically reducing the amount of money each class member will receive in the $60 million settlement. Epiq Class Actions & Claims Solutions, the court-appointed settlement administrator, made significant errors in its calculations, according to court documents. In June 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against Caterpillar for installing defective C13 and C15 engines in trucks and buses. According to the suit, the anti-pollution system called Caterpillar Regeneration System failed under normal conditions. Engines lost horsepower or completely shut down. Owners of affected systems sued Caterpillar for costs of continuous repair and the expenses incurred as a result of the failures. With the first case filed in 2012 before being consolidated into a class action suit in 2014, the legal battle continued for approximately four years. In June 2017, a settlement of $60 million was reached. Of that $60 million, attorneys took $20 million for attorney fees and expenses, leaving $40 million for a general fund to be distributed to the class members. According to court documents, class members would receive anywhere from $500 to $10,000 per affected engine. An option for reimbursement for up to $15,000 for consequential losses also was available. More than 35,000 engines were known to be part of the settlement. When the settlement terms were submitted to the court in August 2016, approximately 1,368 engine claims had been filed. More were expected as the claims deadline ran until March 20, 2017. According to a letter submitted to the court on April 17 from Epiq Vice President Michael O'Connor, more than 3,000 claimants filed more than 4,000 total claims covering 16,811 engines. Payments were approved for 2,083 claimants covering 11,685 engines. Settlement woes On March 30, Epiq issued payments to those 2,083 claimants. Checks were attached with a note informing class members that due to approved claims exceeding available funds, payment amounts were reduced to 45.8 percent of the claimed amounts. Less than a week later, Class Action Capital, a third-party filer that filed claims on behalf of 27 entities, told Epiq the payments were inaccurate and too low, prompting an internal review. Epiq concluded it had likely committed an error when Class Action Capital's claims were reviewed. According to the explanation submitted to the court, an error had occurred when reviewing online submissions. "For CAC's claims, it listed one or more engines in the fields provided," the letter explains. "It then uploaded a spreadsheet of additional engines that it wished to include as part of its claims via the supporting documents portal (the 'Spreadsheet Engines'). There were no cover letters for the spreadsheets indicating that this was CAC's intent." Consequently, Epiq analysts overlooked the "spreadsheet engines" as part of its claim. For example, one claim included one engine listed on the claim form and 99 additional engines listed on a spreadsheet uploaded to "supporting documents." Epiq only approved one engine for payment, not knowing the other 99 engines were part of the claim. Class Action Capital filed 28 claims in this manner, according to Mr. O'Connor. Epiq suspected other claimants not part of Class Action Capital may have filed in a similar way. In total, 173 claims were filed using this method. After doing the math, Epiq determined that Class Action Capital clients could have been underpaid by more than $1 million. Epiq decided to stop payment on all checks sent out on March 30 to correct the error. Although the vast majority of the original 2,083 claimants received checks, 14 received wire transfers totaling nearly $13 million. Those claimants were told it was likely some of that money would need to be reclaimed. For those who already cashed their checks, Epiq will ask those claimants to return any portion that exceeds the amount they will ultimately be entitled to in the final calculation. Epiq is now conducting a "Round 2 Claims," which it expects to be completed in approximately 60 days. The second round of claims will include recalculation of the amounts due to successful claimants. As of press time, Epiq said it didn't know the difference between the initial award calculations and the corrected calculations. "Once the dust has settled, and claimants are paid correctly, we can turn our focus inward," Mr. O'Connor said. "We need to very carefully examine how we are handling and reviewing incoming documents and the resources we are utilizing to look at those materials. In every case I have been a part of with Epiq, no matter how clear your instructions to claimants are that claims can only be submitted via method X and must include materials Y, there will be many claimants who submit claims via methods R, T and Z and include every material except Y." [GN] CENTRAL CAL: Settles Truck Drivers' Class Action for $9.25MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Schremmer, writing for Land Line, reports that three trucking companies have agreed to pay a total of $9.25 million to settle a class action lawsuit that claimed hundreds of California truck drivers were misclassified as independent contractors. The proposed agreement with Roadrunner Intermodal Services, Central Cal Transportation, and Morgan Southern was filed April 16 in the U.S. District Court of Eastern California. "After hard fought litigation, we're pleased to have reached a resolution that allows drivers to recoup the financial losses they've endured from years of lost wages," Brian S. Kabateck, the plaintiffs' attorney with the law firm Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, said in an email to Land Line. A hearing for preliminary approval of the settlement will be May 1 in U.S. District Court. According to court documents, at least $5.85 million would go to participating class members. A class of 796 truck drivers would receive an average of about $7,355. The 18 named plaintiffs would receive a $7,500 enhancement payment for a total of $135,000. The other $3.26 million would go to attorney fees, administrative costs, and penalties. The lawsuit alleged that the drivers were misclassified as independent contractors. According to the lawsuit, the defendants failed to provide meal and rest breaks. They also alleged that the defendants didn't pay overtime, minimum wages, and all wages upon separation. Plaintiffs' allegations include that defendants provided drivers with trucks though a lease arrangement with preferred third-party leasing companies and that they "directed and controlled the way drivers performed their work." Each of the trucking companies denied the claims. The settlement was reached after three mediation sessions. [GN] CHAMPION PETFOODS: Misrepresents Dog Foods, "Hodge" Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hodge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Champion Petfoods USA Inc. and Champion Petfoods LP, Case No. 1:18-cv-00248-TSB (S.D. Ohio, April 9, 2018), alleges that as a result of Champion's misrepresentations, the Plaintiff and other putative class members were harmed by paying for Champion's advertised products and receiving only an inferior and contaminated product. Champion sells a variety of premium-priced dog foods throughout the United States. Champion's dry dog food products ("Products") are sold under the "Orijen" and "Acana" brand names. Champion's packaging prominently states that the Products are "Biologically Appropriate" and contain "fresh, regional ingredients." Contrary to Champion's representations regarding the Products, the Products contain excessive levels of harmful heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, and mercury, Ms. Hodge alleges. Champion Petfoods USA Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Auburn, Kentucky. Champion Petfoods LP is a Canadian limited partnership with its headquarters and principal place of business located in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Champion Petfoods LP owns, operates, and controls Champion Petfoods USA Inc. The Defendants formulate, develop, manufacture, market, and distribute dry dog food products under the brand names Orijen and Acana throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard S. Wayne, Esq. Joseph J. Braun, Esq. Christopher S. Houston, Esq. STRAUSS TROY 150 East Fourth Street Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018 Telephone: (513) 621-2120 Facsimile: (513) 629-9426 E-mail: rswayne@strausstroy.com jjbraun@strausstroy.com cshouston@strausstroy.com - and - Phyllis E. Brown, Esq. Adam S. Brown, Esq. BROWN LAW FIRM LLC 250 East 5th Street, Suite 1500 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 878-2700 Facsimile: (513) 241-6464 E-mail: pbrown@blfohio.com abrown@blfohio.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. Erich P. Schork, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com e.schork@barnowlaw.com CHEWPOD USA: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages, Tolos Says -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER TOLOS, an Individual, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CHEWPOD USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation, CHEWPOD USA, LLC, a Delaware LLC, JOEY THIFFAULT, an Individual, and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC704751 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 2, 2018), seeks to recover minimum Wages and overtime wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants on February 22, 2016 to work as the director of Business Development at Chewpod USA, Inc. located at 5850 Canoga Ave. Suite No. 400, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 until July 17, 2017, when his employment was terminated. On July 9, 2017, Plaintiff sent an e-mail to Defendant Joey, a managing agent of Chewpod USA, Inc. and Marie Eve Cote of Chewpod USA, Inc. requesting to be reimbursed on expenses he had incurred on behalf of the Defendants. The Plaintiff was terminated by Defendants on July 17 in retaliation for requesting reimbursement. From at least four years prior to the filing of this action and continuing to on or about July 17, the Plaintiff has not been provided rest periods for work periods in excess of four hours and was not compensated one hour's wages in lieu thereof, as required by California wage and hour laws. From at least three years prior to the filing of this action, the Defendants willfully failed to provide all wages to Plaintiff at the termination of his employment with Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eli M. Kantor, Esq. 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 405 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 274 821S CIBA INSURANCE: Faces Class Action Over Alleged "Ponzi Scheme" -------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Land, writing for PropertyCasualty360, reports that a putative class action filed in federal court in San Francisco accuses California-based CIBA Insurance of operating as an illegal "Ponzi scheme" in collaboration with a number of insurance company partners, including co-defendant Great Lakes Insurance SE. Circumventing insurance laws According to the complaint, CIBA -- which operates in 48 states -- rakes in tens of millions of dollars in premiums annually while circumventing insurance laws in California and nationally. CIBA and its insurance company partners have issued coverage for more than $50 billion in property, but only have $1 billion available in coverage per occurrence for the entire pool of insureds, the complaint said. By working with companies that are legally registered insurers, but conceal CIBA's role in covering the first million dollars of smaller claims, the lawsuit claims CIBA can "illegally engage in the business of insurance in California (and across the country) while avoiding compliance with statutory requirements for insurance carriers and evading scrutiny from state insurance regulators." A "single catastrophic occurrence could deplete the entire shared limit of available coverage, i.e., property owners could be stuck for footing the bill for repairs and replacements despite paying thousands of dollars for insurance coverage," the complaint said. The arrangements not only jeopardizes those carrying CIBA policies, but also impact the way claims are handled, according to the complaint. Plaintiff Sage Apts LLC, a Wyoming apartment complex, canceled the CIBA program policy it purchased through Great Lakes "due to poor claims handling" after paying "tens of thousands of dollars in premiums and property assessments for property and liability insurance." Great Lakes is based in Munich, Germany. Investigating for over a year The complaint was filed in California's Northern District by a group of lawyers including William Levin, Laurel Simes and Rachel Abrams of San Francisco's Levin Simes; William Merlin and Michael Poli of Los Angeles' Merlin Law Group; Adam Moskowitz, Howard Bushman and Adam Schwartzbaum of Coral Gables, Florida's Moskowitz Law Firm; and Andrew Friedman of Phoenix, Arizona's Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint. "Our team has been investigating these Ponzi scheme claims for over a year with some of the best experts in the country," said Mr. Moskowitz, and "will all continue to meet with consumers that have policies with CIBA, especially those in California where CIBA is based." The complaint said CIBA has been providing commercial property insurance since 1993, but has expanded rapidly over the past 10 years. 'Not being regulated as an insurance company' "The reason this is scary is because they're not being regulated as an insurance company, and the result are these precarious policies," said Mr. Moskowitz. Asked how CIBA has avoided scrutiny all these years, Mr. Moskowitz said "they've been able to skirt the insurance regulators, so there are no regulators checking their books every month. If they were following the law someone would have picked this up." 'Completely without merit' A response statement from CIBA attorney Michael Kennick of Fullerton, Calif.'s Kennick & Associates said the complaint's allegations are "completely without merit. The lawsuit is being spearheaded by an attorney who has been making similar allegations against CIBA for many years without success." Mr. Kennick said a similar suit in DeKalb County, Ga. was thrown out last year when the court "summarily dismissed with prejudice all claims against CIBA (and its carriers) stating that the allegations were void of any legal merit." "The lawsuit falsely states that exhaustion of the $1 billion limit of coverage can occur by a single natural disaster thereby exposing CIBA and its member for all amounts above that limit," Mr. Kennick said. "As a fact, the CIBA program provides a dedicated limit of coverage above $1 billion that is not subject to a group aggregate and applies up to the limits stated on the Declaration Page of a member's policy, up to $150 million for each insured." CIBA's "business structure is reviewed by various insurance experts, including a former Department of Insurance director, who have consistently concluded that CIBA complies with applicable insurance regulations and standards," Mr. Kennick said. [GN] CITY WINERY: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Winery New York LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. City Winery New York LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04079 (S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2018). City Winery New York is a unique facility, combining a fully functioning winery with intimate concerts, food & wine classes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Howard Lowe, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-6705 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: chris@lipskylowe.com CONNECTIONS COMMUNITY: Faces "Nash" Suit in D. Delaware ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Connections CSP, Inc. The case is styled as Anthony A. Nash, Edward Brittingham, Jose Santiago, Reggie Folks, Andrew Mudry and DeAndre Pettiford, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs v. Kolawole Akinbayo, Perry Phelps, Steven Wesley, Connections CSP, Inc. and Unknown Correctional Officers in their individual capacities, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00677-UNA (D. Del., May 3, 2018). Connections Community Support Programs Inc. offers housing for individuals and families with extremely low incomes They own and operate more than 500 housing units. They provide transitional housing for adults who have complete detox and are waiting for a residential treatment bed as well as short and longer-term transitional housing for people who are homeless.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Straczynski Sues over Spam Calls and Texts ------------------------------------------------------------ EVELYN STRACZYNSKI, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., doing business as Wish.com, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00855-L-NLS (S.D. Cal., May 3, 2018), contends that, in a misguided effort to solicit business, Wish.com routinely contacts potential customers through text messages with automatic telephone dialing equipment. However, Wish.com regularly sends these text messages to cellular telephone numbers, without consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant's violations caused Plaintiff and members of the Class actual harm, including aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited text messages, as well as the violation of their statutory rights. Wish is a mobile and web e-commerce platform. It was founded in 2011 by Peter Szulczewski and Danny Zhang, former programmers at Google and Yahoo. Wish is the 6th largest e-commerce company in the world and has over US$1 billion in funding.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. Kas L. Gallucci, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696 9006 Facsimile: (619) 564 6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com kas@consumersadvocates.com COURAGE TEAM: Underpays Delivery Workers, Tornado et al. Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS PEREZ TORNADO, FRANCISCO GOMEZ RAMIREZ, ISMAEL DOLORES GONZAGA, and PRISCO NAJERA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. c (D/B/A PIG HEAVEN) and NANCY LEE (A.K.A. HUIFONG LEE), the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 03982 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Defendants own, operate, or control an Asian restaurant, located at 1420 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10028 under the name "Pig Heaven". The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers at the restaurant located at 1420 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10028. The Plaintiffs were ostensibly employed as delivery workers. However, they were required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties, including but not limited to taking out the garbage, storing and picking up inventory, making sauces, stocking deliveries, filling containers, arranging sodas, bringing items up from the basement, cleaning, filing bags for delivery, ripping apart and tying up cardboard boxes, stocking drinks into the refrigerator and moving merchandise when deliveries arrived. The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants without appropriate minimum wage compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiffs at the straight rate for any hours they worked. The Defendants employed and accounted for Plaintiffs as delivery workers in their payroll, but in actuality their duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the non-tipped duties alleged above. Regardless, at all relevant times, the Defendants paid Plaintiffs at a rate that was lower than the required tip-credit rate. However, under both the FLSA and NYLL, Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit because Plaintiffs' non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday, or 2 hours per day, whichever is less in each day. The Defendants employed the policy and practice of disguising Plaintiffs' actual duties in payroll records by designating them as delivery workers instead of non- tipped employees. This allowed Defendants to avoid paying Plaintiffs at the minimum wage rate and enabled them to pay them the lower tip-credit rate (which they still failed to do). Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated employees. Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work without providing the minimum wage compensation required by federal and state law and regulations.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317 1200 Facsimile: (212) 317 1620 DAVE & BUSTER'S: Simpson Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ MARIAH SIMPSON, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. DAVE & BUSTER'S OF ARKANSAS, INC; DAVE & BUSTER'S, INC.; DAVE & BUSTER'S ENTERTAINMENT, INC; DAVE & BUSTER'S MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, INC.; DAVE & BUSTER'S HOLDINGS, INC.; and DAVE & BUSTER'S OF KANSAS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00290-SWW (E.D. Ark., May 2, 2018), seeks to recover declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs, including a reasonable attorney's fee as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiff and other tipped employees lawful minimum and compensation for hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was a server at Dave & Buster's location in Little Rock and also in Kansas City. The Plaintiff and other servers were paid $2.63 per hour plus tips. Defendant, however, was not paying Plaintiff and other servers a lawful Arkansas or federal minimum wage, required Plaintiff and other servers to spend more than 20% of their shift performing non-tipped work and did not pay Plaintiff and other servers for all hours worked. The Defendant was not taking a lawful tip credit and therefore Plaintiff and other servers were not being paid a lawful Arkansas minimum wage or federal minimum wage. The Plaintiff and other servers spent more than 20% of their time performing non-tipped duties for Defendant such as rolling silverware, cleaning tea and drink stations and tidying assigned table sections. Because Plaintiff and other servers spent more than 20% of their time performing non-tipped duties for Defendant, the Defendant was required to pay Plaintiff and its other servers at least $8.50 per hour. The Plaintiff and other servers were required to work at $2.63 per hour when the dining room was closed, when they were doing side work not in the dining room, and when they were doing cut work. As a result of the policies put in place by Defendant, Plaintiff and other servers were often required to perform non- tipped work for less than minimum wage. The Plaintiff and other tipped servers are entitled to wages and compensation based on the standard minimum wage for all hours worked. Defendant's policies violate the FLSA because Plaintiff and others similarly situated are not compensated at a minimum of $7.25 per hour. The Defendant's policies violate the AMWA because Plaintiff and others similarly situated are not compensated a minimum of $8.50 per hour.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Burks, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center, 650 S. Shackleford Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221 0088 Facsimile: (888) 787 2040 E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com DC TRANSPORT: Faces "Bykov" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DC Transport Inc. The case is styled as Valeriy Bykov, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DC Transport Inc., a Texas Corporation, DC Transport., a California Transport Company, DC Transportation Services, Inc and Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 34-2018-00232383-CU-OE-GDS (Cal. Super. Ct., May 3, 2018). DC Transport Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running a freight hauling business from Springdale, Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J Ackerman, Esq. Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Tel: (310) 277-0614 Fax: (310) 277-0635 DE VILLE ASSSET: Faces "Johnson" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against De Ville Assset Management, Ltd. The case is styled as Ericka Johnson, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Persolve Legal Group, LLP, Defendant, Case No. 2:18- cv-02601 (E.D. N.Y., May 2, 2018). De Ville Assset Management, Ltd. is a debt collector agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Metcalf Sues over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Billi Metcalf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, and Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01371-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind., May 3, 2018), alleges that more than six years ago, Ms. Metcalf fell behind on paying her bills, including a debt she allegedly owed for an M&T Bank account. Sometime after that debt became delinquent, it was allegedly purchased/obtained by Jefferson Capital, which tried to collect upon it, by having Defendant DRS send Ms. Metcalf an initial form collection letter, dated January 4, 2018, demanding payment of the M&T Bank debt via various limited-time settlement offers, the satisfaction of which would result in the account being "considered satisfied and closed" and would result in the issuance of a "satisfaction letter". The Defendants' letter, however, failed to state that DRS could not also sue on the debt, and that DRS could not also make a credit report about the debt. In fact, neither Defendant could sue to collect the debt at issue because it was time-barred by the statute of limitations in the State of Indiana, namely Indiana Code section 34-11-2 (six years from the date of the last payment/statement). Moreover, there is no benefit to the consumer in having the account on a time-barred debt marked as "satisfied", nor any benefit in getting a "satisfied" letter. The Defendants' failure to disclose that neither Defendant could sue, and that neither Defendant could credit report the debt is material. In Indiana, collection agencies like DRS can, and do, file collection lawsuits for their clients and nationwide they also make credit reports for their clients. Thus, the lack of a proper disclosure would leave the consumer without enough information to make a decision as to what to do about the collection of the debt at issue and cause them to believe the Defendants -- that the debt needed to be satisfied.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Philipps, Esq. Mary E. Philipps, Esq. Angie K. Robertson, Esq. Carissa K. Rasch, Esq. John T. Steinkamp, Esq. PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD. 9760 S. Roberts Road Suite One Palos Hills, IL 60465 Telephone: (708) 974 2900 Facsimile: (708) 974 2907 E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com mephilipps@aol.com angie@philippslegal.com carissa@philippslegal.com steinkamplaw@yahoo.com EAZE SOLUTIONS: Williams Sues over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ FARRAH WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EAZE SOLUTIONS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-02598-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 2, 2018), seeks to recover legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Eaze Solutions, Inc. in negligently, knowingly, or willfully transmitting unsolicited, autodialed SMS or MMS text messages, en masse, to Plaintiff's cellular device and the cellular devices of numerous other individuals across the country, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is the subscriber of the cellular telephone number ending -5968. Founded in San Francisco in 2014, the Defendant operates a mobile app and website that "enable[] superior customer choice and convenience [in buying marijuana] by connecting product brands, dispensaries and doctors to customers on demand." Some of the consumer-oriented services facilitated by Defendant's technology include "deliver[ing] weed on-demand and enabl[ing] customers to acquire a medical marijuana card in ten minutes with just a phone call." In October 2016, Defendant announced a round of series B funding in the amount of $13 million from five investors, making the company the "highest-funded startup in the history of the cannabis industry, as well as its fastest-growing one. By mid- 2017 Defendant was performing 120,000 deliveries per month to over 250,000 customers and had experienced 300 percent growth over the previous year. And by September 2017, the Defendant had "raised another $27 million in venture funding." All told, Defendant has thus far raised more than $52 million in financing and acquired over 300,000 users, in California alone, since its inception in 2014. The inconvenient truth, however, is that Defendant's exponential growth is not attributable to the quality of the product it delivers or the convenience of the service it provides -- after all, the product is not even grown by Defendant, and Defendant is hardly the first drug dealer to deliver. The reality is that Defendant "growth hacked" its way to the top of the pot delivery business -- specifically, by relentlessly bombarding existing and prospective customers with text messages and other digital spam, day after day, en masse, without anyone's permission, precisely as experienced by the Plaintiff. On its website, the Defendant actually embraces growth hacking as the crux of its business model, priding itself as "the fastest growing technology startup in the cannabis industry" and actively soliciting employment applications for a "Growth Engineer" position. Specifically, the Defendant utilized an "automated telephone dialing system" because the text messages to the 5968 Number and to the other Class members' cellular devices were sent from a telephone number used to message consumers en masse; because Defendant's automated dialing equipment includes features substantially similar to a predictive dialer, inasmuch as it is capable of making numerous calls or texts simultaneously (all without human intervention); and because the hardware and software used by Defendant to send such messages have the capacity to store, produce, and dial random or sequential numbers, or receive and store lists of telephone numbers, and to dial such numbers, en masse, in an automated fashion and without human intervention. Eaze Solutions provides Eaze, a medical marijuana delivery service for patients in California.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 766 3534 Facsimile: (415) 402 0058 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com dhall@hedinhall.com EDISON BALLROOM: Dawson-Wainer Sues over Mandatory Charge --------------------------------------------------------- MARIELLA DAWSON-WAINER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EDISON BALLROOM, LLC; JAIME C. MASADA; and any other related entities, the Defendants, Case No. 605824/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 2, 2018), alleges that beginning May 2012 and continuing through the present, the Defendants have a policy and/or practice of assessing and retaining a mandatory charge in connection with the administration of and/or admission to a banquet and/or catered event without adequately notifying customers that the Mandatory Charge is not a gratuity and will not be distributed to the service workers who staff the catered event. The Defendants provide catered and ticketed event customers and potential customers with documents including bills, menus, contracts, invoices, correspondence with sales staff, online advertisements, proposals, and other catering related documents that refer to a "gratuity", "administrative fee" or other mandatory charge for the administration of or a ticket to a banquet and/or catered event. In some instances, Defendants affirmatively misled customers by stating on advertisements for ticketed events that gratuity was included, even though no gratuity was distributed to Plaintiff Dawson-Wainer and, upon information and belief, members of the putative class. By failing to include adequate notification on all pricing documents as required by the Hospitality Wage Order, the Defendants allowed customers to believe that the Mandatory Charge was a charge purported to be a gratuity. By failing to include adequate notification on all pricing documents as required by the Hospitality Wage Order, the Defendants failed to rebut the presumption that the Mandatory Charge was a charge purported to be a gratuity.[BN] Attorneys for the Named Plaintiff & the Putative Class: Laura R. Reznick, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 1514 Telephone: (516) 873 9550 EOG RESOURCES: Faces Little Land Suit in W.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against EOG Resources Inc. The case is styled as Little Land Company LP, on behalf of itself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EOG Resources Inc. including affiliated Predecessors and affiliated successors, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04092 (W.D. Okla., May 7, 2018). EOG Resources, Inc. is an American petroleum and natural gas exploration company organized in Delaware and headquartered in the Heritage Plaza building in Houston, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A Sharp, Esq. Reagan E Bradford, Esq. The Lanier Law Firm - OKLAHOMA CITY 100 E California Ave, Suite 200 Oklahoma City, OK 73104 Tel: (713) 659-5200 Fax: (713) 659-2204 Email: Reagan.Bradford@lanierlawfirm.com ERICSSON: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on April 17 disclosed that purchasers of Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson (NasdaqGS: ERIC) ("Ericsson") have filed a class action complaint against the company's officers and directors for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between April 8, 2013 and July 17, 2017. Ericsson provides information and communications technology solutions for networks and media markets worldwide. Ericsson Accused of Delaying the Recognition of Massive Expenses According to the complaint, Ericsson overstated service revenues and improperly delayed the recognition of at least $1 billion in expenses on its long-term service projects while representing that its financial statements were prepared in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards. After many years of reporting misleading financial information, Ericsson began to reveal the truth on April 21, 2016, when the company announced disappointing results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2016, due to weak revenues from service projects. The company continued to report poor financial results for the second and third quarters of 2016, again blaming weak revenues from service projects and higher-than-expected costs. On July 18, 2017, Ericsson revealed that it identified 42 long-term service contracts to date with total annual sales of almost $1 billion that Ericsson would exit, renegotiate, or transform. Since Ericsson's troubles became known to investors, Ericsson's American Depositary Share price has fallen over 35% to close at $6.33 per share on April 16, 2018. Ericsson Shareholders Have Legal Options If you would like more information about your rights and potential remedies, 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 -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- 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. [GN] EVANS TIRE: Ledergerber Sues over Product Warranty -------------------------------------------------- MARC LEDERGERBER, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EVANS TIRE & SERVICE CENTERS, INC., and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00021757-CU-NP-NC (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of falsely advertising and selling warranties with its thrust line alignments, which they have no intention of honoring, and to obtain redress for a class of consumers who were misled by Defendant within the applicable statute of limitations period. Warranties are of particular value to consumers because they provide a guarantee of the value of a good after it is purchased. The Plaintiff and other consumers similarly situated were exposed to these advertisements. The Defendant misrepresented and falsely advertised and represented to Plaintiff and others similarly situated by failing to disclose in either its advertisements or the contract itself that Defendant would not honor the warranty. The Defendant's misrepresentations to Plaintiff and others similarly situated induced them to purchase Defendant's Class Products. The Defendant took advantage of Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers unfairly and unlawfully.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, 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@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com FACEBOOK INC: Admits Tracking Users Off-Site Amid Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Hern, writing for The Guardian, reports that Facebook has released more information on the social media platform's tracking of users off-site, after its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, failed to answer questions about the process from US politicians and as the company prepares to fight a lawsuit over facial recognition in California. In a blog post, Facebook's product management director, David Baser, wrote that the company tracked users and non-users across websites and apps for three main reasons: providing services directly, securing the company's own site, and "improving our products and services". "When you visit a site or app that uses our services, we receive information even if you're logged out or don't have a Facebook account. This is because other apps and sites don't know who is using Facebook," Baser wrote. "Whether it's information from apps and websites, or information you share with other people on Facebook, we want to put you in control -- and be transparent about what information Facebook has and how it is used." But the company's transparency has still not extended to telling non-users what it knows about them -- an issue Zuckerberg also faced questions over from Congress. Asked by Texas representative Gene Green whether all information Facebook holds about a user is in the file the company offers as part of its "download your data" feature, Zuckerberg had responded he believed that to be the case. Privacy campaigner Paul-Olivier Dehaye disagreed, noting that, even as a Facebook user, he had been unable to access personal data collected through the company's off-site tracking systems. Following an official subject access request under EU law, he told MPs in March, Facebook had responded that it was unable to provide the information. "They're saying they're so big the cost would be too large to provide me data," he said. "They're really arguing that they're too big to comply with data protection law, the cost is too high, which is mind-boggling." Following Zuckerberg's testimony, Dehaye made a complaint to the Irish data protection commissioner, noting the CEO "contradicted the pronouncements to me over past year by his own privacy Operations team". The Facebook blogpost comes as the company faces a class action lawsuit in California over its decision to launch a facial recognition feature for US users in 2011. The "tag suggestions" feature, involves Facebook running facial recognition tech on uploaded photos to match them with other users automatically. But a class action suit representing Facebook users in Illinois argues that the technology breaches the law in that state. On April 16, US district judge James Donato ruled the suit could go ahead, representing all Illinois users "for whom Facebook created and stored a face template after 7 June 2011". The feature was turned off in the EU shortly after it launched, and Facebook committed in 2012 to delete all face templates by October that year, as part of a wide-ranging agreement with the Irish data protection commissioner. Now, however, the company intends to relaunch facial recognition features across the EU, building on an approach that it trialled in America. Facebook users will see a splash screen that informs them that they are reviewing "an option for turning on face recognition". They can then click "accept and continue", giving Facebook consent to use their face templates, or click "manage data settings", then "continue", then check a box marked "don't allow Facebook to recognise me in photos and videos" to opt out. Facebook believes this model, which the company describes as providing explicit consent, will allow it to avoid the concerns that were previously raised by the Irish data protection commissioner. [GN] FAIR COLLECTIONS: Faces "Ayuba" Suit in S.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fair Collections. The case is styled as Crystal Ayuba, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fair Collections and Outsourcing, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01448 (S.D. Tex., May 7, 2018). Fair Collections & Outsourcing, Inc. was founded in 2004. The company's line of business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and other insurance related issues.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan David Kandelshein, Esq. The Law Office of Jonathan Kandelshein 18208 Preston Rd, Ste D-9 No. 256 Dallas, TX 75252 Tel: (646) 753-0149 Email: Jonathan.kandelshein@gmail.com FENG XING CORP: "Flores" Suit Seeks to Recoup Overtime Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- GERALD FLORES, on his own behalf and those similarly situated v. FENG XING CORPORATION, a Florida Profit Corporation, FAYE Y. LU, Individually, and YUAN XIANG, Individually, Case No. 3:18-cv- 00469-TJC-JBT (M.D. Fla., April 9, 2018), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Feng Xing is a Florida corporation, with its principal place of business located in Jacksonville, Florida. Feng Xing owned and operated a restaurant named Okinawa Japanese Grillhouse and Sushi Bar located at 4403 Roosevelt Blvd., in Jacksonville. The Individual Defendants owned and operated Feng Xing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P. A. 600 Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) WORKERS Facsimile: (954) 327-3013 E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com FITNESS INT'L: Faces "Portis" Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fitness International, LLC. The case is styled as Maurice Portis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fitness International, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04091 (S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2018). Fitness International, LLC operates a health club chain in the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. FLOYD STANLEY: Faces Nationwide Mutual Suit in South Carolina ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Floyd Stanley, Jr, doing business as: Stanley's Vinyl Fence Designs. The case is styled as Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Plaintiff v. Floyd Stanley, Jr, doing business as: Stanley's Vinyl Fence Designs, Complete Building Corporation, Palmetto Pointe at Peas Island Condominium Property Owners Association Inc and Jack Love, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-01232-MBS (D. S.C., May 4, 2018). Floyd Stanley, Jr, doing business as: Stanley's Vinyl Fence Designs is a fence and gate contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Robert Murphy, Esq. Murphy and Grantland PO Box 6648 Columbia, SC 29260 Tel: (803) 782-4100 Fax: (803) 782-4140 Email: jrmurphy@murphygrantland.com - and - Timothy J Newton, Esq. Murphy and Grantland PO Box 6648 Columbia, SC 29260 Tel: (803) 782-4100 Email: tnewton@murphygrantland.com FORSTER & GARBUS: Faces "Vesely" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Forster & Garbus, LLP. The case is styled as Linda K Vesely, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Forster & Garbus, LLP, Mark A. Garbus and Ronald Forster, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02663 (E.D. N.Y., May 4, 2018). Forster & Garbus LLP provides legal services. The Company specializes in collecting debts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: (631) 335-1107 Email: mpash@verizon.net FRAN & SALS: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Fran & Sals Artichoke in Chelsea, LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fran & Sals Artichoke in Chelsea, LLC, Fran & Sals Artichoke in Chelsea, LLC and Artichoke Franchising LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04076 (S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2018). The Defendants operate a pizzeria business in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. G&G TOWING: Payouts in Towing Class Action Commence --------------------------------------------------- Fredrick Kunkle, writing for Washington Post, reports that more than three years after a Frederick, Md., man dashed inside a drugstore only to return minutes later and find his car had been towed, financial payback is arriving in the mail for thousands of victims like him. The payments come from a class-action lawsuit filed against G&G Towing, one of the largest, and arguably most notorious, towing operations in Maryland. The case resulted in a $22 million judgment against the company for improperly towing an estimated 28,000 vehicles from April 2012 to June 2017. It also led to judgments against more than 500 property owners who had hired the now-defunct towing company to police their lots. "One of the reasons we were interested in doing this is, we were told a lot of people who were towed were people of limited means," plaintiff Mary Pelz said. Pelz's daughter, Darcy, had borrowed her Toyota Avalon to visit a friend at a Silver Spring apartment complex. When she left, she discovered that the car had been towed from a lot owned by Patner Properties. It cost $168 to get the car back from G&G, which claimed the reason for the March 2014 tow was a "flat tire," according to the Pelzes and court documents. Pelz, who is director of the Long Branch Senior Center, said she decided to participate in the G&G class-action lawsuit because many of the lots patrolled by the company were in areas of Montgomery County populated by large numbers of immigrants and low-income residents who did not always fight back or understand their rights under Maryland towing law. "I've worked in low-income communities, and I've seen how people are taken advantage of," said Pelz, 64, who was approached by lawyers to join the class action. "That's what tipped the scales for me. Her family's payment of about $5,000 from the court judgment came some time ago, she said. Overly aggressive towing operators are the bane of anyone who has ever parked in a lot without seeing -- or ignoring -- "customer- only" warning signs. Your vehicle can sometimes vanish before you can say, "I'll be right back." Though property owners see trespass towing as a necessary measure to ensure their customers have room to park -- a Bethesda shoe store owner griped that people who would not think of shoplifting a pair of socks somehow justify taking parking spots reserved for customers -- some towing companies push the limits. KDKA Pittsburgh reported that a lawyer is challenging a Pittsburgh towing firm for allegedly charging fees higher than allowed by law, while a Philadelphia towing company reached a settlement in March with the state's attorney general over repeated violations of state and city towing laws, WHYY reported. In Sacramento, law enforcement officials filed charges in March against the operators of an illegal towing scheme that targeted fans of the Sacramento Kings basketball team. The California Highway Patrol, in filing auto theft and conspiracy charges, says Davis Tow dragged 270 cars away from the team's games and collected at least $80,000 in impound fees, the Sacramento Bee reported. The Maryland case began Dec. 12, 2014, when Quan-en Yang, a doctor from Frederick, Md., parked outside a Rockville Walgreens, according to Montgomery County Circuit Court records and documents posted online by lawyers. Despite the wintry weather, he dashed inside without his coat to buy a snack, thinking he would not be long. When Yang returned minutes later, his car was gone. He had to walk, coatless, more than a mile to G&G's impound lot. He was required to pay $142, plus a $4.42 "processing fee" for using a credit card, to reclaim his vehicle. It was an experience repeated hundreds of times with other motorists. Earlier that year, NBC News4 aired a report saying G&G Towing appeared to be using spotters at a Silver Spring shopping center in violation of a 2012 Maryland towing law. BethesdaNow.com wrote about the company, too. Yang's lawsuit -- which was filed three years ago in Montgomery County Circuit Court against G&G's parent company -- alleged that the operators used spotters to identify potential targets, swooped in to hook the vehicles without following proper procedures and effectively held the vehicles for ransom. In addition to taking legal action against the towing firm and its owner, Glenn W. Cade Jr., the plaintiffs also sued property owners, shopping plazas, condominium associations, banks, churches, dentists and a variety of merchants that employed the towing company, including the Stonebridge Homeowners Association, Kohl's, Childtime Childcare and Christ Evangelical Lutheran Church. The size of the judgments against the property owners varied. A judgment of $218, 790 was entered against Glenmont Crossing Apartments, while $3,900 was entered against the Bradley Boulevard Shopping Center; a judgment of $75,660 was entered against the Flower Avenue Shopping Center, according to court records. The settlement agreements -- which occurred in phases and involved different groups of people depending on when and where their vehicles were towed -- have been approved by Montgomery County Circuit Judge Ronald B. Rubin. On Jan. 11, the court approved a settlement involving more than 400 property owners. An April 2 letter sent to a victim with a settlement check says any unclaimed funds will go to charity. Cade did not return a call seeking comment. Efforts to reach Yang through public records were not successful. Calls to Richard S. Gordon, the plaintiff's lead attorney in Towson, Md., were not returned. James P. Ulwick, who is listed as defense attorney for property owners in the case, did not return calls. A call to Bruce D. Patner -- a Bethesda attorney who is representing himself and other property owners-- also was not returned. [GN] GALLIARD HOMES: Class Action Mulled Over Grenfell-Style Cladding ---------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News reports that residents of privately-owned London buildings that have been fitted with Grenfell-style cladding are considering legal action against the developers. Leaseholders say they live in "constant anxiety" over their safety at New Capital Quay, Greenwich, London, since the disaster in which 71 people died. Fire wardens are on watch 24 hours a day after similar cladding was found. Developers Galliard Homes say the cladding was certified as compliant with building regulations at the time. Home owners Nigel Pickford and Annabel Parsons are part of a group of up to six people obtaining legal advice on a class action case against Gilliard Homes and also potentially insurers NHBC in the event that they wrongly deny cover. Cladding similar to that used on Grenfell tower was discovered on the luxury waterfront development soon after the fire last July. The claims would likely be based on breach of contract under which reasonable care and proper materials should have been guaranteed, breach of building regulations, under which dwellings should be fit for habitation. "There is a question mark that a building requiring 24-hour safety watch is fit for habitation," advising solicitor Chris Haan said, adding that the case will also look at whether, even if the cladding met building regulations, it was reasonably fit for purpose and of good quality. Mr Pickford said damages could be sought for "inability to sell and distress caused". Ms Parsons said she believes at least 200 residents could be mobilised for a class action case. "I'm absolutely furious," she said, adding that the government should "step in and take action" to ensure buildings are safe". Residents also say their properties have plummeted in value as they are locked in the dispute. Cecile Langevin told the Guardian newspaper that she bought her flat for ú475,000, but a Rics-approved surveyor recently valued it at ú50,000. Gilliard Homes said it paid a ú1m premium for a 10-year insurance policy. Insurers NHBC said it received a claim in respect of cladding but was currently determining its validity and establishing building regulations were complied with. Though NHBC also acted as approved inspector -- assisting Galliard Homes and its subsidiaries "in achieving compliance with" building regulations and guidance throughout the building process, it says the legal responsibility for ensuring New Capital Quay complies with building regulations falls on Galliard Homes. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said it wants to "see private sector landlords follow the lead of the social sector and not pass on the costs of essential cladding replacement to leaseholders".[GN] GARDNER TRUCKING: Accused by Cuevas of Violating FCRA, Labor Code ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS CUEVAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GARDNER TRUCKING, INC., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 5:18-cv-00716 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2018), alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Labor Code. Mr. Cuevas, who has been employed by the Defendants as a Non- Exempt Employee during the Class Period, specifically from August 4, 2016, to May 26, 2017, accuses the Defendants of failing to pay minimum wages and liquidated damages, all regular wages and overtime; failing to provide rest breaks, meal periods and accurate wage statements; and failing to pay all wages owed upon termination. Gardner Trucking, Inc., is a corporation, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of California. Gardner conducts its business in California, has various offices and locations in the State, and serves numerous customers throughout the State. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names, capacities and relationships of the Doe Defendants. Gardner owns, controls, and/or operates a transportation services nationwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com GLENN S. LYON: Martinez Balks at JD Sports Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------ EDWARD MARTINEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and Derivatively on behalf of The Finish Line, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. GLENN S. LYON, TORRENCE BOONE, WILLIAM P. CARMICHAEL, RICHARD P. CRYSTAL, FAISAL MASUD, STEPHEN GOLDSMITH, CATHERINE A. LANGHAM, and SAMUEL M. SATO, the Defendants, and THE FINISH LINE, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01342-TWP- TAB (S.D. Ind., May 2, 2018), seeks to enjoin a proposed merger transaction or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from violation of the federal securities laws by Defendants. The Plaintiff brings this stockholder class action on behalf of itself and all other public stockholders of The Finish Line, Inc., against Finish Line, and the Company's Board of Directors, for violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and derivatively on behalf of Finish Line itself for breaches of fiduciary duty as a result of Defendants' efforts to sell the Company to JD Sports Fashion PLC and Genesis Merger Sub, Inc. as a result of an unfair process for an unfair price, and to enjoin an upcoming stockholder vote in which JD Sports will acquire each outstanding share of Finish Line common stock for $13.50 per share, with a total valuation of approximately $558 million. The terms of the Proposed Transaction were memorialized in a March 26, 2018 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 8-K attaching the definitive Agreement and Plan of Merger. Thereafter, on April 24, 2018, Finish Line filed a Preliminary Proxy Statement on Form Pre14A with the Securities and Exchange Commission in support of the Proposed Transaction. The Proposed Transaction is unfair and undervalued for a number of reasons. Significantly, as noted in the Preliminary Proxy, the sales process was hastily conducted without a proper market check, in order to avoid an escalation of a conflict with an activist investor. This overly accelerated process resulted in a process where only one other party was ever considered as a potential strategic partner, namely, JD Sports. Next, it appears as though the Board has entered into the Proposed Transaction to procure for themselves and senior management of the Company significant and immediate benefits while the Company's stockholders are cashed out at an unfair price. For instance, pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, upon the consummation of the Proposed Transaction, Company Board Members and executive officers will be able to exchange large, illiquid blocks of Company stock for massive payouts, in addition to receiving cash in exchange for all outstanding and unvested options and/or other types of restricted stock units.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: William N. Riley, Esq. RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC Hammond Block Building 301 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 300 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 633 5270 Facsimile: (317) 426 3348 E-mail: wriley@rwp-law.com - and - Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esquire BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Phone: (610) 667-6200 Facsimile: (610) 667 9029 E-mail: esmith@brodskysmith.com mackerman@brodskysmith.com GLOBAL SINKHOLE: "Rooney" Suit Seeks Overtimes Wages under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- LAMONT ROONEY, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL SINKHOLE SOLUTIONS INC., the Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01069-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla., May 2, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtimes wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, in exchange for Plaintiff's services, the Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff an hourly wage. The Plaintiff and the putative class worked hours in excess of 40 hours within work week for Defendant, and they were entitled to be compensated for these overtime hours at a rate equal to one and one-half times their individual regular hourly rates. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and the members of the putative FLSA Collective Class an overtime premium for all overtime hours that they worked, in violation of the FLSA. Global Sinkhole Solutions is engaged in the soil stabilization business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A. 1110 N Florida Ave #300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com twells@wfclaw.com GOOD GUYS: "Chagray" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- JORGE CARRASCO CHAGRAY and MANUEL CARRASCO CHAGRAY, the Plaintiff, v. GOOD GUYS NYC CONSTRUCTION CORP. and JOHN MIHALIOS CONTRACTING CORP., and GEORGE MIHALIOS and JOHN MIHALIOS, as individuals, the Defendants, Case No. 706823/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 2, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff's primary duties were as a laborer, construction worker and painter, and performing other miscellaneous duties from in or around 2006 until in or around October 2017. The Plaintiff was paid by Defendants approximately $720.00 per week from 2011 until 2012, approximately $780.00 per week from 2013 until 2016, and approximately $800.00 per week in 2017. The Plaintiff worked approximately 54 hours or more per week for Defendants from 2011 until October 2017. Although the Plaintiff worked approximately 54 hours or more per week from in 2011 until October 2017, during his employment with Defendants, the Defendants did not pay Plaintiff 1.5 for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263 9591 GOORIN BROS: Faces "Fischler" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goorin Bros., Inc. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Goorin Bros., Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02698 (E.D. N.Y., May 7, 2018). Goorin Bros.Inc. was founded in 1895. The company's line of business includes the manufacturing of hats, capps, and millinery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com GRANT CAFFE: Faces "Lopez" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grant Caffe LLC. The case is styled as Salvador Lopez Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Grant Caffe LLC, doing business as: Liberty Grant Caffe, Steve Skukilides and Gregorio Soto, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02703 (E.D. N.Y., May 7, 2018). Grant Caffe LLC is a cafe located at 1170 Liberty Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11208.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. HILLSTONE HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Denied in "Smith" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Doniele Smith, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hillstone Healthcare Inc. and Cornerstone Innovations, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01075- JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge James L. Graham entered an order: 1. granting Cornerstone's motion for judgment on the pleadings and defendant Hillstone's motion to dismiss; and 2. denying Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a class without prejudice. The Court will not terminate the case at this time but hereby grants plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=K8mShgHA HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action for Mismanaging Retirement Funds --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael E. Kanell, writing for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, reports that a suit filed in federal court against Home Depot charges that the hardware giant permitted mismanagement of retirement funds affecting more than 200,000 people and costing their accounts at least $140 million. The complaint against the $100 billion-a-year, Atlanta-based company was filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta by attorneys for Jaime Pizarro and Craig Smith. But the plaintiffs aim for class action status, which would mean inclusion of every employee and former employee affected. The key allegations involve investments chosen for $6.5 billion in the Home Depot pool that provides retirement payments to former employees. The plaintiffs argue that those investments, which are supposed to keep those savings growing as robustly as possible, have instead been consistently placed with funds that do not perform well. The result is a retirement pool that doesn't grow the way it should, said Charles Field -- cfield@sanfordheisler.com -- a San Diego-based partner in the firm of Sanford, Heisler, Sharp. "They see the market is up 40 or 50 percent and they look at their 401(k) and see that it is not up as much or maybe it's even down and they think: What is going on here?" Home Depot spokesman Stephen Holmes declined to comment on the substance or specifics of the allegations, limiting the official response to a general endorsement of the company's retirement plans. "We're proud of the financial support and the opportunity for savings that we provide our associates," he told the AJC. Atlanta attorney Darren Penn said that class actions suits can be costly, complex and time-consuming. In general, he said, defendants start by asking for dismissal of the suit, and if that doesn't succeed, they will argue that the complaint does not deserve class action status. If the judge disagrees, the stakes go up dramatically -- and, at that point, both sides might consider some kind of settlement, he said. "This could involve a significant amount of money," said Penn, whose firm represented plaintiffs in a suit against Home Depot following a large data breach. The plaintiffs could have filed in any jurisdiction where Home Depot does business, not just in the city where the company has its headquarters. But the judges and clerks here have seen this kind of complicated case before, he said. "The bench here is very well equipped to handle class action suits. They absolutely know what they are doing." Mr. Field said that the plaintiffs both live in California, but are not making themselves available for interviews. One is still a participant in the Home Depot retirement plan and one is not. A former employee's participation can end when he transfers the money to another plan or cashes out and takes a lump sum. Among the attorneys listed as representing the plantiffs is Paul Jay Pontrelli -- pjp1460@gmail.com -- of the Atlanta firm Byrne, Davis and Hicks. Mr. Pontrelli did not return calls from the AJC requesting comment. After justice Over the years, the Home Depot retirement investments were funneled into about 20 different funds, most of which brought lower-than-average returns, Field said. "Somebody makes a bad investment -- one year, two years -- and you can't fault them for that." he said. "But when it is three, four, five or more years, you begin to wonder, what were they thinking?" The suit also charges Home Depot with paying exorbitant fees to a company called Financial Engines, which was supposed to offer employees investment advice. The guidance given was provided by robotics, the plaintiffs charge. Brightscope, a financial company that rates company retirement plans, puts Home Depot below average for its peer group and just behind hardware competitor Lowes. Among other companies with better ratings were Costco, Walgreen and Target. The Home Depot suit is large, but nowhere near the largest such suit involving a company's retirement accounts. A suit against General Electric, for instance, has alleged damage of more than $700 million for mishandling of retirement accounts. That case -- also filed by Sanford, Heisler, Sharp -- is still in the courts. In 2007, Sandy Springs-based UPS agreed to an $87 million settlement of a class action suit in which union drivers had charged the company with forcing them to work off the clock. The complaint against Home Depot argues that the company owes the plaintiffs the difference between the funds' performance and the performance it should have had. That gap is at least $140 million, Mr. Field said, but the exact number would be determined after hearing expert testimony at a trial. "We think that's a lower number," he said. "We think it could be higher than that." Each employee that worked an entire career at Home Depot would retire with $100,000 less than they should have in their accounts, according to Brightscope. The company makes the investment choices, Mr. Field said. "The retirement fund is overseen by an investment committee, but we don't know who is on that committee." Home Depot's responsibility is clear, he said: Since Home Depot is managing funds for employees, it has a fiduciary responsibility to get the best possible results. "Employees trust their employer to construct a decent plan that will allow them to retire at some time in their lives," Mr. Field said. "The law says that a fiduciary duty is the highest duty under the law. They have to be absolutely loyal to their employees and we are asking for them to be compensated for their low. "What we are after is to get justice for all the employees in the plan." [GN] HOPE FOUND: Washington Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ MADELINE L. WASHINGTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HOPE FOUND and EMMANUEL KHUMBAH, CEO, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01038-RMC (D. Colo., May 2, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from January 2014 through June 2017. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant full time as a home healthcare service provider for individuals with development disabilities living in the District of Colombia. The Plaintiff worked a minimum 50 hours per week, with some weeks being as 77 hours or even more. The Plaintiff was misled into believing that she was not entitled to be paid overtime wages for the overtime hours she worked each week because Defendants either told this Plaintiff expressly or implied that this was the case by repeatedly failing and refusing to pay overtime wage rates for all hours worked over 40 in a work week.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip B. Zipin, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GGREENBERG, LLC 8757 George Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587 9373 E-mail: pzipin@zagfirm.com HUMANA INC: Kinkead Seeks to Certify 4 Classes ---------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled DAVERLYNN KINKEAD, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HUMANA, INC., HUMANA AT HOME, INC., and SENIORBRIDGE FAMILY COMPANIES (CT), INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-01637-JAM (D. Conn.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: 1. certifying classes: Connecticut Effective Date Class: "all current or former home healthcare workers employed in Connecticut by Humana, Humana at Home, Inc., SeniorBridge Family Companies (CT) and/or any of its or their predecessors or affiliated entities between January 1, 2015 and October 12, 2015"; New York Effective Date Class: "all current or former home healthcare workers employed in New York by Humana, Humana at Home, Inc., SeniorBridge Family Companies, and/or any of its or their predecessors or affiliated entities between January 1, 2015 and October 12, 2015"; Connecticut Unpaid Hours Class: "all current or former home healthcare workers employed in Connecticut by Humana, Humana at Home, Inc., SeniorBridge Family Companies (CT) and/or any of its or their predecessors or affiliated entities who worked 24-hour or live-in shifts at any time between January 1, 2015 and January 25, 2016"; and New York Unpaid Hours Class: "all current or former home healthcare workers employed in New York by Humana, Humana at Home, Inc., SeniorBridge Family Companies (CT) and/or any of its or their predecessors or affiliated entities who worked 24-hour or live-in shifts at any time between November 11, 2009 and the present"; 2. appointing Plaintiff's Counsel as Class Counsel 3. authorizing Plaintiffs to issue the notice forms by mail; 4. giving putative class members a period of 30 days from the date that notice is issued to opt-out of this action; 5. requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiffs, in electronically readable form, the names, address, email address, and any employer number or unique identifier of all class members. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=TvPKVsel The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J.D. Sweeney, Esq. GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC 250 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 Telephone: (845) 255 9370 Facsimile: (845) 255 8649 E-mail: msweeney@getmansweeney.com KALOBIOS PHARMA: Aug. 2 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Apri1 19 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (OTCMKTS:HGEN), formerly (OTC:KBIO): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND SETTLEMENT HEARING TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED KALOBIOS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. ("KALOBIOS") COMMON STOCK (STOCK SYMBOL: KBIO) BETWEEN NOVEMBER 19, 2015 AND DECEMBER 16, 2015, INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT CLASS PERIOD"). YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, that a proposed settlement has been reached in this action. A hearing will be held on August 2, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Edward J. Davila, United States District Judge, at the courthouse for the United States District Court, Northern District of California Courtroom 4, Robert F. Peckham Federal Building, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113. The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the Class' claims against the Settling Defendant Martin Shkreli, KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("KaloBios") former Chief Executive Officer, for a total of consideration of one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000.00) should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable and should be approved; (3) whether the application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; (4) whether Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and expenses should be granted; (5) whether Plaintiffs' request for a compensatory award should be granted; and (6) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Settling Defendant as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") filed with the Court. Claims against former Defendants KaloBios, Ronald Martell, and Herb Cross were already resolved as part of a partial settlement (the "Partial Settlement") for one million five hundred thousand dollars ($1,500,000.00) and three hundred thousand (300,000) shares in the reorganized, bankruptcy post-exit KaloBios. Lead Counsel representing Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class is Matthew L. Tuccillo, Pomerantz LLP, 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10016, (212) 661-1100. If you purchased or otherwise acquired KaloBios common stock between November 19, 2015 and December 16, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof. You may obtain the detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action, Motion For Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Settlement Fairness Hearing (the "Notice") and the Proof of Claim and Release Form ("Proof of Claim") free of charge by contacting the Settlement Administrator via the information set forth below. If you previously submitted a valid and timely Proof of Claim in the Partial Settlement, you do not need to do so again. Your prior valid and timely Proof of Claim will be used again. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, have not already submitted a valid and timely Proof of Claim as part of the Partial Settlement, and wish to share in this Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim, postmarked no later than June 18, 2018, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any Judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, postmarked no later than July 12, 2018. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later than July 12, 2018. The Settlement Class excludes the Settling Defendant and immediate family; Released Parties; past and present KaloBios directors, officers, and employees; KaloBios subsidiaries and affiliates; Defendant Shkreli's investor group who acquired 70% of KaloBios stock entering the Settlement Class Period, and others who acquired KaloBios stock and/or were appointed as KaloBios officers and directors in conjunction with Mr. Shkreli's takeover of the company. Additional details are listed in the Notice and the Stipulation, which can be obtained upon request. Please direct inquiries, including requests for copies of the Notice, the Stipulation, and the Proof of Claim, to the Settlement Administrator: KaloBios Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o Strategic Claims Services 600 North Jackson Street, Suite 205 Media, PA 19063 Tel: 866-274-4004 Email: info@strategicclaims.net www.strategicclaims.net/kalobios INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANT, OR DEFENDANT'S COUNSEL DATED: APRIL 2, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [GN] KELLER WILLIAMS: Koppel Sues over Spam Text Messages ---------------------------------------------------- ADAM KOPPEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., a Texas corporation, and PRODUCERS GROUP I, LLC d/b/a KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY AT WELLINGTON, a Florida limited liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 9:18-cv-80567-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 2, 2018), seeks statutory damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of the Defendants, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Keller Williams is an international real estate brokerage and franchisor headquartered in Austin, Texas. It operates an "Approved Vendor" network consisting of over 150,000 associates and 750 franchise locations in the U.S. alone. Keller Williams Wellington touts itself as the "top producing brokerage" in West Palm Beach County, Florida. According to the lawsuit, Keller Williams Wellington's automated text messaging marketing was approved, consented to, controlled, and/or ratified by Keller Williams. Keller Williams knowingly received and retained a monetary benefit from Keller Williams Wellington's telemarketing activities. Defendants' text messaging marketing consists of sending unsolicited text messages to consumers soliciting the listing of their homes with Defendants. The Plaintiff and Class Members have no relationship with Defendants, and never provided their telephone numbers to Defendants. Nevertheless, the Defendants caused thousands of unsolicited text messages to be sent to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class Members, causing them injuries, including invasion of their privacy, aggravation, annoyance, intrusion on seclusion, trespass, and conversion.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400 4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com KELLER WILLIAMS: Wright Sues over Unsolicited, Autodialed Calls -------------------------------------------------------------- BRUCE WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., a Texas corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00635 (W.D. Wash., May 2, 2018), seeks to stop Keller Williams from directing its franchisees to violate the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making unsolicited, autodialed calls to consumers without their consent, including calls to consumers registered on the National Do Not Call registry, and to otherwise obtain injunctive and monetary relief for all persons injured by Keller Williams' conduct. Keller Williams is a real estate franchise started with a single office in Austin, Texas in 1983 by Gary Keller and Joe Williams. The company is a training and coaching company that also happens to be in the business of real estate.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and putative Class: Kim D. Stephens, WSBA #11984 Chase C. Alvord, WSBA #26080 TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone: (206) 682 5600 Facsimile: (206) 682 2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com calvord@tousley.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333 9427 Facsimile: (888) 498 8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Avi R. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (305) 469 5881 E-mail: kaufman@kaurmanpa.com KIRSCHENBAUM PHILLIPS: Faces "Campagna" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kirschenbaum Phillips & Levy, P.C. The case is styled as Teresa Campagna, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kirschenbaum Phillips & Levy, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02632-JFB-GRB (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2018). Debt collection law-firm Kirschenbaum Phillips & Levy, PC represents creditors and junk debt buyers in debt collection cases throughout New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Barshay Sanders, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 706-5055 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com LDCM INTERNATIONAL: Reynozo Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- CECILIO REYNOZO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. LDCM INTERNATIONAL, INC. and GOLDEN TOWN INTERNATIONAL, L.P., the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01400 (S.D. Tex., May 2, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. According to the complaint, Golden Town International violated the FLSA by employing Reynozo and other similarly situated nonexempt employees "for a workweek longer than forty hours [but refusing to compensate them] for [their] employment in excess of [forty] hours at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [they are or were] employed." Golden Town International violated the FLSA by failing to maintain accurate time and pay records for Reynozo and other similarly situated nonexempt employees as required by 29 U.S.C. section 211(c) and 29 C.F.R. pt. 516.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. Bridget Davidson, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222 6775 Facsimile: (713) 222 6739 LIVE NATION: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on April 18 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court Central District of California, on behalf of persons and entities that acquired Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. ("Live Nation" or the "Company") (NYSE: LYV) securities between February 23, 2017 and March 30, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Live Nation investors have until 60 days from the date of this notice to file a lead plaintiff motion. To obtain information or actively participate in the class action, please visit the Live Nation page on our website at www.glancylaw.com/case/live-nation-entertainment-inc-0 Investors that suffered losses on their Live Nation investments are encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com. On April 2, 2018, The New York Times reported that U.S. Department of Justice officials were looking into "serious accusations" against Live Nation regarding possible antitrust violations. On this news, Live Nation's share price fell $3.97, or 9.4% on April 2, 2018, thereby injuring investors. The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the Company failed to abide by the terms of a Department of Justice Consent Decree; (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to prevent a violation of the consent decree; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements and Defendants' statements about Live Nation's business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. If you acquired shares of Live Nation during the Class Period you have 60 days from April 18, 2018, the date of this notice to file a lead plaintiff motion to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773- 9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. [GN] LIVE NATION: Seeks Third Circuit Review of Ruling in "Egan" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Live Nation Worldwide Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled John Egan v. Live Nation Worldwide Inc., Case No. 2-17-cv-00445, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief for alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint says the Defendant's policies and practices specifically violate the ADA by failing to provide the Plaintiff and the class members an equal opportunity to purchase accessible seating during the same hours and same stages of ticket sales, though the same methods of distribution, in the same types and numbers of ticketing sales outlets and under the same terms and conditions as other tickets sold. The Defendant owns and operates over one hundred entertainment venues, including Key Bank Pavilion, in Burgettstown, Washington County, Pennsylvania. The appellate case is captioned as John Egan v. Live Nation Worldwide Inc., Case No. 18-1794, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JOHN EGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: kabramowicz@carlsonlynch.com bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com glynch@carlsonlynch.com - and - Gregory Care, Esq. Eve L. Hill, Esq. BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY LLP 120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 962-1030 E-mail: gpc@browngold.com ehill@browngold.com Defendant-Appellant LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE INC. is represented by: Michael Chilleen, Esq. Gregory F. Hurley, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 E-mail: MChilleen@sheppardmullin.com hurleyg@sheppardmullin.com - and - James S. Malloy, Esq. DINGESS, FOSTER, LUCIANA, DAVIDSON, & CHLEBOSKI LLP 20 Stanwix Street PNC Center, Third Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 926-1800 Facsimile: (412) 926-1801 E-mail: jmalloy@dfllegal.com M & A PROJECTS: Faces "Cuxulic" Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against M & A Projects Inc. The case is styled as Santos Vicente Cuxulic, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. M & A Projects Inc. and Bogdan Malinowski, Defendants, Case No. 1:18- cv-02621 (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2018). M & A Projects Inc. is in the hotel/motel and multi-family home construction business.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. M.L. ZAGER: Faces "Woo" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against M.L. Zager, P.C. The case is styled as Siew H. Woo, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. M.L. Zager, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02631 (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2018). ML Zager, P.C., is a full-service, debt collection law firm with 38 years of experience.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. MAGNUM SITEWORK: Orozco Seeks Overtime Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- SAUL OROZCO, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. MAGNUM SITEWORK AND EXCAVATION LLC and ARTHUR PATTON, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01403 (S.D. Tex., May 2, 2018), seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked over 40 hours a week for Defendants every week from January 3, 2018 to May 1, 2018. The Plaintiff regularly worked between 70 and 80 hours a week without receiving time-and-a-half for each hour that exceeded 40. The Defendants paid Plaintiff $14.00 per hour. The Defendants failed to pay an overtime premium of $7.00 for each overtime hour Plaintiff worked for Defendants. The Defendants owe Plaintiff 1.5 times his regular rate of pay for each overtime hour he worked for Defendants during the three year-period immediately preceding the filing of this lawsuit. The Defendants owe Plaintiff liquidated damages in the same amount as the overtime wages they owe him. The Defendants are also responsible for paying Plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs associated with prosecuting this lawsuit. Magnum Sitework is located in Magnolia, Texas. This organization primarily operates in the excavation work business.[BN] Attorney-In-Charge for Plaintiff Saul Orozco and all Named and Opt-In Plaintiffs: Dennis A. Clifford, Esq. THE CLIFFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC 712 Main Street, Suite 900 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 999 1833 Facsimile: (866) 232 0999 E-mail: dennis@cliffordemploymentlaw.com MAURY COBB: Faces "Dash" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maury Cobb & Associates LLC. The case is styled as Howard Dash, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Maury Cobb & Associates LLC and Amsher Collection Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02633 (E.D. N.Y., May 3, 2018). Maury Cobb & Associates LLC is a debt collection agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. Sanders Law, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Tel: (516) 203-7600 Fax: (516) 281-7601 Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com MDL 2804: Williamstown City Joins Opioid Crisis Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Jeffrey Saulton, writing for Marietta Times, reports that retaining a law firm to represent the city in the opioid class action lawsuit and swearing in a retired Wood County sheriff's lieutenant as the newest member of the city police department took place at the Williamstown City Council meeting on April 17. Council voted unanimously to retain the firm of Marc J. Bern and Partners LLP to represent the city in the opioid class action lawsuit. Mayor Jean Ford said city attorney Blaine Myers reviewed the contract the firm offered and said there were no problems. "I didn't see any problems with it," he said. "It was very well drafted and I had no concerns about any of the language in any of the documents they have prepared." Councilman Marty Seufer said what he liked about the Bern and Partners proposal was it was the only firm looking for a flat 25 percent of any monetary award with no additional money for expenses. Chief of Police Shawn Graham introduced a new member of the police force. He said former Wood County Sheriff's Lt. Dave Massey, who recently retired, is now a member of the department. Mr. Graham said he has known Massey for more than 16 years at the sheriff's department, serving on the S.W.A.T. team. He said Massey is the first deputy to join him at the city. "Dave will be a real asset to us," Mr. Graham said. "He has been the officer in charge of the road patrol night shift for nine years and a former S.W.A.T. commander; he will bring a lot of experience to the department." In his three years at the helm of the Williamstown Police Department, Mr. Graham said he has been working to make the department the best he can. "I'm looking forward to it," Sheriff Massey said. Sheriff Massey noted his swearing in for the Williamstown department came 20 years and two days after he was sworn in as a deputy sheriff. Council also discussed the future of the Williamstown Elementary School building which is expected to be replaced by the 2020 school year. Mr. Seufer said the city has been speaking with the Wood County Board of Education about obtaining the new section of the school, which contains a cafeteria, a kitchen, a gymnasium and a few classrooms. "We want to use the newer section for a community center," he said. "At their (board of education) last meeting they actually made a motion to turn all the property to us, contingent on two things, one is we would take down the old section within 12 months and the other was in the event it is not longer used by the city it would revert to the schools." Mr. Seufer said he sees it as a no-lose proposition for the city. "If we go ahead and accept it, it does not mean we have to take it down. It means we accept their proposal and this will give us time to plan to see if we really want to do this," he said. Mayor Ford said using the former school for another purpose would make the city look good. "I've been mayor for 21 years and it has been a wish of mine, along with council, that we would have a place for our community," she said. "I go to these mayors meetings and see the little small towns with a population a lot less than ours. We need a place for our teens and seniors." [GN] MERCK & CO: Schwartz Pediatrics Sues over Rotavirus Vaccine Sales ----------------------------------------------------------------- SCHWARTZ PEDIATRICS S.C., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-01851-JCJ (E.D. Pa., May 2, 2018), challenges Merck's anticompetitive scheme to enhance and maintain its monopoly power in the market for rotavirus vaccines sold in the United States. The Plaintiff purchased rotavirus vaccine directly from Merck. Merck & Co., Inc. provides healthcare solutions worldwide. It operates in four segments: Pharmaceutical, Animal Health, Healthcare Services, and Alliances.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary L. Azorsky, Esq. Daniel A. Small, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1717 Arch St., Suite 3610 Telephone: (267) 479 5700 Facsimile: (267) 479 5701 E-mail: gazorsky@cohenmilstein.com dsmall@cohenmilstein.com MERCK & CO: Electrical Workers' Plan Sues over Ezetimibe Sales -------------------------------------------------------------- ST. PAUL ELECTRICAL WORKERS' HEALTH PLAN, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MERCK & CO., INC.; MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP.; SCHERING-PLOUGH CORP.; SCHERING CORP.; MSP SINGAPORE CO. LLC; GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS, LTD.; GLENMARK GENERICS INC., U.S.A.; and PAR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00232-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va., May 3, 2018), stems from a scheme by Defendants Merck, Glenmark, and Par to make billions of dollars by delaying competition in the cholesterol-reducing drug ezetimibe. The lawsuit relates Merck earned handsome returns off of the branded version of this drug, Zetia, for years. Glenmark aimed to challenge Merck's monopoly and sell generic Zetia and applied to the FDA for the right to do so. Prospects for competition benefiting consumers looked bright. Merck sued for patent infringement, and Glenmark responded that the patents underlying Zetia were invalid and had been obtained through fraud. Then, on the eve of trial, with all signs pointing to a win for Glenmark, the parties settled. The resulting sweetheart deal involved an agreement that Glenmark and Par, Glenmark's U.S. distributor, would forego competing for five years, leaving Merck as the entrenched monopolist, and that when it was their turn to dominate the market, Merck would return the favor by not competing with its own "authorized generic" Zetia. All three have reaped enormous rewards from their illegal conspiracy, and at the expense of SPEW and those similarly situated. As the first company to apply to market generic Zetia, Glenmark earned the right to keep other generic companies off the market for 180 days; this was its statutory reward. But, Glenmark and Par could not keep Merck from selling a generic. Brand companies launch authorized generics, particularly during a first filer's so-called 180-day exclusivity period, in an effort to staunch the massive loss of revenue attending generic entry. The brand's authorized generic takes up to 50% of generic sales away from the first filer. So even though authorized generics selling at a lower price point than the brand, they let the brand hold on to sales that it otherwise would lose. In the absence of Merck's large and unjustified payment in the form of a no-AG promise, Par and Merck each would have launched a generic version of Zetia as early as December 6, 2011 and, in any event, well before December 12, 2016. Additional generics would have launched six months later. The presence of so many generics would have driven prices down to competitive levels. The Plaintiff and the indirect purchaser Classes have been injured by Merck, Glenmark, and Par's conduct. In the absence of the unlawful agreement, Class members would have been able to buy less-expensive generic Zetia instead of branded Zetia from as early as December 6, 2011 through the present. The Classes have likely paid hundreds of millions in overcharges as a result of Merck and Glenmark's unlawful agreement with Par's knowing acquiescence and acts to further and exacerbate its effects. Merck & Company, Inc., d.b.a. Merck Sharp & Dohme outside the United States and Canada, is an American pharmaceutical company and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff St. Paul Electrical Workers' Health Plan: Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Esq. Christine A. Williams, Esq. Kevin J. Funk, Esq. DURRETTE, ARKEMA, GERSON & GILL PC 1111 East Main Street, 16th Floor Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775 6900 Facsimile: (804) 775 6911 E-mail: wdurrette@dagglaw.com cwilliams@dagglaw.com kfunk@dagglaw.com - and - Renae D. Steiner, Esq. Jessica N. Servais, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C. 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338 4605 Facsimile: (612) 338 4692 rsteiner@heinsmills.com E-mail: jservais@heinsmills.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Morris Sues over "Reduced Pay at 65" Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA MORRIS, KEVIN MORRIS, and MARSHA DONALDSON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03977 (S.D.N.Y., May 3, 2018), alleges that MetLife lured the plaintiffs into a policy by promising a trade of higher short-term premium expense in exchange long-term premium stability after age 65. However, MetLife did not deliver. The Plaintiffs and members of Class are elderly individuals who purchased long-term care insurance policies from MetLife and selected MetLife's non-standard payment structure, the "Reduced Pay at 65" rider or option. The "Reduced Pay at 65" rider states that "[t]his Rider provides that You pay an increased premium prior to age 65 for your coverage. Then, on the Policy Anniversary on or after Your 65th birthday, the premium for your coverage will be reduced to 50% of the premium that You paid prior to age 65." The Plaintiffs and members of the Class relied upon the statements and representations made by MetLife, which promised that in return for paying increased premiums prior to reaching their policy anniversary on or after their 65th birthday, they would thereafter enjoy fixed premiums set at 50% of the premium they paid prior to turning 65. The Plaintiffs and members of the Class reasonably relied on MetLife's representations and reasonably believed that the "Reduced Pay at 65" payment structure would safeguard against increases in premium payments after the policyholders reached the age of 65 and were likely living on fixed incomes. Therefore, by selecting the "Reduced Pay at 65" payment structure, policyholders agreed to pay higher premiums before the policy anniversary on or following their 65th birthday in exchange for paying a lower, fixed premium thereafter, equal to 50% of the premium they paid prior to age 65. Yet, contrary to its uniform representations and contractual obligations, MetLife has imposed steep premium increases upon policyholders like Plaintiff Linda Morris and Marsha Donaldson after the policy anniversary following their 65th birthday, violating the express language of the "Reduced Pay at 65" payment structure. MetLife is an insurance provider that markets and sells long-term care insurance policies. [BN] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class and Subclasses: Todd S. Garber, Esq. Andrew White, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKENSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBERM LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 605 White Plains, New York 10601 Telephone: (914) 298 3283 Facsimile: (914) 824 1561 E-mail: tgarber@fbglaw.com awhite@fbglaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER LPA One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 345 8297 Facsimile: (513) 345 8294 - and - Gary Mason, Esq. WHITEFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 5101 Wisconsin Avenue NW Ste 305 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 640 1168 Facsimile: (202) 429 2294 E-mail: Gmason@wb.lllp.com - and - Charles Schaffer, Esq. Levin Sanders & Berman LLP 510 Walnut Streetm Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592 1500 Facsimile: (215) 592 4663 E-mail: CSchaffer@lfsblaw.com MICHAEL REITER: "Chun" Suit Brought Before N.Y. Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as David Chun, obo himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Michael Reiter, Defendant, Case No. 607795/2018, has been brought before the New York Supreme Court on May 7, 2018.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: FRANK & ASSOCIATES 500 BI-COUNTY BLVD, STE 112N FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK 11735 Tel: (631) 756-0400 The Defendant is represented by: SCHER LAW FIRM ONE OLD COUNTRY ROAD, STE 385 CARLE PLACE, NY 11514 Tel: (516) 746-5040 MIDLAND CREDIT: "Loalbo" Suit Moved to W.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled KRISTEN N. LOALBO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., the Defendant, Case No. G.D. 18-04483, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh) on May 3, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:18-cv-00586-DSC to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge David S. Cercone. MCM is a company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial obligations.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey L. Suher, Esq. 4328 Old William Penn Highway, Suite 2j Monroeville, PA 15146 Telephone: (412) 349 8909 Facsimile: (412) 345 1274 E-mail: jls@dellmoser.com Attorneys for Defendant: Danielle M. Vugrinovich, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN Union Trust Building, Suite 700 501 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 803 1185 Facsimile: (412) 803 1188 E-mail: dmvugrinovich@mdwcg.com MONAT GLOBAL: "Botallico" Suit Moved to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Kelley Botallico, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Monat Global Corp. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-02018-00016233-CU-FR-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego) on May 2, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv- 00851-CAB-NLS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com - and - Sean M. Gaffney, Esq. PROCOPIO CORY HARGREAVES & SAVITCH, LLP 525 B Street, Suite 2200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238 1900 Facsimile: (619) 235 0398 E-mail: sean.gaffney@procopio.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Klodzinski Sues over Sale of Herbicide Roundup ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KLODZINSKI, the Plaintiff, v. MONSANTO COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00505 (W.D.N.Y., May 3, 2018), seeks to recover damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (TM), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The Plaintiff maintains that Roundup (TM) and/or glyphosate is defective, dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce, and lacked proper warnings and directions as to the dangers associated with its use. The Plaintiff's injuries, like those striking thousands of similarly situated victims across the country, were avoidable. "Roundup" refers to all formulations of Defendant's roundup products, including, but not limited to, Roundup Concentrate Poison Ivy and Tough Brush Killer 1, Roundup Custom Herbicide, Roundup D-Pak herbicide, Roundup Dry Concentrate, Roundup Export Herbicide, Roundup Fence & Hard Edger 1, Roundup Garden Foam Weed & Grass Killer, Roundup Grass and Weed Killer, and Roundup Herbicide. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is headquartered in Creve Coeur, Greater St. Louis, Missouri.[BN] Attorney for Plaintiff: Fidelma Fitzpatrick, Esq. MOTLEY RICE, LLC 55 Cedar Street, Suite 100 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 457 7700 Facsimile: (401) 457 7708 E-mail: ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com - and - Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Ave S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339 6900 Facsimile: (612) 339 0987 E-mail: ymflaherty@locklaw.com MRS BPO: Faces "Louis" Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The case is styled as Mannel Louis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-02654-WFK-SMG (E.D. N.Y., May 4, 2018). MRA BPO, L.L.C. provides business process outsourcing services. The Company offers back office, accounts receivable, and customer relationship management services. MRA BPO serves customers in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C Cohen, Esq. Cohen & Mizrahi LLP 300 Cadman Plaza West 12th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 Tel: (929) 575-4175 Fax: (929) 575-4195 Email: dan@cml.legal NATIONAL RECOVERY: "Zirogiannis" Settlement Has Initial Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JEANETTE ZIROGIANNIS, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL RECOVERY AGENCY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-03954-DRH-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the Ho. Judge Denis R. Hurley entered an order: 1. granting preliminary approval to the Class Settlement Agreement between Plaintiff, Jeanette Zirogiannis, individually and as representative of the class previously certified by the Court, and Defendant, NRA Group LLC; 2. scheduling Sep. 13, 2018 at 11 AM as the date and time for the final approval hearing on the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the Agreement, and for consideration of the requests for fees and expenses by Class Counsel; and 3. appointing Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. of Stern Thomasson LLP as Class Counsel to serve along with Abraham Kleinman, Esq. of Kleinman LLC who was previously appointed Class Counsel; A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LcscyY1S NEW JADE FOUNTAIN: Faces "Lui" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against New Jade Fountain Enterprises Corp. The case is styled as Ngok Kwan Lui and Shihai Liao, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. New Jade Fountain Enterprises Corp. doing business as I Chopsticks Chinese Restaurant, I Chopstick Chinese Restaurant, Inc., Kevin Lin also known as Kevin Lau and JoJo Doe legal name unknown, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02669 (E.D. N.Y., May 4, 2018). I Chopsticks Chinese Restaurant is a restaurant offering a large menu of basic Chinese staples for dine in or delivery.[BN] The Plaintiffs appear PRO SE. NOHO HOSPITALITY: Faces "Fischler" Suit in S.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Noho Hospitality LLC. The case is styled as Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Noho Hospitality LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04092 (S.D. N.Y., May 7, 2018). NoHo Hospitality LLC operates a portfolio of restaurants and culinary services in preeminent hotels, live music venues, and major metropolitan sports arenas and airports in New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Brian Lipsky, Esq. Lipsky Lowe LLP 630 Third Avenue Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com OCWEN LOAN: TCPA Class Action Settlement Delayed ------------------------------------------------ Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, reports that a class action settlement over Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims against Florida-based mortgage servicer Ocwen was delayed on April 17 while U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly thinks over Ocwen's bid for sanctions against a plaintiffs' attorney over his use of case information. Judge Kennelly was scheduled have given final approval of a $17.5 million deal to resolve class action claims on behalf of more than 1.6 million consumers who allege the mortgage loan servicer autodialed their cellphones without their consent. The case is styled Snyder v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-08461 (N.D. Ill.). The case is assigned to Judge Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly. The case was filed October 27, 2014. [GN] P & M MANAGEMENT: Deceived Nursing Home Residents, Parsa Says ------------------------------------------------------------- NASER PARSA, the Plaintiff, v. P & M MANAGEMENT, INC.; SILVERSCREEN HEALTHCARE, INC.; MESA GLEN HOLDINGS, LLC; PHILMAR CARE, LLC; SELA HEALTHCARE, INC.; P & M HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC.; and DOES 1 through 250, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC705054 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 3, 2018), seeks to enjoin the Silverscreen Defendants from violating residents' rights pursuant to the state's Health & Safety Code. According to the complaint, before, during, and after the admissions processes of Plaintiff and each class member, the Defendants actively and intentionally concealed from Plaintiff and class members that Defendants has a long history of being serial violators of skilled nursing industry laws. The Defendants deceived the Plaintiff and members of the class into believing that the Facilities were properly operated to induce Plaintiff and class members into becoming residents of the Facilities. That Plaintiff and members of the class, all in infirm health, elderly and/or in need of skilled nursing care and members of one of the most vulnerable segments of our society, were unsophisticated and unknowledgeable in the operation of skilled nursing facilities in the State of California and had no knowledge of the facts concealed by Defendants and could not have discovered those concealed facts due to, among other things, their extremely vulnerable status. Had the concealed facts been disclosed to Plaintiff and members of the class, they would not have become residents of the Facilities and would not have paid, or had monies paid on their behalf, for the substandard skilled nursing care at the Facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen M. Garcia, Esq. GARCIA, ARTIGLIERE & MEDBY One World Trade Center, Suite 1950 Long Beach, CA 90831 Telephone: (562) 216 5270 Facsimile: (562) 216 5271 E-mail: edocs@lawgarcia.com PRIMESOURCE HEALTH: Certification of Collective Action Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ERIN PFEFFERKORN, et al., On behalf of themselves and all others similarly-situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PRIMESOURCE HEALTH GROUP, LLC; et al, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01223 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying this action as a collective action for purposes of notice and discovery; 2. authorizing Plaintiffs' counsel to send notice to all putative Plaintiffs; 3. approving the form and content of Plaintiffs' proposed notices; 4. directing Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs' Counsel the contact information for each putative plaintiff, (last known address and email address) as defined in the accompanying memorandum in support; 5. equitably tolling the statute of limitations in this matter to June 29, 2017 for all Plaintiffs who joined this matter after that date and for all putative plaintiffs who have yet to join this action; and 6. authorizing a 90-day notice period for putative plaintiffs to join this action. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5XfBC8EO Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Elizabeth A. Thompson, Esq. Sharilee K. Smentek, Esq. SAUL, EWING, ARNSTEIN & LEHR LLP 161 North Clark, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 876 7185 Facsimile: (312) 876 0288 E-mail: elizabeth.thompson@saul.com sharilee.smentek@saul.com - and - Brian D. Spitz, Esq. Chris P. Wido, Esq. THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC 25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 291 4744 Facsimile: (216) 291 5744 E-mail: brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com PRINCIPAL GLOBAL: Faces ERISA Class Action in Iowa -------------------------------------------------- Nevin E. Adams, JD, writing for NAPA, reports that three participants in two different 401(k) plans are seeking class action status in a breach of fiduciary claim against a major target-date fund provider. The suit (Nelsen v. Principal Glob. Inv'rs Tr. Co., S.D. Iowa, No. 4:18-cv-00115-SMR-SBJ, complaint filed 4/16/18) charges Principal Global Investors Trust Co. with "disloyal and imprudent management of the Principal LifeTime Hybrid Collective Investment Funds ('Principal CITs') in violation of ERISA, to the detriment of participant investors." Specifically, plaintiff Ashley Nelsen (a current participant in the Starkey Laboratories, Inc. Employee Retirement Plan) and plaintiffs Roody Jasmin and Joellyn Williams (current participants in the Fleetcor Technologies, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan) allege a number of violations in the composition and design of the target-date funds in question. According to the suit, filed April 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, as of the end of 2017, the Principal CITs consisted of 12 trusts: 11 options with a target date ranging from 2010 to 2060 (2010, 2015, 2020, etc.), and the Principal LifeTime Hybrid Income Fund designed for investors "who have reached their investment time horizon." Regarding fees, the suit notes that Principal CIT consisted of four components: (a) a trustee fee of .04%; (b) operating expenses, which are deducted from the trust; (c) the service fee, which varies based upon the share class selected in the participation agreement, and ranges from 0 bps to 110 bps; and (d) the "fees charged by the underlying investments in the [Principal CIT]." The plaintiffs go on to explain that the first, second, and fourth fee components were the same for all investors in a particular Principal CIT, while the service fee varied depending upon the share class selected by the participating plan. They go on to explain that the defendants: -- determined which asset classes would make up the CITs; determined the percentage allocations to each of these asset classes throughout the investor's investment lifespan (the glide path), and -- constructed each Principal CIT's investment portfolio, which involved "the selection and monitoring of the Target Date Funds' underlying investment options and investment managers." Index 'Calls' It is this last step to which the plaintiffs attributed the fiduciary breaches: the selection and monitoring of the Principal CITs' underlying investment options. Specifically, the suit notes that the defendants ". . . determined that four asset classes should be represented through passively-managed investment portfolios," that during the relevant period represented 60% to 70% of the total assets of each of the Principal CITs. That, of course is not the issue -- rather, the plaintiffs note that it's not the "decision to use passive investments for these four asset classes or the index used to represent each asset class" that's at issue here. Rather, the suit claims that "defendants' fiduciary breaches relate to which index funds they utilized to track each of these four indices, a determination that fell squarely within the scope of their fiduciary duties." The suit notes that, "for most major market indices, one or more companies offer an index fund product that can track the index with a high degree of accuracy, while charging very low fees," and that this is "particularly true for large investors such as the Principal CITs (which at all relevant times had over two billion dollars invested in index fund investments), that can leverage their billions in investable assets to negotiate lower fees than what is available to the vast majority of investors." However, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants here ". . . . did not invest in any of the competitive index fund offerings in the marketplace, choosing instead to profit themselves and their affiliates by investing exclusively in Principal's proprietary index funds, despite fees that were 5 to 15 times higher than marketplace alternatives that tracked the exact same index." And if that were not enough, the plaintiffs further allege that the Principal index fund products were "far more expensive," and "also of significantly lower quality," claiming that, "compared to marketplace alternatives, Principal's index funds deviated further from the benchmark index, and consistently had the worst performance even on a pre-fee basis." 'High Fees and History' Ultimately, the plaintiffs allege that, "given the high fees and history of poor performance of Principal's index funds, a prudent fiduciary of a multi-billion dollar suite of target date funds acting in the best interest of the trust beneficiaries would have removed these proprietary index funds from the Principal CITs at the beginning of the relevant period and replaced them with more competitive marketplace alternatives," and that failing to do so has "cost participants millions in investment losses compared to what they would have earned had Defendants acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties." Not that the breaches were limited to the index fund selection. Rather, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants also "intentionally selected higher-fee versions of proprietary actively-managed funds to increase fee revenue, at the expense of trust participants and beneficiaries." The suit goes on to state that the "imprudent investment decisions were not the result of mere negligence or oversight," but that the defendants "consistently invested the assets of the Principal CITs in costly and underperforming index funds, vehicles, and share classes, and failed to timely remove those funds long after a reasonable investigation would have revealed the availability of lower cost, better performing options." Those decisions resulted in "additional investment management fees and provided a larger asset base to make Principal's index fund and mutual fund products more competitive in the marketplace," according to the plaintiffs. Material 'Witnessed'? Perhaps laying the groundwork to refute statute of limitation arguments, the suit states that "plaintiffs did not have knowledge of all material facts (including, among other things, availability of less expensive and better performing alternative investments, the availability of lower-cost investment vehicles and share classes, the relatively greater experience, expertise, and asset base of Principal's competitors in the index fund marketplace, and the investment performance of underlying Principal CIT investments versus other specific alternatives) necessary to understand that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA, until shortly before this suit was filed," and that they do "not have actual knowledge of the specifics of Defendants' decision-making processes with respect to the selection and monitoring of investment options within the Principal CITs (including Defendants' processes and motivations for selecting, monitoring, evaluating, and removing investments), because this information is solely within Defendants' possession prior to discovery." As of the end of 2016, over 9,000 retirement plans had one or more participants invested in the Principal CITs, and that while the plaintiffs "do not currently know the number of participants that have invested in the Principal CITs during the relevant period," they believe it is in the "hundreds of thousands." In a response to Bloomberg Law, a company spokeswoman at Principal said the firm disagrees with the allegations in the lawsuit and will vigorously contest them. [GN] PURDUE PHARMA: Rivers Sues over Health Insurance Premium Hike ------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA RIVERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ACTAVIS PLC; ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH INC.; and AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03116 (N.D. Ill., May 2, 2018), seeks redress for Defendants' alleged illegal acts that have caused Plaintiff's health insurance premiums to increase. Prescription opioids have devastated communities across the country and in the State of Illinois. Since 1999, there have been more than 351,000 reported opioid-related deaths nationwide - more than six times the number of U.S. soldiers who died in the Vietnam War. In addition to the tragic loss of life and the heartbreaking impact on children and loved ones, some estimates state that the opioid crisis is costing governmental entities and private companies as much as $500 billion per year. The Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute prescription opioids, which are powerful, highly addictive narcotic painkillers. The Manufacturer Defendants have engaged in a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage doctors and patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the Manufacturer Defendants falsely minimized the risks of opioids, overstated their benefits, and generated far more opioid prescriptions than there should have been. The opioid epidemic is the direct result of the Manufacturer Defendants' deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of deception. For years, they misrepresented the risks posed by the opioids they manufacture and sell, misleading susceptible prescribers and vulnerable patient populations. As families and communities suffered from the scourge of opioid abuse, the Manufacturer Defendants earned billions in profits as a direct result of the harms they imposed. The Manufacturer Defendants knew that their misrepresentations about the risks and benefits of opioids were not supported by, and sometimes were directly contrary to, the scientific evidence. Certain opioid manufacturers, including Defendants Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Purdue Pharma L.P., have entered agreements prohibiting them from making misrepresentations. Nonetheless, the Manufacturer Defendants continue to misrepresent the risks and benefits of long-term opioid use in Illinois, and they have not corrected their past misrepresentations. The Manufacturer Defendants' false and misleading statements deceived doctors and patients about the risks and benefits of opioids and convinced them that opioids were not only appropriate, but necessary to treat chronic pain. The Manufacturer Defendants targeted susceptible prescribers, like family doctors, and vulnerable patient populations, like the elderly and veterans. And they tainted the sources that doctors and patients relied upon for guidance, including treatment guidelines, medical education programs, medical conferences and seminars, and scientific articles. As a result, they successfully transformed the way doctors treat chronic pain, opening the floodgates of opioid prescriptions and dependence. Opioids are now the most prescribed class of drugs, generating billions of dollars in revenue for the Manufacturer Defendants every year. In addition, the Distributor Defendants could and should have prevented the brunt of the opioid epidemic, but instead allowed the country to be flooded with prescription opioids. Under both Illinois and federal law, distributors are required to secure and monitor drugs as they travel through commerce, to protect them from theft, and to reject and report suspicious or unusual orders by downstream pharmacies, doctors, or patients. But the Distributor Defendants neglected this duty, turning a blind eye to known or knowable problems in their own supply chains. By doing so, the Distributor Defendants created conditions in which vast amounts of opioids flowed freely from the Manufacturer Defendants to abusers and drug dealers - with the Distributor Defendants readily fulfilling suspicious orders from pharmacies and ignoring red flags that would require further investigation and resolution. The direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' misconduct is that every Illinois purchaser of private health insurance paid higher premiums, co-payments, and deductibles. Insurance companies have considerable market power and pass onto their insureds the expected cost of future care -- including opioid- related coverage. Accordingly, insurance companies factored in the unwarranted and exorbitant healthcare costs of opioid-related coverage caused by Defendants and charged that back to insureds in the form of higher premiums, deductibles, and co-payments. Purdue Pharma is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. David I. Mindell, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589 6370 Facsimile: 312 589 6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com dmindell@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Todd Logan, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212 9300 Facsimile: (415) 373 9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com tlogan@edelson.com - and - William S. Consovoy, Esq. Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq. Michael H. Park, Esq. CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 243 9423 E-mail: park@consovoymccarthy.com will@consovoymccarthy.com tom@consovoymccarthy.com - and - Ashley Keller, Esq. Travis Lenkner, Esq. Seth Meyer, Esq. KELLER LENKNER LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741 5220 E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com tdl@kellerlenkner.com sam@kellerlenkner.com PURDUE PHARMA: Sardella Sues over Health Insurance Premium Hike --------------------------------------------------------------- LOU SARDELLA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PURDUE PHARMA L.P.; PURDUE PHARMA INC.; THE PURDUE FREDERICK COMPANY, INC.; INSYS THERAPEUTICS, INC.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES, LTD.; TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.; CEPHALON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ENDO HEALTH SOLUTIONS INC.; ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; ACTAVIS PLC; ACTAVIS, INC.; WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.; WATSON LABORATORIES, INC.; MCKESSON CORPORATION; CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.; and AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-08706 (D.N.J., May 2, 2018), seeks redress for the Defendants' alleged illegal acts that have caused Plaintiff's health insurance premiums to increase. Prescription opioids have devastated communities across the country and in the State of Illinois. Since 1999, there have been more than 351,000 reported opioid-related deaths nationwide -- more than six times the number of U.S. soldiers who died in the Vietnam War. In addition to the tragic loss of life and the heartbreaking impact on children and loved ones, some estimates state that the opioid crisis is costing governmental entities and private companies as much as $500 billion per year. The Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute prescription opioids, which are powerful, highly addictive narcotic painkillers. The Manufacturer Defendants have engaged in a cunning and deceptive marketing scheme to encourage doctors and patients to use opioids to treat chronic pain. In doing so, the Manufacturer Defendants falsely minimized the risks of opioids, overstated their benefits, and generated far more opioid prescriptions than there should have been. The opioid epidemic is the direct result of the Manufacturer Defendants' deliberately crafted, well-funded campaign of deception. For years, they misrepresented the risks posed by the opioids they manufacture and sell, misleading susceptible prescribers and vulnerable patient populations. As families and communities suffered from the scourge of opioid abuse, the Manufacturer Defendants earned billions in profits as a direct result of the harms they imposed. The Manufacturer Defendants knew that their misrepresentations about the risks and benefits of opioids were not supported by, and sometimes were directly contrary to, the scientific evidence. Certain opioid manufacturers, including Defendants Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Purdue Pharma L.P., have entered agreements prohibiting them from making misrepresentations. Nonetheless, the Manufacturer Defendants continue to misrepresent the risks and benefits of long-term opioid use in Illinois, and they have not corrected their past misrepresentations. The Manufacturer Defendants' false and misleading statements deceived doctors and patients about the risks and benefits of opioids and convinced them that opioids were not only appropriate, but necessary to treat chronic pain. The Manufacturer Defendants targeted susceptible prescribers, like family doctors, and vulnerable patient populations, like the elderly and veterans. And they tainted the sources that doctors and patients relied upon for guidance, including treatment guidelines, medical education programs, medical conferences and seminars, and scientific articles. As a result, they successfully transformed the way doctors treat chronic pain, opening the floodgates of opioid prescriptions and dependence. Opioids are now the most prescribed class of drugs, generating billions of dollars in revenue for the Manufacturer Defendants every year. In addition, the Distributor Defendants could and should have prevented the brunt of the opioid epidemic, but instead allowed the country to be flooded with prescription opioids. Under both Illinois and federal law, distributors are required to secure and monitor drugs as they travel through commerce, to protect them from theft, and to reject and report suspicious or unusual orders by downstream pharmacies, doctors, or patients. But the Distributor Defendants neglected this duty, turning a blind eye to known or knowable problems in their own supply chains. By doing so, the Distributor Defendants created conditions in which vast amounts of opioids flowed freely from the Manufacturer Defendants to abusers and drug dealers -- with the Distributor Defendants readily fulfilling suspicious orders from pharmacies and ignoring red flags that would require further investigation and resolution. The direct and proximate consequence of Defendants' misconduct is that every Illinois purchaser of private health insurance paid higher premiums, co-payments, and deductibles. Insurance companies have considerable market power and pass onto their insureds the expected cost of future care -- including opioid- related coverage. Accordingly, insurance companies factored in the unwarranted and exorbitant healthcare costs of opioid-related coverage caused by Defendants and charged that back to insureds in the form of higher premiums, deductibles, and co-payments. Purdue Pharma is a privately held pharmaceutical company owned principally by parties and descendants of Mortimer and Raymond Sackler.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class: Jay Edelson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. David I. Mindell, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: 312 589 6370 Facsimile: 312 589 6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com dmindell@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Todd Logan, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212 9300 Facsimile: (415) 373 9435 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com tlogan@edelson.com - and - William S. Consovoy, Esq. Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq. Michael H. Park, Esq. CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700 Arlington, VA 22201 Telephone: (703) 243 9423 E-mail: park@consovoymccarthy.com will@consovoymccarthy.com tom@consovoymccarthy.com - and - Ashley Keller, Esq. Travis Lenkner, Esq. Seth Meyer, Esq. KELLER LENKNER LLC 150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 2570 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741 5220 E-mail: ack@kellerlenkner.com tdl@kellerlenkner.com sam@kellerlenkner.com RESOURCE CAPITAL: Aug. 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAREN LEVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 1:15-cv-07081 Hon. Louis L. Stanton Plaintiff, v. RESOURCE CAPITAL CORP., JONATHAN Z. COHEN, DAVID J. BRYANT, ELDRON C. BLACKWELL, and DAVID E. BLOOM, Defendants. TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED RESOURCE CAPITAL CORP. ("RESOURCE CAPITAL") SECURITIES BETWEEN OCTOBER 31, 2012 AND AUGUST 5, 2015. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that a hearing will be held on August 3, 2018, at 12:00 p.m., before the Honorable Louis L. Stanton, United States District Judge, at the Courthouse for the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Courtroom 21C, Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, for the purpose of determining, among other things, whether the following matters should be approved by the Court: (1) the proposed Settlement of the claims in the Action for the combined sum of $9,500,000 in cash as fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Members of the Class; (2) whether, thereafter, the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated February 5, 2018 ("Stipulation"); (3) whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and therefore should be approved; (4) whether the application of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses incurred in connection with the Action should be approved; and (5) whether the Lead Plaintiff and Additional Plaintiff should be awarded an incentive award. If you purchased or otherwise acquired common stock, Series B preferred stock, and/or Series C preferred stock between October 31, 2012 and August 5, 2015, your rights may be affected by the settlement of this Class Action. If you have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by contacting the Claims Administrator, by mail at: Resource Capital Corp. Securities Litigation, Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 4850 Portland, OR 97208-4850. If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than July 23, 2018 establishing that you are entitled to recovery. As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any Judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later than July 5, 2018. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed and served, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later than July 13, 2018. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead Counsel for the Class: Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. -- nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115, Washington, D.C. 20007. INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL. If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may contact Lead Counsel at the address listed above. DATED: April 3, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN] RIPPLE LABS: Faces "Coffey" Suit in Calif. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ripple Labs, Inc. The case is styled as Ryan Coffey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Bradley Garlinghouse, an individual, Ripple Labs, Inc. a Delaware Corporation and XRP II, LLC a South Carolina limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. CGC18566271 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 3, 2018). Ripple is the creator and a developer of the Ripple payment protocol and exchange network.[BN] The Plaintiff appears PRO SE. ROCKAWAY CARS: "Gochez" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY GOCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ROCKAWAY CARS I LLC d/b/a ROCKAWAY NISSAN, the Defendants, Case No. 154069/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 2, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wage and unpaid overtime under violations of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated nonexempt hourly sales employees employed by Defendant in the State of New York at any time during the period commencing six years prior to the filing of this action and continuing until such further date as the practices complained of are discontinued. The Plaintiff alleges that he and other Sales Employees were not paid a minimum wage for all hours worked.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C. 1613 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, NY 11576 Telephone: (516) 625 0105 RSP PERMIAN: Rosenblatt Balks at Concho Resources Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- The case, JORDAN ROSENBLATT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. RSP PERMIAN, INC., MICHAEL GRIMM, STEVEN GRAY, JOSEPH B. ARMES, SCOTT MCNEILL, KENNETH V. HUSEMAN, MATTHEW S. RAMSEY, MICHAEL S. WALLACE, CONCHO RESOURCES INC., and GREEN MERGER SUB INC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01117-K (N.D. Tex., May 2, 2018), stems from a proposed transaction announced on March 28, 2018, pursuant to which RSP Permian, Inc. will be acquired Concho Resources Inc. and Green Merger Sub Inc. On March 27, 2018, RSP's Board of Directors caused the Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with Concho. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, RSP's stockholders will receive 0.320 shares of Parent common stock for each share of RSP common stock they own. On April 20, 2018, the Defendants filed a Form S-4 Registration Statement with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the Proposed Transaction. According to the lawsuit, the Registration Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Registration Statement false and misleading. Accordingly, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Registration Statement.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1220 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295 5310 Facsimile: (302) 654 7530 - and - RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 300 Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (484) 324 6800 Facsimile: (484) 631 1305 - and - Joe Kendall, Esq. Jamie J. McKey, Esq. THE KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 744 3000 Facsimile: (214) 744 3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com RUSHMORE LOAN: Eleventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Sellers" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Randolph Sellers filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Randolph Sellers, et al. v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01106-TJC-PDB, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The appellate case is captioned as Randolph Sellers, et al. v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, Case No. 18-11420, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 22, 2018, the Sellers filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is titled Randolph Sellers, et al. v. Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, Case No. 18-90002. The Plaintiffs filed the lawsuit on September 11, 2015, raising claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, based on their receipt of numerous communications from Rushmore. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons was due on or before April 23, 2018, as to Appellant Randolph Sellers.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants RANDOLPH SELLERS, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, and TABETHA SELLERS are represented by: Max H. Story, Esq. MAX STORY, ESQ. 328 2nd Avenue N, Suite 100 Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250 Telephone: (904) 372-4109 E-mail: max@maxstorylaw.com - and - Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, PA PO Box 1870 Lady Lake, FL 32158 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 E-mail: jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com Defendant-Appellee RUSHMORE LOAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC is represented by: Amy Lea Drushal, Esq. TRENAM LAW 101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-7474 E-mail: adrushal@trenam.com - and - Jonathan Stuart Hubbard, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP 1001 Haxall Point, 15th Floor Richmond, VA 23218-1122 Telephone: (804) 697-1326 Facsimile: (804) 698-5186 E-mail: jon.hubbard@troutmansanders.com - and - John C. Lynch, Esq. TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP 222 Central Park Ave., Suite 2000 Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Telephone: (757) 687-7765 E-mail: john.lynch@troutmansanders.com - and - Justin Tinshung Wong, Esq. Troutman Sanders, LLP 600 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 5200 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 885-3719 E-mail: justin.wong@troutmansanders.com SAN GABRIEL TRANSIT: Fails to Pay All Wages Due, Garcia Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs in the case, GABRIEL GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. SAN GABRIEL TRANSIT, INC. a California corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC702273 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 2, 2018), seeks recovery on a class-wide basis from Defendants for their failure to provide meal periods or an hour's pay in lieu thereof; failure to provide rest breaks or an hour's pay in lieu thereof; and failure to pay all wages due upon separation from employment and related claims. San Gabriel provides public paratransit services in Southern California. The company was founded in 1953 and is based in El Monte, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Olsen, Esq. OLSEN LAW OFFICES, APC 1010 Second Ave., Ste. 1835 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 550 9352 Facsimile: (619) 923 2747 E-mail: Chris@OlsenLawAPC.com SAVANNAH LAW: "Dickens" Suit Moved to Southern Dist. of Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Caitlyn Cliff, George Dickens, III, Melanie Fenley, Zachary Gruber, Peter Leyh, Mylee McKinney, and Casey Tuggle, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Savannah Law School, LLC; John Marshall Law School, LLC. (DE); John Marshall Law School; John Marshall University; John Marshall Online, Inc.; and JMLS 1422, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. STCV800506, was removed from the State Court of Chatham County, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia (Savannah) on May 3, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:18-cv-00104-LGW-GRS to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Lisa G. Wood. Savannah Law School is located in Savannah, Georgia, United States. The school is no longer accepting applications, and press reports indicate that it will shut down at the end of the 2017- 2018 academic year.[BN] Attorneys for Defendants: Lucas Drayton Bradley, Esq. Todd Michael Baiad, Esq. BOUHAN FALLIGANT, LLP One West Park Avenue P.O. Box 2139 Savannah, GA 31402-2139 Telephone: (912) 644 5787 Facsimile: (912) 233 0811 E-mail: ldbradley@bouhan.com tmbaiad@bouhan.com SHENANDOAH VALLEY JUVENILE: Class Action Certification Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JOHN DOE 1, et al., by and through their next friend, NELSON LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SHENANDOAH VALLEY JUVENILE CENTER COMMISSION, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv- 00097-EKD/JCH (W.D. Va.), the Plaintiffs move the Court, subject to the Defendant's express consent, for an entry of an Order certifying the case as a class action. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cnbfLJ4e The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christine T. Dinan, Esq. Hannah M. Lieberman WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS 11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 319 1000 Facsimile: (202) 319 1010 E-mail: Christine_dinan@washlaw.org Hannah_Lieberman@washlaw.org - and - Theodore A. Howard, Esq. Bradley C. Tobias, Esq. WILEY REIN LLP 1776 K Street NW Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 719 7120 Facsimile: (202) 719 7049 E-mail: thoward@wileyrein.com btobias@wileyrein.com SLIDE FIRE: Faces Class Action Over Bump Stocks ----------------------------------------------- Vanessa Romo, writing for NPR, reports that Slide Fire Solutions, the company that invented and manufactures bump stocks, announced on April 17 it is shutting down production. A notice on its website reads, "On Sunday, May 20, 2018 at midnight CST, Slide Fire will cease taking orders for its products and shut down its website." Bump stocks are modification devices used to accelerate a gun's shooting rate so it fires like an automatic weapon -- almost as fast as machine guns, which are largely outlawed. Slide Fire President Jeremiah Cottle designed and holds the only approved patent for bump stocks. It's unclear whether the freeze will be temporary or permanent, or what might happen to the factory in Texas. Slide Fire did not respond to NPR's requests for comment. And the posted notice asks visitors to the site to enter an email address to "stay updated on any future news." The devices, and Slide Fire products specifically, have come under intense public and political scrutiny since the rapid-fire gun accessory was used in the Oct. 1, 2017, Las Vegas mass shooting that left 58 dead and hundreds more injured. Three of those victims have filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status against Slide Fire and any future bump stock manufacturers for negligence. According to the complaint, "this horrific assault would not and could not have occurred, with a conventional handgun, rifle, or shotgun, of the sort used by law- abiding responsible gun owners for hunting or self defense." Court documents also allege that Slide Fire manufactured, marketed and sold devices to gun owners who wanted semi-automatic rifles to mimic fully automatic weapons, "thereby subverting federal law that has highly regulated machine guns for over 80 years." "Slide Fire's decision is just something they're doing now to try to relieve political pressure they're under," Robert Eglet told NPR. Eglet is a senior partner at Eglet Prince, the firm that filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of the Las Vegas victims along with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He contends the shutdown is a strategic move by the company to "put the brakes on any congressional movement that would prevent them or anyone else from producing these bump stocks in the future." This is not the first time Slide Fire is halting production. As NPR reported, it suspended sales shortly after the devices were used in the Las Vegas shooting in October. But less than a month later, days after another mass shooting in Texas, Slide Fire restarted production on the controversial accessories. Regardless of what the company does or doesn't do, Mr. Eglet said, he and his clients are continuing to pursue this case. "We want to sue these people out of business and send a message to any future manufacturers that that's what will happen to them if they try to make and sell these devices to the public," Mr. Eglet said. The devices have been legal since June 2010, after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives determined a bump stock "is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under [the] Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act," according to a letter from the ATF to Slide Fire. Bloomberg reported that Slide Fire, which is the nation's only manufacturer of bump stocks, earned more than $10 million in sales in its first year of business. The company was engaged in a years-long patent infringement battle with another manufacturer, FosTecH Outdoors, but that was settled in 2012. The rival company has since gone out of business, the founder told Reuters. The carnage of the Las Vegas shooting, exacerbated by Stephen Paddock's use of bump stocks, has altered the national debate on gun control regulations. It prompted President Trump to call for a ban on the devices, and in March, the Justice Department took the first step in banning their sale, manufacture or possession. [GN] SENIOR HEALTHCARE: Faces "Ziegler" Suit in Wyoming -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Senior Healthcare Partners LLC. The case is styled as Robert A Ziegler, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiff v. Richard P Dale, Jr., Senior Healthcare Partners LLC, Buffett Senior Healthcare Corp and RJR Insurance Services Inc, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00071-SWS (D. Wy., May 3, 2018). Senior Healthcare Partners LLC offers pharmacy products and services for assisted living and specialty care communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Edward Ochs, Esq. OCHS LAW FIRM PC PO Box 610 Casper, WY 82602 Tel: (307) 234-3239 Fax: (307) 235-6910 Email: jason@ochslawfirm.com ST. LOUIS RAMS: Seeks 8th Cir. Review of Decision in "Pudlowski" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants ITB Football Company, LLC, The St. Louis Rams LLC and The St. Louis Rams Partnership filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled James Pudlowski, et al. v. The St. Louis Rams LLC, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00189-RLW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court issued a Memorandum and Order remanding the case captioned RONALD McALLISTER, Plaintiff, v. THE ST. LOUIS RAMS, LLC, Defendants, Nos. 4:16-CV-172 SNLJ, 4:16-CV-262, 4:16-CV-297, 4:16-CV-189 (E.D. Mo.), to the Circuit Court of St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiff James Pudlowski filed his first complaint in state court, and the Defendants removed the case to the District Court citing diversity jurisdiction generally and, in the alternative, minimal diversity" under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). The case involves alleged violations of the Defendants' relocation of their professional football team to Los Angeles, California. The appellate case is captioned as James Pudlowski, et al. v. The St. Louis Rams LLC, et al., Case No. 18-8002, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent James Pudlowski is represented by: Daniel T. DeFeo, Esq. DEFEO & KOLKER, LLC 1627 Main Street, Suite 900 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 581-4600 E-mail: ddefeo@defeolaw.com Plaintiffs-Respondents James Pudlowski, Louis C. Cross, III, Gail Henry and Steven Henry, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Steven J. Stolze, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM LLC 300 N. Tucker, Suite 801 Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-8111 E-mail: sstolze@allfela.com Defendants-Petitioners The St. Louis Rams LLC, The St. Louis Rams Partnership and ITB Football Company, LLC, are represented by: Elizabeth Ferrick, Esq. Roger K. Heindenreich, Esq. Adam S. Johnson, Esq. Stephen Howard Rovak, Esq. Amy E. Sestric, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 3000 One Metropolitan Square 211 North Broadway Saint Louis, MO 63102-0000 Telephone: (314) 241-1800 E-mail: elizabeth.ferrick@dentons.com roger.heidenreich@dentons.com adam.johnson@dentons.com stephen.rovak@dentons.com amy.sestric@dentons.com SYSTEM ONE: Hobbs Seeks to Certify Collective Action ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled THOMAS HOBBS, individually and of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. System One Holdings, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-00181-CRE (W.D. Pa.), Mr. Hobbs asks the Court for an order granting conditional certification of collective action for purposes of notice and discovery; approving notice and consent form; directing the mailing of notice; and permitting Class Counsel to contact by telephone those notice. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5xNrN4Tw The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 7046 Telephone 713 352 1100 Facsimile 713 352 3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com jsolak@mybackwages.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766 1455 Facsimile: (412) 766 0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch BRUCKNER BURCH P.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, Texas 77046 Telephone: 713 877 8788 Facsimile: 713 877 8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com TENET HEALTHCARE: 11th Cir. Upholds Class Action Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------- Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal appeals court on April 18 upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit seeking to force Tenet Healthcare to reimburse Hispanic women who were forced to go to its hospitals for prenatal services and to give birth due to a kickback scheme. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta held that the lawsuit failed to state a claim of fraud or breach of contract against the hospital operator and that its unjust enrichment claims were untimely. [GN] TIRE CLUB: Trujillo Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- ISAAC TRUJILLO, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the PLAINTIFF, v. TIRE CLUB USA, INC., TIRES AUTO SERVICE, LLC, AND FERNANDO AGUIRRE, JR., INDIVIDUALLY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00141 (W.D. Tex., May 2, 2018), alleges that, for at least three years prior to the filing of this Complaint, Defendants willfully committed violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by failing to pay overtime premiums to hourly employees for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week. The Defendants sell tires to the public in El Paso, Texas. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a non-exempt sales clerk from May 2, 2015 through February 5, 2018. Mr. Trujillo was paid on an hourly basis and received a commission. At no time within the relevant three-year period did Mr. Trujillo's commissions exceed his hourly pay. In addition to receiving hourly pay from Tire Club USA, Inc. for hours worked up to 40 per week, Mr. Trujillo would receive a second check each pay period representing his overtime hours. The second check did not provide Mr. Trujillo with an overtime premium; he was simply paid his regular rate of pay for all overtime hours. Importantly, the Defendants paid Trujillo this "overtime" check from a different company, Tires Auto Service, LLC. A true and correct copy of one of Mr. Trujillo's regular paychecks and his "overtime" paycheck for the same pay period.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. DUNHAM & JONES, P.C. 1800 Guadalupe Street Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 777 7777 Facsimile: (512) 340 4051 E-mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Faces "Hardy" Suit in N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Transamerica Life Insurance Company. The case is styled as Ronald B Hardy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00694-AKK (N.D. Ala., May 4, 2018). Transamerica Corporation is an American holding company for various life insurance companies and investment firms operating primarily in the United States, offering life and supplemental health insurance, investments, and retirement services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brooke BoucekRebarchak, Esq. McCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Tel: (205) 939-0199 Fax: (205) 939-0399 Email: brebarchak@mmlaw.net - and - Courtney Cooper Gipson, Esq. MCCALLUM METHVIN & TERRELL PC 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Tel: (205) 939-0199 Fax: (205) 939-0399 Email: cgipson@mmlaw.net - and - David J Hodge, Esq. MORRIS KING & HODGE 200 Pratt Avenue NE Huntsville, AL 35801 Tel: (256) 536-0588 Fax: (256) 533-1504 Email: lee@mkhlawyers.com - and - James M Terrell, Esq. MCCALLUM METHVIN & TERRELL PC 2201 Arlington Avenue, South Birmingham, AL 35205 Tel: 939-0199 Fax: 939-0399 Email: jterrell@mmlaw.net - and - Perry Michael Yancey, Esq. Methvin, Terrell, Yancey, Stephens & Miller, P.C. 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Tel: (205) 939-0199 Fax: (205) 939-0399 Email: myancey@mmlaw.net - and - Philip A Geddes, Esq. PHILIP A GEDDES PC 651 Jackson Street Decatur, AL 35601 Tel: (256) 350-0442 Fax: (256) 350-1812 Email: geddesphilip@gmail.com TWILIO CLOUD: Faces "Jozami" Suit in California Superior Court -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twilio Cloud Communications. The case is styled as Maria Jozami, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated and aggrieved, Plaintiff v. Twilio Cloud Communications a business entity of unknown form, Twilio Inc. a Delaware corporation and Does 1 through 50 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CGC18566356 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 7, 2018). Twilio is a cloud communications platform as a service (PaaS) company based in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: MATTHEW J. MATERN, Esq. Matern Law Group, PC 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Tel: 310-531-1900 Email: www.maternlawgroup.com U.S. AVIATION: Haralson Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JAMES HARALSON, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. U.S. AVIATION SERVICES CORP., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05207- JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on October 11, 2018, for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons employed by Defendant U.S. Aviation Services Corp. in hourly paid or non-exempt positions in California at any time on or after August 9, 2012"; 2. appointing James Haralson as representative of the class proposed herein or later proposed and approved by the Court and any other sub-class the Court may devise; 3. appointing Shaun Setareh and H. Scott Leviant of Setareh Law Group as Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g); and 4. issuing such other Orders as necessary to effectuate the Court's certification Order. The Plaintiff further asks the Court for certification of sub- classes as are necessary to manage the proposed classes, including penalty sub-classes limited in time by the applicable statutes of limitation, including subclasses as follows or as otherwise approved by the Court: Meal Break Sub-Class: all Class members who worked a shift in excess of five hours. Rest Break Sub-Class: all Class members who worked a shift in excess of 3.5 hours. Auto-Deduct Sub-Class: all Meal Break Sub-Class members who had a half hour or hour deducted from their timecards regardless of whether or not they took a meal period. Wage Statement Penalties Sub-Class: all Class members employed at any time during the period beginning August 9, 2015. Waiting Time Penalties Sub-Class: all Class members who separated from their employment at any time during the period beginning August 9, 2013. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B8cFIuFc Attorneys for Plaintiff: Shaun Setareh, Esq. H. Scott Leviant, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888 7771 Facsimile: (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com scott@setarehlaw.com US BANCORP: Removes "Leeson" Class Suit to N.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants U.S. Bancorp Government Leasing and Finance, Inc., and Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Servicing removed on April 9, 2018, the purported class action lawsuit styled Leeson et al. v. U.S. Bancorp Government Leasing and Finance, Inc., from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia, to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (Clarksburg). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:18-ap-00013 to the adversary proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as recovery of money/property.[BN] Plaintiffs George Leeson, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, and Jacob Crum, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Stuart Calwell, Esq. Alexander D. McLaughlin, Esq. John H. Skaggs, Esq. THE CALWELL PRACTICE, PLLC 500 Randolph Street Charleston, WV 25302 Telephone: (304) 343-4323 Facsimile: (304) 343-4323 E-mail: scalwell@calwelllaw.com amclaughlin@calwelllaw.com jskaggs@calwelllaw.com Defendant Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Servicing is represented by: J. Mark Adkins, Esq. Jessie F. Reckart, Esq. Gerard Stowers, Esq. BOWLES RICE LLP 600 Quarrier Street Post Office Box 1386 Charleston, WV 25325-1386 Telephone: (304) 347-1100 Facsimile: (304) 347-1756 E-mail: madkins@bowlesrice.com jreckart@bowlesrice.com gstowers@bowlesrice.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Fowler Backs Bill to End Forced Arbitration -------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Russell and Connie Loizos, writing for TechCrunch, report that Susan Fowler, the former Uber engineer whose blog post about sexual harassment and troubling internal workings led to the departure of CEO Travis Kalanick, is backing new legislation that aims to give victims of sexual harassment and other workplace discrimination the freedom to seek legal action, and to do it publicly. Ms. Fowler is lending her support to bill AB-3080 -- proposed by California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, the California Labor Federation and the Economic Policy Institute -- which would forbid employers from the practice of forced arbitration in response to discrimination complaints. The proposed legislation tackles a worrying norm in which companies, including throughout tech, mandate that employees air any grievances before a private, third-party arbitrator who is typically paid for by the company itself. The hearings happen in secret, with non-disclosure clauses preventing the claimant from talking about the details or filing a class-action lawsuit -- and they are on the rise. The percentage of nonunion, private-sector employees covered by mandatory-arbitration clauses has more than doubled since the early 2000s, according to a study last year by the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C. Though the issue has come up periodically in Silicon Valley -- venture firm Kleiner Perkins tried forcing former employee Ellen Pao into arbitration when she sued the firm for gender discrimination -- it hasn't received widespread attention "for the same reason that it hasn't gotten much attention from people who work in other industries," says Ms. Fowler via email. "They don't realize that it affects them, and they don't realize how widespread and sinister the problem really is." Ms. Fowler says that she was "one of those people" for most of her life, knowing nothing about forced arbitration until she experienced what she describes as illegal treatment at Uber, after which she says she discovered that she "had no way to get justice." Now that she knows about forced arbitration, she says, "I'm hell- bent on bringing attention to it and doing everything I can to prevent what happened to me at Uber from happening to anyone else." The proposed legislation isn't the first of its kind. A 2015 bill banning mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment wended its way all the way to California Governor Jerry Brown's desk. Faced with stiff opposition from the California Chamber of Commerce, which labeled it a "job killer," Brown vetoed the bill. Caitlin Vega, legislative director of the California Labor Federation, an organization that works with 1,200 labor unions across the state, is hoping the timing is better for AB-3080 given the #MeToo movement and the awareness it has raised around sexual discrimination and harassment in particular. Ms. Vega also says the bill differs from its predecessor in ways that may make it more palatable to Governor Brown. For example, gone is language that required that any waiver of any legal right by an employee must be knowing and voluntary, in writing, and may not be an express condition of employment. This time, the focus is more narrowly on ensuring that people not be forced to agree to potential arbitration as a condition of their employment and that employers be prohibited from "threatening, retaliating or discriminating against, or terminating any applicant for employment or prospective employment or any employee because of the refusal to consent to the waiver of any right, forum, or procedure for a violation of specific statutes governing employment." Either way, proponents -- including Ms. Fowler -- hope far more attention will be paid to the bill's benefits instead of to the perceived benefits to corporations in continuing to use arbitration agreements widely. "The dominant view is that it helps manage long-term legal risk, ensuring that companies won't become embroiled in costly, drawn- out lawsuits," Ms. Fowler wrote in a recent op-ed for The New York Times. Yet "the examples of Uber and IBM show that the opposite is true: Forced arbitration leads to long-term operating risk. Forcing legal disputes about discrimination, harassment and retaliation to go through secret arbitration proceedings hides the behavior and allows it to become culturally entrenched," she added. Fowler has said that she believes instead that a choice between optional arbitration and a public lawsuit would be the ideal solution for dealing with discrimination. That was the case for her time at Uber, which had a clause in her employment contract that prevented her from going public with what had happened. The company did take steps after Fowler went public with her story -- including hiring Eric Holder to conduct a company-wide investigation (which Uber said included firing people). Mr. Kalanick also later resigned after a wave of controversies made his position untenable. By then, however, the company's reputation to outsiders was shattered. Fowler is determined to bring about change. Last year, she filed an amicus brief in three high court cases, asking the Supreme Court to consider that class and collective action bans in workplace arbitration agreements violate federal labor laws. She appears to be far from done with this issue, too. "Arbitration agreements are present in nearly every employment agreement," she tells TechCrunch. "If you have a job, chances are you've unwittingly signed away your constitutional right to sue your employer if you ever experience illegal treatment like harassment, retaliation, or discrimination. "You probably didn't realize that you signed away this right because the language used in forced arbitration agreements is thick with legalese so heavy you need a law degree to understand what it all means." Most important to know, she says: given the near ubiquity of arbitration agreements right now, "you probably signed away your right to sue before you even started your job." The new legislation was being announced formally on April 18. After a period of public review, it will then head into committee hearings. If all goes as its supporters hope, the bill will then go to the Assembly floor, then the Senate floor, before heading to Governor Brown by late summer. [GN] UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Set to Receive Settlement Payout ----------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Menegus, writing for Gizmodo, reports that a lawsuit filed in August of 2014 on behalf of California Uber drivers is finally paying out, and recipients of the $7.75 million settlement are finding their share leaves something to be desired. Back in August of 2014, a driver named Steven Price sued Uber for damages resulting from alleged labor misclassification, including failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, missed meal periods and rest periods, and unlawful business practices. In short, Mr. Price claimed Uber drivers were employees the company was treating as contractors, a scheme that has become a staple of the gig economy, most visibly affecting rideshare drivers, last-mile package couriers, and those engaged in food delivery or personal shopping. That suit was settled in late January of this year, and payments were scheduled to arrive on or before on April 13. That $7.75 million was split among "any and all Drivers who consented to a background check as part of the sign-up process to use the Uber software application and/or used the Uber software application to generate leads in California at anytime from July 8,2013 up to and including January 29, 2017," according to the settlement. But after plaintiffs' attorney fees, administration costs, and allocations to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, the amount apportioned to drivers was less than $1 million. Even though the time period covered by the suit represents three and a half years, a number of drivers posting on Reddit and other ridershare driver forums describe payments of less than $20 -- some drastically so. Three drivers sent Gizmodo copies of the notices they received. One was awarded $7.05. Another, 75 cents. The third was given just 15 cents. Though we were unable to verify settlement amounts beyond these three claims before publication, other posts suggest $3 to $5 was average. This is partly a result of the structure of California's Private Attorneys General Act -- a law for employee recovery of civil penalties in labor violations -- and with class-action suits in general. But these meager payouts also read as an insult following the uproar around a recent study that found around half of rideshare drivers made below minimum wage. [GN] UNITED STATES: Faces "Nwaorie" Suit in S.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against United States of America. The case is styled Anthonia I Nwaorie, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United States of America, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Kevin K. McAleenan, Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01406 (S.D. Tex., May 3, 2018). United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the largest federal law enforcement agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security. It is charged with regulating and facilitating international trade, collecting import duties, and enforcing U.S. regulations, including trade, customs, and immigration.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Lamar Alban, Esq. Institute for Justice 901 N Glebe Rd, Ste 900 Arlington, VA 22203 Tel: (703) 682-9320 Email: dalban@ij.org UNITED STATES: Seeks Appeals Ct. Review of "Garza" Suit Ruling -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Alex Michael Azar, II, Stephen Wagner and Scott Lloyd filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled Rochelle Garza, et al. v. Alex Azar, II, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02122-TSC, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 10, 2018, the Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan entered an order on March 30, 2018: 1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction as to the class of: "all pregnant, unaccompanied immigrant minor children (UCs) who are or will be in the legal custody of the federal government; and 2. enjoining Defendants Eric Hargan, Steven Wagner, and Scott Lloyd (along with their respective successors in office, officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and anyone acting in concert with them) from: 3. interfering with or obstructing any class member's access to: judicial bypass, medical appointments related to pregnancy dating, non-directive options counseling, abortion counseling, an abortion, or other pregnancy- related care; 4. forcing any class member to reveal the fact of their pregnancies and their abortion decisions to anyone, and from revealing those decisions to anyone themselves, either before or after an abortion; 5. retaliating against any class member based on her decision to have an abortion; and 6. from retaliating or threatening to retaliate against contractors that operate the shelters where class members currently reside for any actions that those contractors or shelters have taken or may take in facilitating class members' ability to access pregnancy and abortion-related medical care and/or an abortion. Alex M. Azar II is the Secretary of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The appellate case is captioned as Rochelle Garza, et al. v. Alex Azar, II, et al., Case No. 18-5093, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Rochelle Garza, As guardian ad litem to unaccompanied minor J.D., on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Jane Roe, Jane Poe and Jane Moe, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, are represented by: Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq. ACLU OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 915 15th Street NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 Facsimile: (202) 457-0805 E-mail: aspitzer@acludc.org - and - Brigitte Amiri, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2607 Facsimile: (212) 549-2652 E-mail: bamiri@aclu.org Defendants-Appellants Alex Michael Azar, II, Secretary, Health and Human Services; Stephen Wagner, Acting Assistant Secretary, Administration for Children and Families, in his official and individual capacity; and Scott Lloyd, Director, Office of Refugee Resettlement, in his official and individual capacity, are represented by: August Edward Flentje, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 E-mail: august.flentje@usdoj.gov - and - Michael Christopher Heyse, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1100 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-7300 E-mail: mheyse@gmail.com VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Upson" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery Services, LLC. The case is styled Robert Upson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Vital Recovery Services, LLC, Incline Fund II, LTD and Incline Fund Management, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02701 (E.D. N.Y., May 7, 2018). A wholly-owned subsidiary of Vital Solutions, Inc., Vital Recovery Services, LLC (VRS) is a fully licensed, national, third-party collection agency performing bad debt recovery and skip tracing services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq. 775 Park Avenue, Ste. 255 Huntington, NY 11743 Tel: (631) 335-1107 Email: mpash@verizon.net VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Emission-Cheating Class Actions in Austria --------------------------------------------------------------- Alliance News reports that German carmaker Volkswagen faces class action lawsuits for its emission-cheating scandal in Austria, where the Social Affairs Ministry announced the launch of the legal action on April 19. The class action is being managed by VKI, Austria's main consumer advocacy group. VKI said that it will help consumers to sue for 20% of the price of diesel-powered cars made by the Volkswagen group, arguing that the vehicles have lost value because of the software that was installed to mask higher emissions. "Wilful manipulations of this scale must have consequences, and Austrian consumers must not be left with their losses," VKI said in a statement. Social Affairs Minister Beate Hartinger-Klein said that current and previous owners of Volkswagen, Audi, Seat, and Skoda cars can file claims until May 20. According to Austrian law, lawyers will have to bundle the claims and filed them as several lawsuits at various Austrian courts. [GN] WALMART INC: Faces "Doe" Suit Alleging Extortion Under RICO Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Doe, Mary Moe, and John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walmart Inc., Darrell Huntsman, Glenn Bingham, Brian Ashton, Jeffrey S. Mitchell, Richard Haddrill, Chris Cottrell, Jeff Powers, Tim Hickey, Jeff Stringer, DSW, Inc., Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation, Bloomingdales, Inc., Abercrombie & Fitch Management Co., The Kroger Co., Sportsman's Warehouse, Inc., and Decathlon Capital Partners, LLC, Case No. 3:18-cv-02125 (N.D. Cal., April 9, 2018), alleges that the Defendants are all participants in a long- running, highly profitable extortion scheme that has extracted millions of dollars from thousands of poor, desperate people across the country. The Plaintiffs bring suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, on behalf of a class of all persons, who have made payments to Corrective Education Company, LLC, or purportedly incurred an obligation to pay CEC through the CEC Program in the last four years. CEC is a Utah limited liability company founded by Defendants Huntsman and Bingham and operated by the Individual Defendants. CEC's customers are large retailers (the Retailer Defendants) to whom CEC offers a program that it has branded, with Orwellian relish, as "Restorative Justice" (hereafter, the "CEC Program"). According to the complaint, retailers who participate in the CEC program offer suspected shoplifters a choice: (1) face criminal prosecution or (2) take an online class run by CEC. Those who choose the latter option (about 90%) are forced to make a substantial payment to CEC, a portion of which is kicked back to the participating retailer. The Individual Defendants are co-founders, directors and officers of CEC. The Retailer Defendants -- Walmart, DSW, Burlington Coat Factory, Bloomingdale's, Abercrombie, Kroger and Sportsman's Warehouse -- operate retail stores and are participants of the CEC Program. Decathlon is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Park City, Utah, and Palo Alto, California. Decathlon is an investment firm that focuses on growth-oriented small businesses with annual revenues between $3 million and $75 million.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Leviton, Esq. Joel Fleming, Esq. Jacob Walker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 E-mail: jason@blockesq.com joel@blockesq.com jake@blockesq.com WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Sales Tax Discrepancy -------------------------------------------------------------- Jackie De Tor, writing for Fox43, reports that one man in Western Pennsylvania checked his Walmart receipt very closely a few years ago. Brian Farmuth claims he was charged extra for sales tax, 21 cents extra, when he bought shaving cream with a buy one get one coupon. Mr. Farmuth says he should have only been taxed the price after the coupon, not before. That was years ago. Now there's a class action filed against Walmart on his behalf and he's requesting a jury trial. Some Walmart shoppers in York County say they probably would never notice a sales tax discrepancy. Paula Nikolas of Columbia said, "Sometimes I'll check when the scanning is questionable, you know if I heard an extra beep or something like that, but not the coupon section." Stephen Dintaman of Dallastown said, "I'd totally miss it. Especially when you buy a bunch of stuff from here, it's just not something you really pay attention to." Walmart told us the company did nothing wrong, sending us this statement: "Our sales tax collection system in Pennsylvania has always been compliant with the law. This has been confirmed numerous times over the years by the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue. We will continue defending the company against this litigation." The company is printing the notice on certain receipts. Some shoppers though, say they don't care. "I just don't really worry about it and I just come here and shop because I like the cheaper prices," said Linda Shaull from Windsor. According to the lawsuit, anyone who purchased an item at a Pennsylvania Walmart with a buy one get one coupon after June 8th, 2007 is eligible to be a class member. A lawyer told us, there's no specific way to determine who would be getting money in this case or how they would prove people bought something more than 11 years ago with a coupon if Walmart were to lose the case. However, if you want to specifically be excluded from the class action suit, you have until May 15th to do so. [GN] * DOJ, FTC Continue to Scrutinize Class Action Settlements ---------------------------------------------------------- Douglas Vonderhaar, Esq. -- dvonderhaar@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler, in an article for JDSupra, report that officials at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) continue to scrutinize class settlements to ensure that neither defendants nor class action counsel are improperly benefiting at the expense of class members. As discussed below, at minimum, parties to class actions in federal court can expect federal authorities to increasingly monitor and review class actions and file amicus briefs or statements of interest in appropriate cases. By way of introduction, a provision of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) requires that proposed class action settlements be served on the Attorney General of the United States at least 90 days prior to being entered by a court. This allows the DOJ to file a statement of interest with the court if it identifies fairness concerns. The government has rarely exercised the prerogative to file such statements, but that may change soon based on recent activity at the DOJ. In February 2018, outgoing Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand signaled that the DOJ would begin reviewing more proposed class action settlements. In prepared remarks, Ms. Brand stated that although the "DOJ receives over 700 CAFA notices every year," it had participated in only two prior cases -- both more than a decade before. She attributed the DOJ's silence to "government bureaucracy," explaining that due to the DOJ's rigorous mailroom screening and processing methods, it took an average of 70 days for a CAFA notice to travel from the mailroom to a DOJ attorney. As a result, many notices were not reviewed until after the fairness hearing or even after settlement had been finalized. Id. With revamped processes in place, the DOJ is now in a better position to timely review proposed settlements. One day after Ms. Brand's comments, the DOJ filed a statement of interest opposing final approval of a proposed consumer class action settlement in Cannon v. Ashburn Corp., Civil Action No. 16-1452 (Feb. 16, 2018), ECF No. 58. Initially, the DOJ argued that the proposed "textbook coupon settlement" in Cannon, which would settle claims of false advertising related to wine, provided "extremely limited value to consumers," particularly because "consumers gain nothing beyond a chance to buy more wine from the Defendants at a miniscule discount and then only if they successfully navigate the unnecessarily complex process the proposed settlement erects." Id. at 1, 17. The DOJ also opposed class counsel's request for "a massive $1.7 million windfall payment." Id. However, after attending a fairness hearing on March 19, DOJ attorneys filed a letter with the court, asserting that although they remained skeptical of certain settlement provisions, "the parties now have substantially improved the overall structure and value of the proposed settlement in response to the United States' and others' concerns." Cannon, ECF No. 98. The DOJ added that in light of the following "material improvements," the amended proposed settlement was sufficiently fair, adequate and reasonable and should be approved. [T]he United States views positively the parties agreement to: (1) transfer $500,000 from class counsels' requested fee to a cash fund for class consumers; (2) extend the coupon redemption period to 18 months; (3) defer class counsel's request for $1.2 million in fees until after the redemption period; (4) provide that any amount of the requested $1.2 million in fees not awarded to class counsel shall transfer to supplement the cash fund for class consumers; (5) issue notice of these revised terms to class consumers; and (6) extend class consumers' verification period until May 15, 2018. FTC's Proposed Studies In addition to the DOJ, the FTC has also taken an interest in the fairness of consumer class actions. In a previous post, we highlighted two studies that the FTC proposed in May 2015 as part of its Class Action Fairness Project: the Notice Study and the Deciding Factors Study. These studies -- both of which target nationwide class actions -- would aid the FTC in understanding (i) consumer comprehension of class action notices and the options they provide (Notice Study) and (ii) factors that influence consumers' decisions to participate, opt out of or object to a class action settlement (Deciding Factors Study). As part of these proposed studies, in November 2016, the FTC issued orders to eight unidentified claims administrators, requiring them to provide information on class settlement notification procedures and the response rates for various notification methods. In July 2017, the FTC issued a second Federal Register notice for approval to conduct the proposed studies. This second notice addressed the two public comments on its first Federal Register notice. The second notice solicited additional public comments by Aug. 17, 2017, and stated that the FTC is continuing to seek Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance to conduct the study. The Paperwork Reduction Act requires such clearance before a federal agency collects certain information for studies. Id. Even if the OMB does not approve the proposed studies, it is clear that federal authorities are monitoring the actual benefits of class action settlements. [GN] * EU Commission Presents Directive on Representative Actions ------------------------------------------------------------ K&L Gates LLP reports that the European Commission ("Commission") presented this initiative in the context of a proposed revision of the EU framework on consumer protection. The "Package" (as the name goes when several independent legal texts are intended to be negotiated together) called "New Deal for Consumers," builds on the Commission review of consumer law rules that was conducted as part of the so called Regulatory Fitness and Performance Program (REFIT). This is a policy program intended to keep EU law simple, removing unnecessary burdens and adapting existing legislation without compromising on policy objectives. The new set of measures is summarized in a Commission's Communication and consists of: -- A draft Directive on better enforcement and modernization of EU consumer protection rules; and -- A draft Directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers. This Alert focuses on the proposed Directive on representative actions (the "Directive"). The Directive's main novelties The Directive, which will repeal existing Directive 2009/22/EC on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests, defines its subject matter most clearly in its Article 1: it sets out rules enabling qualified entities to seek representative actions aimed at the protection of the collective interests of consumers, while ensuring appropriate safeguards to avoid abusive litigation. This effort to balance a new harmonized EU collective redress while preventing abuse is at the essence of the new text. To prevent the misuse of representative actions, elements such as punitive damages and the absence of limitations as regards the entitlement to bring an action on behalf of the harmed consumers have been avoided. Member States will also be requested to establish clear rules on various procedural aspects, such as the designation of those to be considered as qualified entities, the origin of their funds, and the nature of the information required to support the representative action. In an interesting exercise, the draft Directive comes with an Annex including a long list of EU law instruments covering a broad and diverse range of matters range where potential infringements by traders may harm collective interests of consumers. This goes beyond "traditional" consumer protection rules, to include essential regulation in sectors as diverse as financial services, transport and tourism, energy, media and telecommunications, pharmaceutical products, or data protection. Under the proposal, only nonprofit "qualified entities" to be designated by Member States at their request will be enabled to bring actions before courts or administrative authorities. These will include consumer associations and independent public bodies. They can also be created "ad hoc" for a particular representative action. And what can those qualified entities ask for from courts or administrative authorities? Member States shall ensure that qualified entities are enabled to; Apply for a provisional or a definitive injunction order for stopping an existing harmful practice or prohibiting it if it has not taken place yet; Seek a redress order that can obligate the trader to provide for compensation, repair, replacement, price reduction, contract termination, or reimbursement. Redress cannot have punitive effect and will be limited to the actual loss or damage suffered by the consumers. In some cases, Member States will be allowed to replace the redress order by a declaratory decision establishing the liability of the trader, which may be directly relied upon by consumers in subsequent redress actions. The Directive also provides rules on other necessary aspects once the principle of representative action has been established: funding transparency for qualified entities, the form and conditions for settlements, allocation of costs, access to evidence, or penalties. It also deals with the effect of a final decision on an infringement of collective interests of consumers on any other action against the same trader for the same infringement. And it is important that in this matter, Member States are requested to ensure that a final decision taken by a court or administrative in a Member State is to be considered as a (rebuttable) presumption that an infringement has occurred. A change for many The Directive will now start its ordinary legislative process. While there is general political consensus to guarantee that it will get the necessary final approval by the two co-legislators, the European Parliament and Council of the EU, there is still room for many amendments that can better define many aspects and that could reduce or enlarge the freedom for Member States to develop the details of the new scheme in their national legal systems. According to sources from the legal Commission, there are seven EU countries for which these rules will represent an evolution and a reinforcement of already existing rules on collective court representation in defense of consumers. For the other twenty, these rules are completely new and will introduce in their legal systems a redress mechanism completely strange to their legal tradition and practice. Once approved and in force, Member States will have 18 months to adapt their national procedural and substantive laws to transpose these rules. [GN] * Existence of Mandatory Arbitration Agreements on the Rise ----------------------------------------------------------- Erin Mulvaney, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that employees in low-wage workplaces, women and African-Americans are more likely to be subject to mandatory arbitration agreements in employment contracts than other groups, potentially limiting their access to the court system, a study released on April 6 by the Economic Policy Institute found. The survey authored by Cornell University professor Alexander Colvin found that 57.6 percent of female workers, 59.1 percent of African-American workers and 53.5 percent of male workers are bound by mandatory arbitration agreements. Nearly 65 percent of workplaces where the average wage is less than $13 an hour also require mandatory arbitration agreements for their employees. Mr. Colvin's study also found that since 1991, the existence of such agreements has risen from just over 2 percent to nearly a quarter in the early 2000s, to more than 55 percent of workers today, which he says lessens the access of employees to the courts for a variety of civil rights and labor rights claims, representing a "dramatic and important shift in how the employment rights of American workers are enforced," according to the report. Mandatory arbitration agreements are most widespread in California, Texas and North Carolina. In all of the 12 largest states by population, more than 40 percent of employers have these policies, the survey found. The issue draws significance as the U.S. Supreme Court weighs a trio of cases that challenge whether class action waivers should be allowed in employment contracts. Mandatory arbitration agreements have also found new scrutiny amid the #MeToo movement, as women speak out against past workplace abuses and the efforts of employers to keep those issues out of court. "Under such agreements, workers whose rights are violated -- for example, through employment discrimination or sexual harassment -- can't pursue their claims in court but must submit to arbitration procedures that research shows overwhelmingly favor employers," Colvin writes in the report. The findings build off a 2017 study from the worker-friendly policy group that found more than half of private sector nonunion jobs are subject to mandatory arbitration, a trend the report found has accelerated since the 1990s. Among private-sector nonunion workers, 56.2 percent are subject to mandatory employment arbitration, which would mean more than 60 million American employees have no recourse to the courts in legal disputes and must go to arbitration, the survey found. Larger employers were more likely to impose such agreements, which are different from the system used to resolve employment disputes between labor unions and management in organized workplaces. More than 65 percent of employers with 1,000 or more workers have mandatory employment arbitration, the study found. Among the employers that require mandatory arbitration, 30 percent include class-action waivers that prevent them from taking collective legal action, according to the report. The Supreme Court heard arguments in October, in a trio of cases -- National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris and Epic Systems v. Lewis -- that consider whether the class action waiver violates the federal law that protects workers' rights. Mr. Colvin said a ruling in favor of the employers would encourage more businesses to adopt mandatory employment arbitration and class action waivers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's amicus brief, filed by a team from Mayer Brown, urged the Supreme Court to uphold the lawfulness of mandatory arbitration. "Most workplace grievances are individualized and therefore could not be pursued as part of a class or collective action. Indeed, without individual arbitration, most of those claims could not be pursued at all," Mayer Brown's Andrew Pincus, counsel of record, wrote. "The best empirical data available show that employees fare at least as well in arbitration as in litigation, if not better; and that litigation in court is frequently too expensive to serve as a realistic option for employees seeking to vindicate their rights." [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gardner Denver Had $105.6MM Reserve at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Gardner Denver Holdings, Inc., had total litigation reserve of US$105.6 million as of December 31, 2017, with respect to potential liability arising from its asbestos-related litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in many asbestos-related and silica-related personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically we are one of approximately 25 or more named defendants. Our predecessors sometimes manufactured, distributed and/or sold products allegedly at issue in these pending asbestos and silica-related lawsuits (the "Products"). However, neither we nor our predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if any, were enclosed within the subject Products. "Although we have never mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica, many of the companies that did engage in such activities or produced such products are no longer in operation. This has led to law firms seeking potential alternative companies to name in lawsuits where there has been an asbestos or silica related injury. However, in our opinion, based on our experience to date, the substantial majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury for which we bear responsibility. "We believe that the pending and future asbestos and silica- related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity, based on: our anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from the Products described; our opinion, based on our experience to date, that the vast majority of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the Products or for which we otherwise bear responsibility; various potential defenses available to us with respect to such matters; and our prior disposition of comparable matters. However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future developments, including, without limitation, potential insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants, an adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability to collect from our historical insurers or indemnitors, could cause a different outcome. While the outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known facts, experience and circumstances, we believe that the amounts accrued on the Company's balance sheet are adequate and that the liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. "We have accrued liabilities and other liabilities on our consolidated balance sheet to include a total litigation reserve of US$105.6 million and US$108.5 million as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 respectively, with respect to potential liability arising from our asbestos-related litigation. Asbestos-related defense costs are excluded from the asbestos claims liability and are recorded separately as an operating expense as services are incurred. We currently expect to continue to incur significant asbestos-related defense costs. In the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operation or liquidity, and defense costs may be material. However, at this time, based on presently available information, we view this possibility as remote. "We have entered into a series of agreements with certain of the Company's or the Company's predecessors' legacy insurers and certain potential indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits filed against us. We have also pursued litigation against certain insurers or indemnitors where necessary. We have an insurance recovery receivable for probable asbestos related recoveries of approximately US$100.4 million and US$97.3 million, which is included on our consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively. "The largest such recent action, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, et al., was filed on July 9, 2010, in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, Adams County, Illinois, as case number 10-L-48 (the "Adams County Case"). In the lawsuit, we seek, among other things, to require certain excess insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to us, including payment in whole or in part of the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us. In October 2011, we reached a settlement with one of the insurer defendants, which had issued both primary and excess policies, for approximately the amount of such defendant's policies which were subject to the lawsuit. Since then, the case has been proceeding through the discovery and motions process with the remaining insurer defendants. On January 29, 2016, we prevailed on the first phase of that discovery and motions process ("Phase I"). Specifically, the Court in the Adams County Case ruled that we have rights under all of the policies in the case, subject to their terms and conditions, even though the policies were sold to our former owners rather than to the Company itself. On June 9, 2016, the Court denied a motion by several of the insurers who sought permission to appeal the Phase I ruling now rather than waiting until the end of the whole case as is normally required. The case has now begun proceeding through the discovery and motions process regarding the remaining issues in dispute. A majority of our expected future recoveries of the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject of the Adams County Case. "The amounts we recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and insurance recoveries are based on currently available information and assumptions that we believe are reasonable based on our evaluation of relevant factors with input from a third party actuarial expert. Our actual liabilities or insurance recoveries could be higher or lower than those recorded if actual results vary significantly from the assumptions. There are a number of key variables and assumptions including the number and type of new claims to be filed each year, the resolution or outcome of these claims, the average cost of resolution of each new claim, the amount of insurance available, allocation methodologies, the contractual terms with each insurer with whom we have reached settlements, the resolution of coverage issues with other excess insurance carriers with whom we have not yet achieved settlements and the solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers. Other factors that may affect our future liability include uncertainties surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from case to case, legal rulings that may be made by state and federal courts and the passage of state or federal legislation. We make the necessary adjustments for our asbestos liability and corresponding insurance recoveries on an annual basis unless facts or circumstances warrant assessment as of an interim date." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/sLwksL ASBESTOS UPDATE: ITT Inc. Had US$877.2MM Liability at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- ITT Inc. had recorded an undiscounted asbestos-related liability of US$877.2 million as of December 31, 2017, for pending claims and unasserted claims estimated to be filed over the next 10 years, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The Company states, "Subsidiaries of ITT, including ITT LLC and Goulds Pumps LLC, have been joined as defendants with numerous other companies in product liability lawsuits alleging personal injury due to asbestos exposure. These claims allege that certain of their products sold 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. "Frequently, the plaintiffs are unable to identify any ITT LLC or Goulds Pumps LLC products as a source of asbestos exposure. In addition, a large majority of claims pending against the Company's subsidiaries have been placed on inactive dockets because the plaintiff cannot demonstrate a significant compensable loss. Our experience to date is that a substantial portion of resolved claims have been dismissed without payment by the Company's subsidiaries. "We have recorded 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 uncertainties and variables inherent in the long-term projection of the Company's asbestos exposures and potential recoveries. "As of December 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$877.2 million, which includes expected legal fees and we have recorded an associated asset of US$368.7 million, which represents estimated recoveries from insurers, resulting in a net exposure of US$508.5 million." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/bg0CjE ASBESTOS UPDATE: Minerals Technologies Faces 20 Cases at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Minerals Technologies Inc. has 20 pending asbestos cases, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 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 20 pending asbestos cases. To date, 1,493 silica cases and 53 asbestos cases have been dismissed, not including any lawsuits against AMCOL or American Colloid Company dismissed prior to our acquisition of AMCOL. Seven new asbestos cases were filed in 2017, including one that was previously reported on the Company's 2016 Annual Report on Form 10-K. Four asbestos cases were dismissed during the period. No silica cases were dismissed during the period. 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. The Company is entitled to indemnification, pursuant to agreement, for sales prior to the initial public offering. Of the 20 pending asbestos cases, 13 of the non-AMCOL cases are subject to indemnification, in whole or in part, because the plaintiffs claim liability based on sales of products that occurred either entirely before the initial public offering, or both before and after the initial public offering. In the six remaining non-AMCOL cases, the plaintiffs have not alleged dates of exposure. The remaining case is an AMCOL case, which makes no allegation with respect to periods of exposure. 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-K is available at https://is.gd/0CqJZk ASBESTOS UPDATE: FirstEnergy Still Defends Lawsuits at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- FirstEnergy Corp. and its subsidiary, First Energy Solutions Corp., still defends in pending asbestos litigation involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in pending asbestos litigations involving multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, in several states. The majority of these claims arise out of alleged past exposures by contractors (and in Pennsylvania, former employees) at both currently and formerly owned electric generation plants. In addition, asbestos and other regulated substances are, and may continue to be, present at currently owned facilities where suitable alternative materials are not available. We believe that any remaining asbestos at our facilities is contained and properly identified in accordance with applicable governmental regulations, including OSHA. The continued presence of asbestos and other regulated substances at these facilities, however, could result in additional actions being brought against us. This is further complicated by the fact that many diseases, such as mesothelioma and cancer, have long latency periods in which the disease process develops, thus making it impossible to accurately predict the types and numbers of such claims in the near future. While insurance coverages exist for many of these pending asbestos litigations, others have no such coverages, resulting in FirstEnergy being responsible for all defense expenditures, as well as any settlements or verdict payouts." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/Ghoyag ASBESTOS UPDATE: Selective Insurance Has US$21.2MM A&E Reserves --------------------------------------------------------------- Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s asbestos claims constituted 30% of its US$21.2 million net asbestos and environmental reserves at December 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The Company states, "Our general liability, excess liability, and homeowners reserves include exposure to asbestos and environmental claims. Our exposure to environmental liability is primarily due to: (i) landfill exposures from policies written prior to the absolute pollution endorsement in the mid 1980s; and (ii) underground storage tank leaks mainly from New Jersey homeowners policies. These environmental claims stem primarily from insured exposures in municipal government, small non- manufacturing commercial risks, and homeowners policies. "The total carried net losses and loss expense reserves for these claims were US$21.2 million as of December 31, 2017 and US$22.7 million as of December 31, 2016. The emergence of these claims occurs over an extended period and is highly unpredictable. For example, within our Standard Commercial Lines book, certain landfill sites are included on the National Priorities List ("NPL") by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("USEPA"). Once on the NPL, the USEPA determines an appropriate remediation plan for these sites. A landfill can remain on the NPL for many years until final approval for the removal of the site is granted from the USEPA. The USEPA has the authority to re-open previously closed sites and return them to the NPL. We currently have reserves for seven customers related to four sites on the NPL. "Asbestos claims" are claims for bodily injury alleged to have occurred from exposure to asbestos-containing products. Our primary exposure arises from insuring various distributors of asbestos-containing products, such as electrical and plumbing materials. At December 31, 2017, asbestos claims constituted 30% of our US$21.2 million net asbestos and environmental reserves, compared to 29% of our US$22.7 million net asbestos and environmental reserves at December 31, 2016. "Environmental claims" are claims alleging bodily injury or property damage from pollution or other environmental contaminants other than asbestos. These claims include landfills and leaking underground storage tanks. Our landfill exposure lies largely in policies written for municipal governments, in their operation or maintenance of certain public lands. In addition to landfill exposures, in recent years, we have experienced a relatively consistent level of reported losses in the homeowners line of business related to claims for groundwater contamination from leaking underground heating oil storage tanks in New Jersey. In 2007, we instituted a fuel oil system exclusion on our New Jersey homeowners policies that limits our exposure to leaking underground storage tanks for certain customers. At that time, existing customers were offered a one- time opportunity to buy back oil tank liability coverage. The exclusion applies to all new homeowners policies in New Jersey. These customers are eligible for the buy-back option only if the tank meets specific eligibility criteria. "Our asbestos and environmental claims are handled in our centralized and specialized asbestos and environmental claim unit. Case reserves for these exposures are evaluated on a claim-by-claim basis. The ability to assess potential exposure often improves as a claim develops, including judicial determinations of coverage issues. As a result, reserves are adjusted accordingly. "Estimating IBNR reserves for asbestos and environmental claims is difficult because of the delayed and inconsistent reporting patterns associated with these claims. In addition, there are significant uncertainties associated with estimating critical assumptions, such as average clean-up costs, third-party costs, potentially responsible party shares, allocation of damages, litigation and coverage costs, and potential state and federal legislative changes. Normal historically-based actuarial approaches cannot be applied to asbestos and environmental claims because past loss history is not indicative of future potential loss emergence. In addition, while certain alternative models can be applied, such models can produce significantly different results with small changes in assumptions. As a result, we do not calculate an asbestos and environmental loss range. Historically, our asbestos and environmental claims have been significantly lower in volume, with less volatility and uncertainty than many of our competitors in the Standard Commercial Lines industry. Prior to the introduction of the absolute pollution exclusion endorsement in the mid-1980's, we were primarily a Standard Personal Lines carrier and therefore do not have broad exposure to asbestos and environmental claims. Additionally, we are the primary insurance carrier on the majority of these exposures, which provides more certainty in our reserve position compared to others in the insurance marketplace." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/GWzYmT ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Corp. Had 31,660 Claims Pending at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- CBS Corporation had approximately 31,660 asbestos-related claims pending as of December 31, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. CBS Corp. states, "The Company is a defendant in lawsuits claiming various personal injuries related to asbestos and other materials, which allegedly occurred as a result of exposure caused by various products manufactured by Westinghouse, a predecessor, generally prior to the early 1970s. Westinghouse was neither a producer nor a manufacturer of asbestos. The Company is typically named as one of a large number of defendants in both state and federal cases. In the majority of asbestos lawsuits, the plaintiffs have not identified which of the Company's products is the basis of a claim. Claims against the Company in which a product has been identified principally relate to exposures allegedly caused by asbestos-containing insulating material in turbines sold for power-generation, industrial and marine use. "Claims are frequently filed and/or settled in groups, which may make the amount and timing of settlements, and the number of pending claims, subject to significant fluctuation from period to period. The Company does not report as pending those claims on inactive, stayed, deferred or similar dockets which some jurisdictions have established for claimants who allege minimal or no impairment. "As of December 31, 2017, the Company had pending approximately 31,660 asbestos claims, as compared with approximately 33,610 as of December 31, 2016 and 36,030 as of December 31, 2015. During 2017, the Company received approximately 3,530 new claims and closed or moved to an inactive docket approximately 5,480 claims. The Company reports claims as closed when it becomes aware that a dismissal order has been entered by a court or when the Company has reached agreement with the claimants on the material terms of a settlement. Settlement costs depend on the seriousness of the injuries that form the basis of the claims, the quality of evidence supporting the claims and other factors. "The Company's total costs for the years 2017 and 2016 for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after insurance recoveries and net of tax were approximately US$57 million and US$48 million, respectively. The Company's costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims may vary year to year and insurance proceeds are not always recovered in the same period as the insured portion of the expenses. "Filings include claims for individuals suffering from mesothelioma, a rare cancer, the risk of which is allegedly increased by exposure to asbestos; lung cancer, a cancer which may be caused by various factors, one of which is alleged to be asbestos exposure; other cancers, and conditions that are substantially less serious, including claims brought on behalf of individuals who are asymptomatic as to an allegedly asbestos- related disease. The predominant number of pending claims against the Company are non-cancer claims. "The Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities. This belief is based upon many factors and assumptions, including the number of outstanding claims, estimated average cost per claim, the breakdown of claims by disease type, historic claim filings, costs per claim of resolution and the filing of new claims. While the number of asbestos claims filed against the Company has remained generally flat in recent years, it is difficult to predict future asbestos liabilities, as events and circumstances may occur including, among others, the number and types of claims and average cost to resolve such claims, which could affect the Company's estimate of its asbestos liabilities." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/gkPqxP ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Unit Still Defends Talc Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (FCX) said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that there has been an increase in the number of cases against its subsidiary Freeport Minerals Corporation (FMC) and certain affiliates alleging exposure "to talc contaminated with asbestos and to talc that is not alleged to be contaminated with asbestos". The Company said, "Since approximately 1990, FMC and various subsidiaries have been named as defendants in a large number of lawsuits that claim personal injury either from exposure to asbestos allegedly contained in electrical wire products produced or marketed many years ago or from asbestos contained in buildings and facilities located at properties owned or operated by FMC affiliates, or from alleged asbestos in talc products. Many of these suits involve a large number of codefendants. Based on litigation results to date and facts currently known, FCX believes there is a reasonable possibility that losses may have been incurred related to these matters; however, FCX also believes that the amounts of any such losses, individually or in the aggregate, are not material to its consolidated financial statements. There can be no assurance, however, that future developments will not alter this conclusion. "With respect to the asbestos exposure cases, there has been an increase in the number of cases against FMC and certain affiliates alleging exposure to talc contaminated with asbestos and to talc that is not alleged to be contaminated with asbestos. There have been a number of large jury awards in single plaintiff cases primarily brought by consumers against makers of common consumer products containing talc and alleging serious health risks, including mesothelioma and ovarian cancer allegedly associated with long-term use of such products. Prior affiliates were involved in talc mining, and some of those affiliates have been named as defendants in some of those cases. We have indemnification rights against a successor to those businesses, and the successor has acknowledged those indemnification obligations, subject to certain reservations, and has taken responsibility for all cases we have tendered to it. However, the indemnitor may have limited financial resources and limited amounts of insurance available to meet those obligations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/txOIyt ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Sealed Air's Canadian Units Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- Sealed Air Corporation said in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that although the possibility is remote, it could be required to pay substantial damages for asbestos claims involving its Canadian subsidiaries. The Company states, "In November 2004, the Company's Canadian subsidiary Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie learned that it had been named a defendant in the case of Thundersky v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI4-1-39818), pending in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. -- Conn. were also named as defendants. The plaintiff brought the claim as a putative class proceeding and sought recovery for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment, as a result of Grace's marketing, selling, processing, manufacturing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac Transaction. A plaintiff filed another proceeding in January 2005 in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench naming the Company and specified subsidiaries as defendants. The latter proceeding, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Manitoba v. The Attorney General of Canada, et al. (File No. CI5-1-41069), sought the recovery of the cost of insured health services allegedly provided by the Government of Manitoba to the members of the class of plaintiffs in the Thundersky proceeding. In October 2005, we learned that six additional putative class proceedings had been brought in various provincial and federal courts in Canada seeking recovery from the Company and its subsidiaries Cryovac, Inc. and Sealed Air (Canada) Co./Cie, as well as other defendants including W. R. Grace & Co. and W. R. Grace & Co. -- Conn., for alleged injuries suffered by any Canadian resident, other than in the course of employment (except with respect to one of these six claims), as a result of Grace's marketing, selling, manufacturing, processing, distributing and/or delivering asbestos or asbestos-containing products in Canada prior to the Cryovac transaction. Grace and W. R. Grace & Co. -- Conn. agreed to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Company and its affiliates in respect of any liability and expense, including legal fees and costs, in these actions. "In April 2001, Grace Canada, Inc. had obtained an order of the Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, Toronto (the "Canadian Court"), recognizing the Chapter 11 actions in the United States of America involving Grace Canada, Inc.'s U.S. parent corporation and other affiliates of Grace Canada, Inc., and enjoining all new actions and staying all current proceedings against Grace Canada, Inc. related to asbestos under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. That order was renewed repeatedly. In November 2005, upon motion by Grace Canada, Inc., the Canadian Court ordered an extension of the injunction and stay to actions involving asbestos against the Company and its Canadian affiliate and the Attorney General of Canada, which had the effect of staying all of the Canadian actions. The parties finalized a global settlement of these Canadian actions (except for claims against the Canadian government). That settlement, which has subsequently been amended (the "Canadian Settlement"), will be entirely funded by Grace. The Canadian Court issued an Order on December 13, 2009 approving the Canadian Settlement. We do not have any positive obligations under the Canadian Settlement, but we are a beneficiary of the release of claims. The release in favor of the Grace parties (including us) became operative upon the effective date of a plan of reorganization in Grace's United States Chapter 11bankruptcy proceeding. As filed, the PI Settlement Plan contemplates that the claims released under the Canadian Settlement will be subject to injunctions under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Bankruptcy Court entered the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order on January 31, 2011 and the Clarifying Order on February 15, 2011 and the District Court entered the Original District Court Confirmation Order on January 30, 2012 and the Amended District Court Confirmation Order on June 11, 2012. The Canadian Court issued an Order on April 8, 2011 recognizing and giving full effect to the Bankruptcy Court's Confirmation Order in all provinces and territories of Canada in accordance with the Bankruptcy Court Confirmation Order's terms. "The PI Settlement Plan became effective on February 3, 2014. In accordance with the December 13, 2009 order of the Canadian court, on the Effective Date the actions became permanently stayed until they were amended to remove the Grace parties as named defendants. The actions in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench were dismissed by the Manitoba court as against the Grace parties on February 19, 2014. The remaining actions were either dismissed or discontinued with prejudice by the Canadian courts as against the Grace parties in May and June 2015, but for two actions in the Province of Quebec, which were discontinued by order of the Quebec court in February 2016. "Although we believe the possibility to be remote, if the Canadian courts refuse to enforce the final plan of reorganization in the Canadian courts, and if in addition Grace is unwilling or unable to defend and indemnify the Company and its subsidiaries in these cases, then we could be required to pay substantial damages, which we cannot estimate at this time and which could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition and results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/1NPevS ASBESTOS UPDATE: Super. Ct. Affirms ConRail Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------ In the appealed case Margaret Jarrett, Executrix of the Estate of Philip Jarrett, Deceased and Widow in her own Right, Appellant, v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, No. 1229 EDA 2017, (Pa. Super. Ct.) the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirms the summary judgment entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in favor of Appellee Consolidated Rail Corporation. This matter arises from asbestos-related injuries sustained by Philip Jarrett, Deceased, in the course of his employment with Consolidated Rail Corporation and its predecessors-in-interest. In 1997, Decedent filed suit in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas under the Federal Employers Liability Act ("FELA") against Conrail and other defendants, after he developed non-malignant asbestosis. The case was settled in 2004 and Decedent executed a release. Subsequently, in October 2014, Decedent was diagnosed with lung cancer. The Jarretts commenced another FELA action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on February 9, 2015, alleging that Decedent's workplace exposure to asbestos caused his cancer. On January 10, 2017, Conrail filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the release Decedent signed in 2004 precluded recovery in the instant matter, as it had released Conrail from future liability related to any workplace-related pulmonary- respiratory diseases and/or injuries, including cancer, contracted after the execution of the release. In response, Jarrett argued that the issue of whether a release for a non- malignancy claim bars recovery for future malignancy claims is a question for a jury to decide. On March 17, 2017, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Conrail; Jarrett's motion for reconsideration was denied on March 29, 2017. Consequently, Margaret Jarrett, as Executrix of the Estate of Philip Jarrett, Deceased appeals from the order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, entering summary judgment in favor of Appellee Consolidated Rail Corporation. Jarrett first argues that the trial court erred in holding that the scope of the 2004 release, executed in settlement of a non- malignancy claim under FELA, encompassed a subsequent claim for a malignancy that had not yet manifested itself at the time the release was signed. Jarrett asserts that, in enacting FELA, it was the intent of Congress to protect workers and prevent overreaching by an employer. Jarrett argues that section 5 "forecloses the possibility of settlement contracts of adhesion for injured railroad workers' FELA claims." Because the protection of workers was Congress' paramount intent in enacting FELA, Jarrett asserts that a narrow interpretation of section 5 would best achieve that result. The Court concludes that the trial court properly applied the rule set forth in Wicker v. Conrail, 142 F.3d 690 (3rd Cir. 1998), as it has been deemed "controlling" by a prior panel of this Court. The Wicker court engaged in a comprehensive review of the cases that have applied section 5 and arrived at a cogent and well-reasoned test for determining the validity of a FELA waiver under section 5. First, the court found that a valid release "must at least have been executed as part of a negotiation settling a dispute between the employee and the employer." In this way, an employer is foreclosed from evading FELA liability as a condition of employment or separation. Next, the court noted that an "evaluation of the parties' intent at the time the agreement was made is an essential element of this inquiry." The court arrived at the conclusion that "a release that spells out the quantity, location and duration of potential risks to which the employee has been exposed -- for example toxic exposure -- allowing the employee to make a reasoned decision whether to release the employer from liability for future injuries of specifically known risks does not violate section 5 of FELA." In sum, the approach adopted by the Wicker court is highly fact- intensive and places the intent of the parties in the forefront of any inquiry. It also provides a realistic view of compromises and releases, while staying true to the prohibition on blanket relinquishments of rights contemplated by Congress in enacting FELA. Accordingly, Jarrett's first claim is meritless. Jarrett notes that the proposition in Wicker that the inquiry is fact-intensive and that the facts thus will need to be resolved by the fact-finder. Accordingly, Jarrett argues that her claim should have gone before a jury for a determination as to whether lung cancer was a "known risk" and/or whether the release was unenforceable as a general boilerplate release. Conrail counters that a party seeking to refute a FELA release bears the burden of establishing its invalidity. Faced with that burden, Conrail claims that Jarrett nonetheless did nothing to refute the presumption of validity created by language in the release barring claims for future cancer due to workplace exposure to asbestos. Conrail argues that Jarrett failed to "create a record to refute the fact that [Decedent] knew of the risk that he could develop cancer when he signed the release on the advice of counsel." We agree. On its face, the clear and unambiguous language of the release signed by the Decedent precludes subsequent recovery for "any and all forms of cancer . . . arising in any manner whatsoever . . . out of exposure to . . . asbestos . . . during [Decedent's] employment with [Conrail]." As Conrail correctly notes, the party attacking the validity of a FELA release bears the burden of proof as to its invalidity. Jarrett presented no evidence that the Decedent was unaware that cancer was a risk of asbestos exposure at the time he executed the release. Indeed, as the trial court noted, Jarrett "cannot possibly claim [Decedent] did not know that cancer was a risk of asbestos exposure, and it would be implausible to conclude [Decedent] did not know of his exposure to asbestos when he settled his prior asbestos-related case." As such, no genuine issue of material fact existed such that a jury could return a verdict in Jarrett's favor. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Conrail. A full-text copy of the Opinion dated April 24, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybp34m2x from Leagle.com. Robert E. Paul, Richard P. Myers -- info@prmpclaw.com -- Paul, Reich & Myers, P.C., for Appellant, Margaret Jarrett. Craig James Staudenmaier -- cjstaud@nssh.com -- Nauman, Smith, Shissler & Hall, LLP, for Amicus, Keystone State Railroad Association. David Alan Damico -- dadamico@burnswhite.com -- Ira L. Podheiser -- ilpodheiser@burnswhite.com -- Burns White, LLC, for Appellee, Consolidated Rail Corporation. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Claims vs. Fryer-Knowles Dismissed in "Varney" --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert J. Bryan of the United States District Court for the Western District Washington has dismissed the claims against Defendant Fryer-Knowles, Inc. in the case styled Donald Varney and Maria Varney, Plaintiffs, v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:18-cv-05105-RJB, (W.D. Wash.). The Complaint alleges that Defendants manufactured, distributed, "and/or" sold asbestos-containing brakes, clutches, gaskets, and grinders. It further alleges that Plaintiff Donald Varney developed mesothelioma, an asbestos-caused condition, from ambient exposure from Defendants' products while working as a marine machinist, mechanical instrument mechanic, and auto mechanic at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington, and the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco, California, between 1957 and 1972. He was also exposed to asbestos from Defendants' products during personal auto repair from 1939 to 1957, and he had secondary exposure from his father, an auto mechanic in Seattle, Washington, during the 1940's and 1950's. Defendant Fryer-Knowles, Inc. (a California Corporation) seeks dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (b)(2), but Plaintiff did not respond to the motion. Defendant, as a non-resident defendant, argues that Plaintiff is unable to show that the court has either general or specific jurisdiction over it for the relevant time period. It argues Plaintiff cannot show it had "certain minimum contacts" with Washington during the relevant period because it was incorporated in 1973, the year after Plaintiff's last asserted exposure in 1972. Accordingly, it maintains Plaintiff cannot show it had the "minimum contacts" for the Court to have personal jurisdiction over it. The Court finds no evidence that it has general jurisdiction over this non-resident defendant -- Fryer-Knowles. Its affiliations with Washington were not so "continuous and systematic" during the time in question so "as to render it essentially at home" in Washington. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Court has specific jurisdiction over it. The uncontroverted evidence in the record is that this Defendant was not incorporated until August 29, 1973. It could not place any product into the stream of commerce before that time (the time period Plaintiff alleges he was injured) because it did not exist. Plaintiff does not contest this evidence or respond to the motion. Thus, the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over Defendant Fryer-Knowles, Inc., and the case against it should be dismissed. A full-text copy of the Order dated April 24, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydf73bhy from Leagle.com. Donald Varney & Maria Varney, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin Robert Couture, Weinstein Couture PLLC, Brian Weinstein, Weinstein Couture PLLC, Benjamin H. Adams -- badams@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham, LLP, pro hac vice & Lisa W. Shirley -- lshirley@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as & Velan Valve Corporation, Defendants, represented by Kevin J. Craig -- kcraig@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Mark B. Tuvim -- mtuvim@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP & Trevor J. Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP. Alfa Laval Inc, BW/IP Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries & Superior-Lidgerwood-Mundy Corporation, successor in interest M.T. Davidson, Defendants, represented by Christine E. Dinsdale -- dinsdale@sohalang.com -- Soha & Lang PS. Armstrong International Inc., Defendant, represented by Bennett J. Hansen -- bhansen@pregodonnell.com -- Preg O'Donnell & Gillett, PLLC, David E. Chawes -- dchawes@pregodonnell.com -- Preg O'Donnell & Gillett, PLLC & William E. Fitzharris, Jr. -- wfitzharris@pregodonnell.com -- Preg O'Donnell & Gillett, PLLC. Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Jeanne F. Loftis - - jeanne.loftis@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser Bailey PC. Blackmer Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Claude Bosworth -- cbosworth@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC. BNS Co., formerly known as Brown & Sharpe Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Delian P. Deltchev -- Delian.Deltchev@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Michael Anthony Jaeger -- Michael.Jaeger@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Carrier Corporation & Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendants, represented by Nicole R. MacKenzie -- nmackenzie@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner & Gibbs & Ryan W. Vollans -- rvollans@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner & Gibbs. Crane Co. & Crane Environmental Inc, individually and as successor in interest Cochrane Corporation, Defendants, represented by G. William Shaw -- bill.shaw@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & Ryan J. Groshong -- ryan.groshong@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP. Crosby Valve, LLC, Elliott Turbomachinery Co Inc, also known as Elliott Company, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Goulds Pumps LLC, formerly known as Goulds Pumps, Inc., Grinnell LLC, doing business as Grinnell Corporation & ITT LLC, formerly known as ITT Corporation formerly known as ITT Industries Inc formerly known as ITT Fluid Products Corp formerly known as Hoffman Specialty MFG Corp formerly known as Bell and Gossett Company formerly known as ITT Marlow, Defendants, represented by Ronald C. Gardner -- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- Gardner Trabolsi & Assoc. PLLC. Crown Cork & Seal Company Inc., successor in interest, Defendant, represented by Alice Coles Serko -- aserko@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP, Barry Neal Mesher & Christopher S. Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP. Darigold, Inc, Defendant, represented by John Ray Nelson -- john.nelson@foster.com -- Foster Pepper PLLC. Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Marc Marshall Carlton -- Marc.Carlton@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Randy J. Aliment -- Randy.Aliment@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. FMC Corporation & Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) LLC, formerly known as Peerless Pumps Co., Defendants, represented by Katherine M. Steele -- katherine.steele@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser Bailey & Michael Mackenzie Brown -- mac.brown@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser Bailey. Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, General Electric Company & The Gorman-Rupp Company, Defendants, represented by Alice Coles Serko -- aserko@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP & Christopher S. Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP. Hopeman Brothers Inc, Defendant, represented by Diane Catherine Babbitt -- dbabbitt@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, James D. Hicks -- jhicks@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield & Melissa K. Roeder -- mroeder@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield. IMO Industries, Inc, individually and as, Defendant, represented by James Edward Horne -- jhorne@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas Honeywell & Michael Edward Ricketts -- mricketts@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas Honeywell. The Nash Engineering Company & Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc., individually and as successor in interest Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc., Defendants, represented by Dana C. Kopij -- dkopij@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner & Gibbs. SB Decking Inc, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly -- mmattingly@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC. Taco, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeanne F. Loftis -- jeanne.loftis@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser Bailey PC & Megan Uhle -- megan.uhle@bullivant.com -- Bullivant Houser Bailey PC. Uniroyal Holding Inc, formerly known as United States Rubber Company Inc, Defendant, represented by Chris Robert Youtz -- info@sylaw.com -- Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger. Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Todd M. Thacker -- tthacker@jjrlaw.com -- Jackson Jenkins Renstrom LLP. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut -- aeraut@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC. The Wm. Powell Company, Defendant, represented by James D. Hicks -- jhicks@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield, Brian Bernard Smith -- bsmith@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield & R. Dirk Bernhardt -- dbernhardt@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Affirms Metalcad Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals of California for the First District affirmed the summary judgment entered by the trial court in favor of Metalclad Insulation Corporation in the appealed case Paula Tarjani et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Metalclad Insulation Corporation, Defendant and Respondent, No. A140577, (Cal. Ct. App. 1st). In the trial court, plaintiffs Paula Tarjani, Phyllis Newman and Patsy Rojo, the daughters of decedent John Ball, brought claims against numerous defendants based on John Ball's alleged exposure to asbestos. Defendant Metalclad Insulation Corporation moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment. In 1968, Metalclad . . . contracted with the United States Navy to supply insulation for stainless steel piping in the reactor area of four nuclear submarines built at Mare Island Naval Shipyard... in Vallejo, California. Plaintiffs allege John Ball ('decedent') was exposed to asbestos containing insulation while working as a joiner and shipwright from 1965 to 1972 at [Mare Island] aboard the USS Guitarro, USS Hawkbill, USS Pintado and USS Drum, the submarines for which Metalclad brokered the Unibestos at issue. In its order granting Metalclad's motion for summary judgment, the trial court ruled: "Defendant has shown by admissible evidence and reasonable inference therefrom that Metalclad is not liable as a government contractor. The United States government approved precise specifications for the Metalclad-supplied Unibestos used aboard the USS Hawkbill (the nuclear submarine at issue in this case); the Metalclad-supplied Unibestos conformed to the government's specifications; and Metalclad had no duty to warn the government because the government was well aware of the potential hazards of asbestos. Further, Pittsburgh Corning, the manufacturer of the Unibestos supplied by Metalclad, provided warnings. Plaintiffs' general negligence (excluding negligent failure to warn) and strict liability manufacturing and design defect claims are barred by the government contractor defense. "With respect to plaintiffs' negligent failure to warn and strict liability failure to warn claims... Metalclad has demonstrated that the Navy exercised full control over the specifications and uses for materials on board nuclear submarines at Mare Island Naval Shipyard, and that a warning was not required in the specifications by the Navy. Evidence [was] presented that Metalclad never took possession of the subject Unibestos. Metalclad presented uncontroverted evidence that a warning was provided on the boxes of Unibestos by the manufacturer Pittsburgh Corning, but that warning did not prevent decedent from exposure. Metalclad therefore has met its burden to show that a warning given by Metalclad would not have affected how the Unibestos was used by the Navy, or prevented decedent's alleged exposure." Since the evidence is uncontroverted that Metalclad never had possession of the Unibestos and there is no evidence [John Ball] ever saw a shipping container, the Court settles that the question is whether there is any substantial evidence raising a triable issue that Metalclad could have required Pittsburgh Corning to place a warning label on each box of the product before Pittsburgh Corning commenced doing so itself. The Court finds that the evidence identified by Plaintiffs on this point (i.e., deposition testimony that Metalclad's purchase order directed Pittsburgh Corning to mark the cartons of Unibestos to include information required by the applicable naval shipping specification) is not sufficient to raise a triable issue as to causation. The Court concludes that there simply is no evidence as to whether Metalclad could have directed Pittsburgh Corning to place an asbestos warning on the boxes of Unibestos, or whether Pittsburgh Corning could have, or would have, complied with such a request. On this record, the Court finds these as matters of speculation, which does not, and cannot, raise a triable issue. A full-text copy of the Opinion dated April 19, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8p45mob from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhaeuser Bid to Junk "Kilty" Claims Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Elvira Kilty and Herbert Spatz, both deceased, are former Weyerhaeuser employees. In an end around the Wisconsin Worker's Compensation Act's exclusivity provision, their estates and respective family members assert claims against Weyerhaeuser based on non-workplace exposure -- so-called "community exposure" to asbestos. Both of plaintiffs' respective complaints allege claims against defendant Weyerhaeuser based on asbestos fibers transported or emitted outside of the plant, either by "a worker clothing, personal effects, hair, and skin [that] had become contaminated by asbestos fibers at the plant; and b. collecting, removing, hauling, and dumping asbestos dust and waste materials." Based on these emissions into the community and plaintiffs' alleged exposure to these emissions, plaintiffs bring claims for common law negligence, negligent nuisance, and intentional nuisance against defendant Weyerhaeuser. Judge William M. Conley of the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin has issued an Opinion and Order: (1) Denying Weyerhaeuser's motion to dismiss under the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. As already explained in prior opinions, if Plaintiffs were alleging claims based on exposure to asbestos fibers carried home from the plant, those claims would have been barred by the Worker's Compensation Act because the exposure would still arise out of the employment, regardless of the fact that the exposure actually occurred at home. While the Court remains skeptical that Plaintiffs will be able to prove the causal link, or that a reasonable jury could allocate separate damages to that community exposure, that skepticism alone is an insufficient basis to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaints, and Defendant's motion to dismiss under the WCA's exclusivity provision is denied. (2) Granting Weyerhaeuser's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' respective nuisance claims on the basis that they are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, since those claims similarly involve a claimed injury -- the public right to clean air -- which on the face of Plaintiffs' complaints ended when Weyerhaeuser ceased use of asbestos in 1979. While Plaintiffs failed to develop any other argument, the Court considered whether Plaintiffs' claims could be viewed as a continuing nuisance, relieving Plaintiffs of the six-year statute of limitations for damage to property or the likely more appropriate, three-year statute of limitations for intentional and negligent tort claims. The Court finds, however, that the alleged air quality issue still ended with Weyerhaeuser ceasing use of asbestos in 1979 or shortly thereafter, rendering meaningless whether the admissions during the course of Weyerhaeuser's use of asbestos could be viewed as a continuing nuisance. Moreover, even if the asbestos exposure itself could be deemed an injury, the Court holds that a continuing injury "does not extend the period of limitations." (3) Denying Weyerhaeuser's motion to exclude Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Weyerhaeuser claims that Plaintiffs' pleadings do not meet the requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Under Wisconsin law, the Court explains that punitive damages are available if Plaintiffs can prove an intentional disregard of their rights. Whether or not it can be proved, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Defendant acted in intentional disregard of their rights in releasing asbestos fibers into the air -- alleging that Weyerhaeuser knew of emissions and knew that exposure to asbestos emissions caused disease and death. This is all that is needed to meet the requirements of Rule 8. (4) Denying Weyerhaeuser's argument that Plaintiffs' negligence claims are barred by public policy. While this argument may have merit, the Court declines to consider it on the pleadings alone, finding that the Court will benefit from a more robust record in weighing the public policy factors. Also, the Court is concerned about judicial efficiency, since there will be no need to consider public policy if there is no finding of negligence. In most cases, the better practice is to submit the case to the jury before determining whether the public policy considerations preclude liability. The case is Pamela Kilty, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Elvira Kilty, Paul J. Kilty, David L. Kilty, William J. Kilty and James S. Kilty, Plaintiffs, v. Weyerhaeuser Company, 3M Company, and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendants. Scott Spatz, individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Herbert Spatz, Plaintiff, v. Weyerhaeuser Company, 3M Company, and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendants, Nos. 16-cv-515-wmc, 16-cv-726-wmc, (W.D. Wis.). A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated April 17, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ycqddy9p from Leagle.com. Pamela Kilty, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Elvira Kilty, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Daniel Benjamin Hausman, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., John Eugene Herrick - - jherrick@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Meredith Kay Clark -- mkclark@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC & Nathan David Finch -- nfinch@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC. Paul J. Kilty, David L. Kilty, William J. Kilty & James S. Kilty, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., John Eugene Herrick -- jherrick@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Meredith Kay Clark -- mkclark@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC & Nathan David Finch -- nfinch@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC. Weyerhaeuser Company, A corporation, Defendant, represented by Tanya D. Ellis -- tanya.ellis@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Charles M. McGuffey -- mitch.mcguffey@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Joshua J. Metcalf -- joshua.metcalf@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Mark S. DesRochers, DesRochers Law Offices, LLC, Ruth Maron -- ruth.maron@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Thomas Benton York -- Benton.York@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP & Walter G. Watkins, III -- wg.watkins@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP. 3M Company, A corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward J. McCambridge -- emccambridge@smsm.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., Jason Patrick Eckerly -- jeckerly@smsm.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., Jennifer Budner, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Bradley R. Bultman -- bbultman@larsonking.com -- Larson King LLP, Grace Ellen Mangieri, Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd., Nathan Joseph Law -- nlaw@SMSM.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. & Patrick Francis Sullivan, III -- psullivan@smsm.com -- Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney, Ltd. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, A corporation, Defendant, represented by Smitha Chintamaneni -- schintam@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Denies Weyerhaeuser Bid to Dismiss "Kappel" ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled Michael D. Kappel and Marina P. Kappel, Plaintiffs, v. Weyerhaeuser Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Unknown Insurers of Roddis Plywood, and Unknown Insurers of Weyerhaeuser Company, Defendants, No. 17-cv-519-wmc, (W.D. Wis.), Plaintiffs assert various claims against defendant Weyerhaeuser Company and its insurer Metropolitan Life Insurance Company based on Weyerhaeuser's alleged emissions of asbestos into the Marshfield, Wisconsin, community. This case is one of a second wave of asbestos-related claims concerning community or environmental exposure caused by defendant Weyerhaeuser Company's alleged emission of asbestos fibers. Unlike the others cases, however, plaintiff Michael D. Kappel, now deceased, did not work at Weyerhaeuser during the period of time its predecessor used asbestos in the manufacturing of fireproof doors. As such, his alleged exposure to asbestos is solely based on emissions into the community. In his original complaint, Kappel alleges that he suffers from "asbestos related disease," but does not specify the nature of that injury or the onset date. Defendant Weyerhaeuser moved to dismiss, raising several arguments, including that the plaintiffs failed to allege with sufficient specificity the claimed injury and the date of diagnosis. While Defendant Weyerhaeuser's motion to dismiss was pending, Kappel passed away. Plaintiffs then sought a stay, "pending the outcome of analysis of autopsy tissue by plaintiffs' pathology expert which is necessary to conclusively determine the correct diagnosis (mesothelioma v. adenocarcinoma or other lung cancer). Defendants did not oppose the stay, which the Court granted. Subsequently, the Court extended the stay to provide additional time for the expert to finalize the results. After the extended date had lapsed, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failing to allege Kappel's injury with sufficient specificity. In response, Plaintiffs filed a proposed amended complaint, which alleges the Kappel suffered from adenocarcinoma, and also substitutes as plaintiff Stacy Kappel, individually and as special administrator of the Estate of Michael Kappel. Judge William M. Conley of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin accepts Plaintiffs' proposed amended complaint and evaluates Weyerhaeuser's motion to dismiss in light of that pleading. The Court also notes that a number of Weyerhaeuser's grounds for dismissal were raised in two other related asbestos cases, Kilty v. Weyerhaeuser, No. 16-cv-515 (W.D. Wis. July 20, 2016), and Spatz v. Weyerhaeuser, No. 16-cv- 726 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 3, 2016). The Court issued an opinion in those cases, which it adopts here. In brief, the Court will grant Defendants' motion to dismiss negligent nuisance and intentional nuisance claims as time-barred, leaving Plaintiffs' common law negligence claim to proceed. The Court will also deny Defendants' motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim. Specific to this case, Weyerhaeuser asserts two additional grounds for dismissal. First, Weyerhaeuser argues that Plaintiff failed to allege Kappel's employment or employment-related exposures, presumably to avoid Weyerhaeuser's argument that his claims are barred by the exclusivity provision in Wisconsin's Workers' Compensation Act. Because Plaintiffs' negligence claim rests solely on community or environmental exposure to asbestos, Plaintiffs need not allege Kappel's employment history with Weyerhaeuser. For the reasons explained in the Court's opinion and order in the Kilty/Spatz cases, the WCA does not bar claims based on environmental or community exposure. Moreover, unlike the other plaintiffs in related Weyerhaeuser asbestos cases, as Plaintiffs explain in their opposition brief, the Court finds that Kappel did not work at Weyerhaeuser during the period of time asbestos was used. Kappel testified at his deposition that he began working at the Marshfield plant in May 1979 and Weyerhaeuser asserted in other asbestos cases that they stopped using asbestos in June 1978. Second, Weyerhaeuser seeks dismissal of Plaintiffs' claim based on the failure to allege the specific diagnosis and date of diagnosis. The Court points out that the amended complaint corrects this defect, alleging Kappel's diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the lung and his date of death. In support of its motion to dismiss, Weyerhaeuser represents that "in other cases, the Court determined that the Plaintiffs could meet the special injury requirement when they claimed an injury of mesothelioma," citing Boyer v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 2015 WL 3485262, (W.D. Wis. 2015). But the Court made no such finding in Boyer. The Court explains that the first wave of Weyerhaeuser asbestos cases had a mix of mesothelioma and lung cancer (more generally) diagnoses. While none of the non-mesothelioma cases survived summary judgment, the Court did not dismiss those cases on the pleadings. Accordingly, the Court similarly declines to dismiss Plaintiffs' claim, especially given the apparent lack of workplace exposures. A full-text copy of the Opinion and Order dated April 17, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybol9uaq from Leagle.com. Marina Kappel, Stacy Kappel, Individually and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Michael Kappel & Tammy Prindel, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Daniel Benjamin Hausman, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. Weyerhauser Company, Defendant, represented by Charles M. McGuffey -- mitch.mcguffey@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Joshua J. Metcalf -- joshua.metcalf@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Mark S. DesRochers, DesRochers Law Offices, LLC, Ruth Maron -- ruth.maron@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP, Tanya D. Ellis -- tanya.ellis@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP & Thomas Benton York -- Benton.York@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Smitha Chintamaneni -- schintam@vonbriesen.com -- von Briesen & Roper. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Warning for Empty C & H Mineral Bldg -------------------------------------------------------------- UpperMichigansSource.com reported that the Western Upper Peninsula Health Department issued an asbestos exposure warning. People should avoid the 1,000-foot stretch of M-26 near the C & H Mineral Building in Hubbell. The building is located on the north end of Hubbell between M-26 and Torch Lake, just past Koppers. The warning follows a Department of Environmental Quality assessment. The assessment revealed roofing material that had fallen from the building contained asbestos. MDEQ has removed 14 tons of roofing material from the property between 2016 and 2017. "Now the property owner will be responsible for any cleanup of any additional roofing material that may fall from the building. We are also looking to work with various entities and stakeholders to see if we can more fully secure the building and put up additional signage," said WUPHD health officer Kate Beer. Building owner Silver Shore Enterprise Inc. is responsible for any necessary additional cleanup. The public is advised to avoid the building and surrounding 1,000- foot area. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brunel School Accused of Asbestos Cover-Up ----------------------------------------------------------- Katie Timms of Plymouth Herald reported that parents say they fear their children's "lives are at stake" amid an investigation into reports of asbestos at a primary school. It is understood that the inspection at Brunel Primary and Nursery Academy in Saltash began. But parents say the presence of asbestos in a classroom was first reported as long ago as October 2017. Representatives from the trust which runs the school have confirmed the investigation and issued a statement. Mums and dads say they are worried the material has been disturbed by workmen who were not aware the material was there. The Herald was made aware of the investigation when a concerned member of the public said they saw men in white suits coming in and out of the school. A worried mum, who wishes to remain anonymous, said: "To be honest, there's a lot more serious allegations than this. "It seems that they're trying to cover it up. Our children are at the school still. "It's a nightmare. Our kids' lives are at stake, we don't know what they're being exposed to." Brunel Primary & Nursery Academy, Saltash (Image: Penny Cross) The mum added that she believes the area of the school containing asbestos is next to the lunch hall and thinks that it will affect all of the pupils at the school, which remains open as usual. She said: "It's right next to the canteen so not only are they probably breathing it in, they're probably eating it as well. "It's absolute nonsense. "I've had serious concerns for quite some time." Another concerned parent said that the asbestos was initially discovered in October and that Bridge MAT -- the trust which runs the school -- "basically ignored it until recently". The parent, who wishes to remain anonymous, said: "The school and MAT refused to act until Christmas as it would mean having the electrical supply shut off, however they had workmen in the contaminated area and never told them as no signage was placed up until late January. "The cleaners also found asbestos on the window sills high up in the corridors within an area of six classrooms. "There is more to this and a cover up appears to be happening, however they need to be held accountable as the risk to the health of countless children has been blatantly been ignored." The Herald understands that the type of asbestos identified in the school is amosite. A spokesperson for Bridge MAT said: "We can confirm that asbestos was found within the key stage one building at Brunel Primary Academy and Nursery. "This incident has been notified to the Health and Safety Executive and Public Health England and is currently the subject of an on-going investigation by them both. "We have informed all of the pupils, teachers, parents and carers of the situation that that we are conducting an environmental clean of one classroom, corridor and toilet area. We will continue to update them as the investigation proceeds. "Due to the investigation it wouldn't be appropriate for us to comment further at this time." What is asbestos? All information regarding asbestos is supplied by www.mesothelioma.com Asbestos refers to six naturally occurring fibrous minerals that have the ability to resist heat, fire and electricity. Although asbestos fibers are microscopic in nature, they are extremely durable and resistant to fire and most chemical reactions and breakdowns. These properties of asbestos supported its use for many years in a number of different commercial and industrial settings, as well as in a wide range of consumer products. Although its use has diminished in recent decades, there are still many products that contain asbestos, especially in older homes, schools, and public buildings. Asbestos is perhaps best known for its role in causing mesothelioma, a rare and deadly cancer that can develop in linings of the lungs, abdomen, or heart. Why is asbestos hazardous? Asbestos is made up of microscopic fibers that can easily become airborne and inhaled. Because of their shape, the asbestos particles cling to tissues of the lungs and other areas of the respiratory system. Over time, these tiny fibers can cause inflammation, causing a number of health problems, the three biggest of which are: * Mesothelioma -- This aggressive cancer forms in the thin membrane (mesothelium) that protects vital organs in the chest and abdomen. Exposure to asbestos is the only medically-verified cause of the disease. * Lung Cancer -- Most commonly associated with factors like smoking and radon, lung cancer is also known to be exacerbated by exposure to asbestos. * Asbestosis -- This degenerative respiratory condition results from the formation of scar tissue plaques on the surface of the pleura (lung linings). It can be a precursor to the onset of mesothelioma. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Academy Closes After Asbestos Disturbance ---------------------------------------------------------- Freddie Whitaker of Schools Week reported that Whitehaven Academy, the troubled Cumbrian school at the centre of a row over the state of its buildings, is closed after asbestos was disturbed on its site. The Bright Tribe Trust, which runs the school, said this morning that building materials containing asbestos were discovered "during a routine asbestos survey", and that "swift and effective remedial action was taken". The school is closed so a survey can be carried out. "The two areas concerned were immediately contained and reported to the relevant bodies including the Health and Safety Executive," said a Bright Tribe spokesperson. "During initial investigations into the matter the decision has been made to close the school to allow further survey works to be undertaken, enabling an accurate assessment of risk and then appropriate guidance can be issued." The decision to close the school "has not been made lightly", the spokesperson said, but is in "the best interests of staff and students". "A further update will be issued after the relevant assessments have been concluded and appropriate advice received," they added. Last November, Bright Tribe announced plans to give up Whitehaven, following intense pressure from school staff and parents. The secondary school has been at the centre of a row over the way the trust runs its schools in the north of England, but matters came to a head last autumn when flooding damaged already "dilapidated" buildings on the school site and local MP and education select committee member Trudy Harrison was physically escorted offsite by trust staff when she arrived to check on damage. Whitehaven is expected to be rebrokered to the Cumbria Education Trust, but its proposed new sponsor has said there are "many issues to review" before its board approves the takeover. Bright Tribe is also in the process of giving up all but one of its other schools in the north of England. Last year, a Schools Week investigation found that asbestos had been disturbed at schools in a way that could affect the health of staff and pupils on at least 90 separate occasions in the previous five years. The government has been urged to collect more information about the prevalence of asbestos in schools. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Another Take-Home Asbestos Exposure in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Law 360 reported that in Foglia v. Moore Dry Dock Co., a California appellate court recently upheld the trial court's granting of summary judgment in a secondary exposure asbestos case where the plaintiffs could offer no admissible evidence that the decedent's father worked around asbestos-containing materials. The trial court excluded the plaintiff's testimony regarding his father's work because he admitted he had no personal knowledge of the subject, and also sustained the defendant's objections to an affidavit of the decedent's aunt who likewise had no personal knowledge of the decedent's father's exposure. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fire Rips Through Asbestos-Containing House ------------------------------------------------------------ Lauren Tomasi of 9news.com-au reported that a home previously raided by police has been destroyed by a suspicious blaze this morning. Video captured the moment flames and smoke shot into the air as the Skye Road property ignited in Frankston just before 5am. Witnesses told 9NEWS they heard "popping and crackling". "I ran inside, and woke the kids and the wife up," local Brad Warrior said. "The flames were coming out the front (of the home), the roof was collapsing." Firefighters arrived at the scene and conducted a search to ensure no-one was inside. "Potentially there might have been squatters . . . we did a thorough search of the property and didn't locate anyone inside," Tom Hoppner from the Country Fire Authority (CFA) said. After spending hours containing the blaze, emergency services de- contaminated clothes amid asbestos concerns. The cause of the blaze continues to be investigated. Neighbours have told 9NEWS the house has gained notoriety in recent years, with two men being arrested in March after being found hiding in the roof. They were wanted over an alleged carjacking and police pursuit on the Mornington Peninsula, during which officers opened fire. In an unrelated matter, a cannabis crop worth $1 million was found inside the property in April 2016. Four-hundred marijuana plants were seized, while hidden grow rooms were dismantled. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Fragments Found at Nairn Academy ---------------------------------------------------------- Jamie McKenzie of Press and Journal reported that school staff said they were "incorrectly advised" that a woodwork area at Nairn Academy could be used after asbestos temporarily closed a number of other classrooms. The asbestos fragments were discovered in some parts of the school in Nairn following work over the Easter break to remove moss from the building's roof. Concerns were raised about small amounts of dust appearing in the rooms. The affected areas of the school were closed so they could be cleaned and tested. But the letter to parents said: "Unfortunately the school was incorrectly advised that the woodwork area could be used." A Highland Council spokeswoman confirmed that the chryostile (white asbestos), which is found in small fragments of roof ceiling paint coating, had fallen and settled on surfaces. But she stressed that the Health and Safety Executive was informed and advised that the incident is not reportable under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Ocurrences Regulations 2013, due to "negligible risk" to health and safety. An NHS Highland spokesman also said that a small number of students and staff were in these areas of the school for short periods of time before fragments were removed. The spokesman stressed that, due to the small amount of asbestos involved, and short period of exposure, the fragments were "unlikely to have posed a significant health risk." Work has been done to clean up all affected areas and sampling has confirmed no asbestos is now present. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dump Found on West Coast Beach -------------------------------------------------------- Julian Lee of Stuff.co.nz reported that an old asbestos cache has been discovered on a West Coast beach. Rough weather this year, including the remains of ex-cyclone Gita in February, have exposed the old dump site on the foreshore near Hector, about 30 kilometres north of Westport. The West Coast Regional Council and the Buller District Council have put up signs alerting people about the dump while they figure out what to do. The councils said the dump, thought to be used in the 1970s and 80s, was once used by a coal mine operating in nearby Ngakawau. Hector resident Anne Crawford said the "toxic" site was well known to older locals as once being the area's official rubbish dump. "It has been covered over and people have been dumping garden rubbish there. It was the official rubbish tip in 1974 and many years before then." Timber and iron, as well as other materials, have also been exposed by the weather. Both councils have established a working group to plan for the "long term management of the site", according to a press release. The group will consult experts on the matter. Buller will "monitor and maintain" the area in the "short to medium term". In the longer term, both councils will need to build up a protective barrier between the dump and the sea to prevent further erosion. Both councils are also looking for cash to help pay for the protective works. They have applied to the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund, which is a government fund for cleaning up historic contaminated sites. Buller District Council assets and infrastructure group manager Mike Duff said the council was responsible because it owned the land. "No-one wants to see these historic materials on our beaches and the councils are working proactively to ensure a practical long term solution for our community". The area is vulnerable to rough weather, with residents in Hector and nearby Granity evacuated in February amid fears a raging sea whipped up by ex-cyclone Gita could flood their homes. Emergency services went door-to-door to order people form their homes in a mandatory evacuation of properties on the seaward side of the main road north of Westport. ASBESTOS UPDATE: ConRail Off Hook for Asbestos Death ---------------------------------------------------- Law360 reported that a Pennsylvania appeals court upheld the dismissal of a case brought against Consolidated Rail Corp. by a man who died of lung cancer because of asbestos exposure, noting that all evidence indicates he signed away his right to sue in 2004 when settling his previous case for having nonmalignant mesothelioma. The panel agreed with the lower court that a release form decedent Philip Jarrett signed back in 2004 in which he agreed not to sue Conrail. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Scheduled in Reinsurance Claims ------------------------------------------------------ HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a New York federal judge has scheduled a Feb. 25 jury trial in a reinsurance dispute between Utica Mutual Insurance Co. and R&Q Reinsurance Co. involving coverage for underlying asbestos injury claims. In an April 23 order, Judge Brenda K. Sannes of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York ordered Utica to complete its document production by May 25, and R&Q to complete its review of Utica's supplemental document production by June 4. R&Q issued Utica multiple facultative reinsurance contracts that were in effect from 1976 to 1983, and from 1984 to 1986. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tests Find Asbestos in Apartment Complex --------------------------------------------------------- U.S. News & World Report reported that testing has found that there's asbestos nearly everywhere in an abandoned Alamogordo apartment complex, a finding that complicates the city's desire to demolish the dilapidated property. The Alamogordo Daily News reports that City Manager Maggie Paluch says the contractor found asbestos in the Sahara Apartments' flooring, exterior plaster, window glazing and drywall compound. Asbestos increases risks for cancer and other health problems. Paluch says the contractor believes that the city will need to have a certified company both dispose of the asbestos and demolish the buildings under federal environmental protection standards. She says no cost estimate is immediately available. The apartments were evacuated in 2010 after a heavy rainstorm flooded the property. An inspection then found the property to be in violation of nine sections of the property maintenance code. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Disease Severity Highlighted ------------------------------------------------------ Geraldine Scott of Norfolk Eastern Daily Press reported that specialist asbestos-related disease lawyers are speaking out on Workers' Memorial Day about the dangers of asbestos and their concern over the number of deaths linked to exposure of the substance in public buildings. Workers' Memorial Day today (April 28), is a day to "remember the dead and to fight for the living" by paying respects to those who have died as a result of their employment, continuing to improve health and safety standards in the workplace, and increase protection in place for employees. Latest figures released by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) show that the number of asbestos- related disease deaths in the UK in 2015 was over 3000. The vast majority of these deaths, 2,542, were caused by mesothelioma, which is a cancer of the lining of the lungs. The disease is commonly associated with exposure to asbestos, and it often takes decades for symptoms to show following this exposure. The number of deaths caused by mesothelioma between 1981 and 2015 in Norfolk was 894. Although the majority of those were men, women accounted for 128 of those deaths. In Suffolk, the figure stands at 764 deaths with women accounting for 133. Inhalation of asbestos dust and fibres cannot only cause mesothelioma, as well as lung cancer, but also other serious lung diseases. These include asbestosis and plural thickening. Graham Buckland, a former college technician from Emneth, near Wisbech, was diagnosed with mesothelioma just over 18 months ago. Mr Buckland, 77, was diagnosed following a biopsy at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, King's Lynn. His legal team believe he may have been exposed to the deadly asbestos dust and fibres while working as a technician at Dacorum College, Hemel Hempstead, for Herefordshire County Council between 1982 and 1992. Mr Buckland said: "The tiles were often removed, replaced and drilled into, during a range of refurbishment work and, as I had not been given any warnings or protection, I would tend to sweep up any dust myself. When the asbestos removal works eventually took place, it's quite likely that I was again exposed to asbestos dust. "When you go to work you simply never expect that your health may be put at risk, yet I'm stunned by the fact that this appears to be the case." Specialist asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin Mitchell have taken up Mr Buckland's case. Rosemary Giles, a partner at the firm's Cambridge office, said: "These latest figures highlight the sad reality that we see day to day in our work. "That reality is many people are dying due to asbestos exposure in their past. The majority of those exposed to asbestos were done so at work, and were completely unaware of the dangers of asbestos when exposed to it." Ms Giles, who is also a senior litigator and an Association of Personal Injury Lawyers-accredited asbestos disease specialist, added: "Mesothelioma is an extremely aggressive and incurable cancer and it causes a great deal of suffering to those affected by it. That's why it is so important that we work to get justice for them, and answers for how and where they were exposed to asbestos. "The first asbestos regulations, to manage the use of asbestos because of its danger to health, became law in 1931, so to learn that people were exposed to the fibres much later is very upsetting for the individuals or the families who come to us. "Now, we are fully aware of the dangers, and fatalities are regularly publicised, it seems only right that robust measures are put in place to ensure when the time comes, the removal of this potentially deadly substance is managed properly." ASBESTOS UPDATE: St. Clair County Asbestos Trial Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Heather Isringhausen Gvillo of Madison County Record reported that St. Clair County's first asbestos trial since plaintiffs' firms have turned their attention to Madison County's neighboring jurisdiction is underway in Circuit Judge Vincent Lopinot's court. The trial began with a rocky start Monday. According to a courthouse official, jurors were sent to the wrong courtroom Monday. Then, several jurors didn't show up after being sent an email telling them they didn't have to come in. Plaintiffs John and Kaye Vipond filed the lawsuit on July 18, 2016. They allege John Vipond was exposed to asbestos during his service in the U.S. Navy from 1956 to 1961, his employment as a laborer with Hi-Tex Brickyard in Aledo, Ill., in 1961, and as a laborer, welder, assembly line worker, fork truck operator and grinder with International Harvester in East Moline, Ill., from 1962 to 1991. Vipond developed mesothelioma in June 2016. Defendant Iowa-Illinois Taylor Insulation, Inc., or IITI, is the only remaining defendant at trial. Testimony kicked off with a video discovery deposition of James Groves, IITI's corporate representative. The defendant objected to the video deposition, arguing that Groves will provide an in-person testimony at trial. "Discovery depositions are not permitted to be used at a trial even if the deponent is unavailable, because that use would inhibit free discovery by requiring time-consuming evidentiary objections at every discovery deposition," the defendants' bench memorandum in opposition stated. IITI, argued that the plaintiff would have an opportunity to "confront and cross-examine" Groves in open court. "Allowing plaintiff to play the video of Mr. Groves' discovery deposition and examine him live at trial would be an imbalance to the equities in violation of the law of the case doctrine and would amount to improper bolstering through the admission of cumulative evidence," the memorandum stated. Before Groves' discovery deposition was played during court, defense attorney Douglas M. Sinars of Sinars Rollins LLC in Chicago renewed his objection, which was noted by Lopinot as a continuous objection. Groves began working at IITI in 1968 shortly after graduating high school. He was later promoted to vice president in the 1980s before purchasing Midwest Thermal Insulation in 1989. He explained that IITI was in the business of installing various types of insulation, including asbestos insulation, fiberglass insulation, foam insulations and more. Then in the 1980s, Groves said IITI began removing asbestos for companies. Groves asked the attorneys deposing him to be specific on the company's name, explaining that there are several variations of Iowa-Illinois Taylor Insulation and they are not all the same. During his deposition, Groves grew frustrated when questioned about IITI's history and practices prior to 1968. "What's the play here? It looks like I'm on trial here," Groves said. "Let's talk about the case. What does what they did in '56 and '63 have to do with the case?" He added that he was 19 years old when he joined IITI and didn't look into the company's "dirty laundry." Groves was also questioned about documents that were supposedly lost by the "Patterson Law Firm" before they turned up in a 2009 trial against IITI. Groves said IITI has a records clerk who keeps track of records, conducts research and requests records and that he did not know whether the lost documents had been found. ""You're going back nine years," Groves said. "I can't remember some of the things I did yesterday. My mother died of dementia." He added that he did not personally request the documents for this case because that would have been the duty of the records clerk. Then when shown a document from 1932, Groves said, "That was the year I was born. I should have asked for that document right that day." "You could have asked for the documents after you joined the company," the attorney responded. Following Groves' deposition, plaintiff attorney Ryan Sweet of Flint Law Firm in Edwardsville questioned Donald DeLoose, the decedent's former co-worker. DeLoose said he began working at International Harvester in 1963 and retired in 1993. He testified that steam pipes ran for miles throughout the 50-acre plant. DeLoose testified that after OSHA standards for asbestos exposure came out in the 1970s, he was asked to join the safety committee. Then in 1981 he took a safety training course, where he was told by an OSHA instructor that all asbestos insulation currently being used at the plant needed to be properly removed by a professional. He said the instructor told him, "Asbestos is a big deal. It's a bad thing to have in your plant." He said International Harvester's safety committee decided to have IITI remove the asbestos and directed employees not to touch any of it. DeLoose also testified that IITI exclusively removed the asbestos and that IITI was always the initials signed in on the log book. Sweet noted that DeLoose called the asbestos abatement company Taylor in a prior deposition and asked him why. DeLoose responded by saying that he was told that Taylor Insulation was being sued for the death of co-worker Ed Davis in 2009. DeLoose also testified that IITI's employees did not remove the asbestos properly, covering the International Harvester employees and their machines with asbestos dust and insulation. On one occasion, DeLoose said they had to send workers home due to the asbestos mess. When Sweet asked him to describe what he saw, DeLoose said it "was like an atomic bomb." During IITI's cross examination, DeLoose told Sinars that he had tried to throw IITI out about 15 times. Sinars read excerpts from DeLoose's prior deposition in which the witness repeatedly called the abatement company "Taylor" and said the truck had "Taylor Insulation" or "Taylor Asbestos" written on the side. He didn't call them "IITI" until his testimony Friday. DeLoose also said during his deposition that he didn't actually observe the IITI employees removing asbestos but was told about the improper removal practices by employees. He added, though, that he saw the mess left behind. While St. Clair County's asbestos filings are a far cry from the filing numbers in hotspot jurisdictions like Madison County, the St. Clair County filings increased 200 percent last year, according to analysis of 2017 filings conducted by Washington- based consulting group KCIC. The St. Clair County docket tripled from 69 in 2016 to 207 in 2017. Of those new cases, 199 of them were filed on behalf of plaintiffs alleging lung cancer. By comparison, Madison County saw 1,128 cases filed in 2017 -- a 13.4 percent drop from 2016. However, Madison County still remains the preferred jurisdiction with more than twice the number of filings than its closest competing jurisdiction in Baltimore. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Clean-Up Resumes at Wonderland -------------------------------------------------------- Sue Woodcock of Revere Journal reported that after months of work at a standstill the owners of Wonderland Dog Track have resumed work, taking away piles of rubble containing asbestos. In a letter to the council from Chip Tuttle, representing the property owners CWB Lending, regarding an update on the demolition of the site, he outlined how work will proceed. Ward 5 Councillor John Powers said there was a meeting with the principals of Wonderland and the Department of Environmental Protection. Much of the work relies on DEP inspections as the project goes along. Tuttle expected a calendar of work to come in the next few days. DEP has implemented some conditions. CBW plans meetings with abatement and demolition contractors. Movement forward will rely on DEP inspections. Tuttle stated that they would be continuing work for the next three to six months. Post abatement and demo contractors are ready to go. Tuttle said the time frames are conservative. "They said they will have all of that trash out of there by the end of this month," Powers said. "A tentative day of July 31 for completion of the demo work. I'm not going to let this go. They stopped the work because they found asbestos in there in October. They understand that (asbestos) has to be taken out of there and those buildings need to come down." Councillor George Rotondo said this was "foreseen. It's not something they did not know that they had. The foot dragging has been disgusting to me." Powers said the DEP has been to Wonderland several times. "The people who did that asbestos abatement did a poor job, that's how the DEP got here," Powers said. "There was a lot of plaster and the asbestos was used in that plaster." Council President Jessica Gianinno said when the city had to deal with schools with asbestos they didn't wait a year. "The next time they come up to us, they will be held at a higher standard so that this does not continue to be an issue," she said. Nick Moulaison, chairman of the Conservation Commission, said, "We want results and we want answers. The contractor wanted to remove the stuff but DEP wouldn't let them. They knew the building had asbestos." ASBESTOS UPDATE: NYC Asbestos Court Still Plaintiff's Playground ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Fisher of Legal News Line reported that the retrial of former New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver began on charges including allegations he collected millions of dollars in improper payments from a prominent asbestos law firm, Weitz & Luxenberg. Meanwhile Weitz & Luxenberg still dominates the special court in New York that oversees asbestos cases, a court that defendants say features rules that are unfairly skewed in favor of plaintiffs. Silver was convicted in 2015 of illegally accepting more than $3 million in fees from Weitz & Luxenberg -- prosecutors called them "kickbacks" -- for referring clients he obtained from a mesothelioma doctor whom he aided with $500,000 in state grants. His conviction and 12-year sentencewere overturned in July 2017 after the U.S. Supreme Court significantly narrowed the leeway for prosecutors to prove official corruption. Silver's retrial will likely focus on the same allegations that he traded official favors for millions of dollars in kickbacks from law firms. His connection with Weitz & Luxenberg also cast harsh light on the practices of the New York Consolidated Asbestos Litigation docket, however, which handles asbestos lawsuits arising in the five boroughs of New York. As Speaker of the State Assembly, Silver named Arthur Luxenberg to the Judicial Screening Committee for the First Department, which includes NYCAL. The special court draws its jurors mostly from the island of Manhattan and has a reputation of delivering large plaintiff verdicts, including a $60 million jury award earlier this month and a $75 million verdict last year. Plaintiffs win more than 80% of jury trials in New York City, compared with a 50/50 success rate in upstate New York and other parts of the country. As a result, defendants say, lawyers try to place their cases in the NYCAL system even if their clients can only claim fleeting exposures to asbestos in New York City. Most asbestos lawsuits are over mesothelioma, a cancer of the pleural lining that can be caused by sustained exposure to asbestos. The court took a dramatic turn in favor of plaintiffs in 2014 when, at the behest of Weitz & Luxenberg, then-presiding Judge Sherry Sherry Klein Heitler reinstated punitive damages after a 16-year hiatus. Heitler overruled objections by defendants that punitive damages were unmerited for claims dating back decades for practices by businesses that often no longer exist, as well as complaints punitives drain off assets that should be preserved to pay future asbestos claimants. Heitler was removed from NYCAL in 2015, but defendants complain her replacements have done little to restore balance to the court. A new Case Management Order adopted in 2017 after more than a year of discussions between lawyers for plaintiffs and defendants retained punitive damages and introduced an "accelerated docket" that defendants say forces them to prepare for hundreds of trials a year while plaintiff lawyers effectively get to cherry-pick the minority of cases that will actually be scheduled to go before a jury. "After Judge Heitler was replaced, a number of defendants held out hope, but I wouldn't say much has changed," said Mark Hsu, a partner with Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young who represents asbestos defendants. "In fact, with punitive damages in play, there is more risk than ever for defendants." Weitz & Luxenberg is the most powerful plaintiff law firm operating in NYCAL. The fact it would pay Silver more than $3 million for what Silver admitted was doing little more than supplying the names of potential clients demonstrates the profitability of the asbestos practice, especially in New York. The firm didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. But in court filings, plaintiff lawyers say defendant companies benefit from special rules that are more restrictive than the general rules of procedure in New York courts, including strict limits on the number of plaintiffs that can be included in a single trial and requirements for extensive pre-trial documentation of claims. Defendant companies have complained bitterly about NYCAL for years and it regularly appears on the American Tort Reform Association's list of "Judicial Hellholes." The lititgation climate swerved sharply pro-plaintiff after Heitler reinstated punitive damages. Defendants said the move fit a pattern of favoring the law firm in court rulings and other actions, such as allowing Weitz & Luxenberg to "cherry pick" cases set for trial. By restoring the threat of punitive damages, plaintiff lawyers could negotiate for higher settlements because defendants would fear blockbuster verdicts if they took their cases before a jury. Heitler was replaced at NYCAL in 2015 and defendants hoped her replacement, Peter Moulton, would revise the Case Management Order governing how cases proceed and are selected for trial. Driving their push for new rules was the shift away from companies that distributed amphibole asbestos, the most dangerous form used mostly in insulation, which have largely been driven into bankruptcy. The companies now defending themselves in NYCAL tend to be solvent corporations like Honeywell, Ford Motor Co. and Mondelez International, whose liability stems from acquired businesses or even brand names, or products that until recently weren't considered dangerous. They argued strenuously for changes including eliminating punitive damages and preventing multiple-plaintiff trials, which defense lawyers say confuse jurors and prejudice their clients. In June 2017 Moulton unveiled a revised CMO but it provided little relief for defendants. Trials were limited to a maximum of three plaintiffs, or a single plaintiff if punitives were sought. And plaintiff attorneys were ordered to inform the defense if their clients intended for file claims with trusts set up by bankrupt asbestos companies, which defense attorneys say is necessary for them to determine if the plaintiff's illness was caused by exposure to the products of other companies. Defense attorneys say other pro-plaintiff practices have remained the same under Moulton's successor, Judge Manuel Mendez. Those include an "accelerated docket" for plaintiffs who are dying of mesothelioma which allows for clusters of 100 or more cases twice a year. Defendants complain NYCAL allows cases to remain on the docket even after plaintiffs die, undermining the logic of speeding trials for the living. NYCAL also allows plaintiff attorneys to effectively pick the minority of cases that will ultimately be set for trial but only after defendants have been forced to prepare for all of them, expending time and money obtaining documents and deposing witnesses. Defense attorneys also complain of pro-plaintiff practices such as requiring defendants to show the plaintiff wasn't exposed to their products to obtain summary judgment, a reversal of the rule in other jurisdictions where plaintiffs must show strong evidence of exposure in order to proceed. Despite these complaints and a blizzard of court filings by interested groups, a New York appeals court rejected their arguments on March 22. In its decision, the appeals court said NYCAL's rules "do not deprive defendants of their due process or other constitutional rights." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Causes Problems on Apartment Demolition ----------------------------------------------------------------- KRQE News 13 reported that demolishing some problem apartments in Alamogordo could be tricker than expected because of asbestos. The Alamogordo Daily News reports, an inspection revealed the hazardous substance in nearly every area of the Sahara Apartments on Cuba Street. Neighbors have been complaining about the site for years. The building was condemned in 2010 following flooding, then further damaged by fires in 2014 and 2015. The city manager says the city will now have to hire a specially certified contractor to handle the demolition to comply with EPA standards. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Fined EUR50K Over Worker's Asbestos Exposure ----------------------------------------------------------------- Liam Heylin of Irish Examiner reported that a Cork company has been fined EUR50,000 for exposing workers to the risk of inhaling asbestos fibres during demolition works at an office building in Mallow. At Cork Circuit Criminal Court, Leeside Cut & Core Contractors, of Blackhill, Fivemile Bridge, Ballinhassig, Co Cork, pleaded guilty to two charges. The first was that between January 21 and February 6, 2015, at an office building at Gould's Hill, Mallow, Co Cork, it failed to ensure the safety, health, and welfare at work of employees. This was because it failed to manage the demolition work at the premises in circumstances where there were asbestos-containing materials present and that demolition work was being carried out in an uncontrolled fashion causing damage to the asbestos- containing ceiling tiles and floor tiles on the premises, thereby exposing employees to the risk of inhaling asbestos fibres. The second plea of guilty was to the related charge of failing to carry out a risk assessment. Leeside Cut & Core Contractors pleaded guilty to two counts related to the asbestos and was fined at Cork Circuit Criminal Court. Judge Sean O Donnabhain said: "This is quite an alarming case. There is nobody -- be that judge or labourer -- who is not aware of the dangers of being exposed to or working with asbestos. "Yet this company in a cut and core job carried on nonchalantly in the presence of asbestos. Asbestos dust is known about. "It is not one of these hidden dangers. It is on the ceiling [marked asbestos tiles] and all this dust is on the floor and they started driving diggers on it." Cian Cotter, defending, accepted employees and directors of the company stayed on site after being alerted to the presence of asbestos but said they only did so to make the site safe for those commissioned to remove the asbestos. The judge said he found the level of disregard "mind-boggling". HSA inspector, Tom O'Sullivan, testified that the agency received confidential information about work taking place at the office building. He said it was built in the 1970s and that a building of that vintage would have asbestos. He said there was a considerable amount of debris and it should have been apparent to workers there that there was asbestos as the ceiling tiles had an identifying asbestos marking. "Once they became aware of asbestos, they should have stopped their work," Mr O'Sullivan said. Mr Cotter said their job was to remove partition walls and not to interfere with ceiling tiles. He said employees were informed about the presence of asbestos; they were directed not to interfere with the ceiling tiles and were given gloves and masks. He said when the HSA told them it was a high-risk premises, the defendant company fully co-operated in every way and complied with all requirements of them. The judge said if EUR5,000 was paid within a year, an application could be made to pay the remainder of the fine on an annual basis over 10 years. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bowling Club Site Fenced Off for Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------------- St George and Sutherland Shire Leader reported that Georges River Council has taken actions to protect residents and the environment by containing the former Oatley Bowling Club site, and its surrounds, following the discovery of fragments of bonded asbestos. "Council monitoring has revealed that two of the retaining walls at the site have deteriorated and the slight movement of material containing asbestos," a council spokesperson said. "Council has obtained independent scientific advice, which has confirmed that the material currently does not pose a significant risk of harm to human health or the environment, including the adjoining Myles Dunphy Reserve. "However, in order to ensure it does not spread beyond the site boundary, Council has erected a fence around the entire perimeter to prevent access until such time that the asbestos can be further managed. "Council takes the matter of asbestos very seriously and will continue to work to ensure the material does not pose any risk to the community or the adjoining Myles Dunphy Reserve. "Council appreciates the community's cooperation during this time and asks that residents refrain from accessing the site while ever the fence remains." ********* 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, Jessenius Pulido, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche Maricon Castillon-Lopez, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2018. 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. * * * End of Transmission * * *