/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180518.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 18, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 100 Headlines 7 MARKET PLACE: "Moran" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Withheld Tips 7-ELEVEN INC: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Munoz Says ABILITY RECOVERY: "German" Suit Disputes Collection Letter ACCELERATED RECEIVABLES: Obtains Favorable Ruling in FDCPA Case ADA PRODUCTS: Faces "Nikolovski" Suit in N.D. Illinois ALABAMA: Thompson, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses AMP: Quinn Emanuel Mulls Shareholder Class Action ARKANSAS UTILITY: "Milam" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over $2.7-Bil. Pink Batts Scheme BMW BANK: Court Granted Amended Motion to Seal BRAMBLES: Slater and Gordon Files Investor Class Action BRANCH BANKING: Lee Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls BRIGHTER INC: New Concept Dental Sues over Unsolicited Ads C & C ENTERPRISES: Keshner Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA C & V 77: "Tapia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: Comforte Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy CAPITAL SOURCE: Faces "Nikolovski" Suit in N.D. Illinois CARECENTRIX INC: "Deluca" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls CENTRAL BUS SERVICE: "Johnson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay CHURCH AND DWIGHT: Faces "Patton" Suit in C.D. California CIRCUITRY RECYCLING: No Opt-out Provision on Faxed Ads, Says Suit CITYWIDE TRANSMISSIONS: Rosario Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA CLUB CLIMAXXX: Court Denied Certification of Exotic Dancers Class COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says COMPASS GROUP: Hawkins Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA CONTINENTAL SERVICE: "Davis" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA CROWN INTERNATIONAL: Jackson Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA DITECH FINANCIAL: Charges Borrowers Improper Fees, Rodriguez Says DR. PEPPER: "Newman" Suit Seeks to Block Keurig Merger DRILL CUTTINGS: Technicians Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA EAGLE DINER: "Flores" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages XCELIGENT INC: "Borchers" Data Breach Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. FORT WAYNE, IN: "See" Amended Class Certification Bid Denied GLOBAL CREDIT: Certification of Settlement Class Sought GOOSEBUMPS INC: "Meggs" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA GW: Faces Class Action Over Expensive Retirement Plans HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Website not Deaf-Accessible, "Conner" Suit Says HEALTH INSURANCE: Foote Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls HKGDJ INC: Park Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA HOHLA & WYSS: Arp Asks Court to Approve Notice to Employees HONG HOLDINGS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Madrigal Says HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Farmer Files Suit Over Faulty Hip Implant IDAHO: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Public Defense System INCLUSION SERVICES: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Williams Says ISAIA CORP: "Fischler" Suit Says Website not Blind-accessible ITG INC: Class Certification Sought in "Mauthe" Suit JOHN DOES: Levy Sues Over Volatility Index Derivative Rigging JOHNNY MORALES: Bid to Designate Class Action Denied as Moot K & S GLATT: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA KNORR-BREMSE AG: Faces "Carson" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania LINDE CORP: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages LIPOCINE INC: July 2 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set LITTLE BROTHERS: Fails to Pay All Wages Earned, Medina Says LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Certifies Landlord & Renter Classes M & J ASPHALT: Roman, et al. Seek to Notify Class Members MCDONALD'S CORP: "Magee" Class Certification Bid Denied MDL 2804: City of Lynn Joins Opioid Epidemic Class Action MED ONE MOBILE: "Johnston" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MENARD INC: "Astarita" Suit Seeks to Certify Class MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces "Oppenheim" Suit in C.D. California MICRO FOCUS: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Securities Claims MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Cooper" Suit in M.D. Georgia MIZUHO BANK: Justice to Recover Losses in Cryptocurrency Fraud MOKSHA HOTELS: Hotel Employees Seek to Recoup Unpaid OT Wages MR. HOMECARE: "Leonard" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages NATIONAL CONGRESS: Bilek Sues over Robocalls NEPTUNE OYSTER: Website not Blind Accessible, "Conner" Suit Says NEXEN CORP: Hegedus et al. Seek Conditional Class Certification OHIO ELDERLY: Adams Seeks to Certify FLSA Class PARAGON SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Thomas Says PASCHALL TRUCK LINES: Drivers' Labor Suit Transferred to W.D. Ky. PAT'S SELECT: Workers Seek to Recoup Minimum Wages, Reimbursement PAUL J. HOOTEN: Faces "Burgos" Suit in E.D. New York PIZZA HUT: "Ramm" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Siskinds Reaches $36MM Class Settlement POTJANEE INC: Delivery Staff Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Withheld Tips PRIME CAPITAL: Faces "Nikolovski" Suit in N.D. Illinois PROST LLC: Fails to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked, Acosta Says PURDUE PHARMA: Canadian Doctors Call for Opioid Investigation RENT-A-CENTER: "Blair" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass SCHAEFER AUTOBODY: Hubbard, Farmer Seek Conditional Certification SCI DIRECT: Sales Reps Seek Minimum Wages, Reimbursements SHIFTPIXY INC: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Securities Claims SIRIUS XM: Bell Sues over Lifetime Subscriptions SMILE BRANDS: "DeForest" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls SPINNAKER RESORTS: Cardenas Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: "Sebastian" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. STEPHEN EINSTEIN: "Cole" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA TA OPERATING: Faces "Salcedo" Suit in California State Court TENET FLORIDA: MSPA to Appeal Case Dismissal to 11th Cir. TEZOS: Co-Founder Faces FINRA Fine Amid Class Actions TRUECOVERAGE LLC: Dudley Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Fodge Sues Over Excessive Interest Rates UNITED STATES: "Broussard" Suit Seeks to Certify Class UNITED STATES: Faces "Purnell" Suit in N.D. Mississippi VIVID SEATS: Sold Overpriced Tickets, "Giesea" Suit Says WAGEWORKS INC: "Hadden" Suit Hits Share Price Drop WALLE CORPORATION: Brumfield Seeks to Certify Class WESTERN REFINING: Fails to Pay All Wages, Dilworth Claims WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Underfills Pre-Workout Product, Lopez Says XUNLEI: Faces Class Action Over Initial Coin Offering Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto's Unit Still Defends Fibro Suits ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Faces 820 Active Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Had 8 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 140 Injury Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 215 Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $489-Mil. Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Action vs. Johnson & Johnson Underway ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Had 17 Asbestos Claims at Jan. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 59 Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: UPS Injurious Asbestos Exposure Finding Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Summary Judgment Re-Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remand of "Templet" to State Court Affirmed ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. CBS Dismissed in "Airey" ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Gilmore" PI Suit Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Review Daubert Rulings in "Ahnert" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Flip DOL Refusal of EEOICPA Benefits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mall Development Halted by Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tests Find Asbestos in Shuttered Apt. Complex ASBESTOS UPDATE: Immunotherapy Brings Hope for Exposure Victims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Giant N.M. Apartment Complex ASBESTOS UPDATE: Technician Sues PSA Corp. for Asbestos Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers at Norfolk Shipyard Urged to File Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dispute Over Asbestos Lawsuit Fees to Continue ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Convicted for APCO Violations ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Can't Escape Alter Ego in ERISA Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Knowingly Exposed Employees to Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rulings Offer Hope to Cancer Sufferers ASBESTOS UPDATE: MPP Bob Bailey Pushes for Asbestos Ban ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Corrigan Hall Not Present Danger ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Panama City Hall ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rejects Attempts to Avoid Liability ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mafefe Asbestos Road Replaced ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found After Garbage Truck Smash ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped in Clitheroe Country Lane ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter's 2nd-Hand Exposure Claim Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woodburn Workers, Students Exposed to Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyer Wants $5MM Asbestos Verdict Overturned ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Likely to Decide NYC Asbestos Ct. Future ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Ct. Issues Key Ruling on Take-Home Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wollongong Recycling Scandal Spreads to Homes ********* 7 MARKET PLACE: "Moran" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Withheld Tips ----------------------------------------------------------------- Agustin Garcia Moran, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 7 Market Place, Inc. and HEIDI KIM, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02498 (S.D. N.Y., March 20, 2018), seeks to recover, withheld tips and overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. Defendants own, operate, or control a deli, located at 707 2nd Ave, New York, NY 10016 under the name "7 Market Place" where Moran worked as a delivery person. However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work day performing non-tipped duties. Moran worked without appropriate minimum wage compensation for the hours that he worked and overtime pay, says the complaint. Defendants were not entitled to take a tip credit because Moran's non-tipped duties exceeded 20% of each workday, it adds. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com 7-ELEVEN INC: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Munoz Says ------------------------------------------------------------ EDWARDO MUNOZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., a Texas corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03893 (C.D. Cal., May 9, 2018), seeks to obtain redress for, and put an end to, Defendant's serial violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically its failure to provide lawful notices and disclosures to its job applicants and employees as well as its failure to provide applicants and employees with notice and an opportunity to respond prior to undertaking adverse action against them. In 7-Eleven's case, the Defendant fails to provide its applicants or employees with a standalone disclosure and authorization that clearly and conspicuously indicates in a document consisting solely of the disclosure that Defendant may obtain a consumer report about them for employment purposes. First, the Defendant provides a single disclosure combining both the disclosure required for a standard consumer report as well as disclosures required for an investigative consumer report, including details regarding the nature and scope of any investigation such that the disclosure overwhelms the consumer report disclosure. The disclosure and authorization also contain additional extraneous information about Sterling Talent Solutions and summaries of FCRA rights, as well as additional language purporting to authorize the preparation of reports by Sterling Talent Solutions. The authorization also purports to give consent to any party or agency contacted by 7-Eleven, Inc. to furnish information to it, and contains acknowledgements that the consumer has read and understood the disclosure and that they may have any employment offer revoked if "unacceptable information is found in an investigative background inquiry or consumer report. The disclosure cannot be considered standalone. 7-Eleven is a Japanese-owned American international chain of convenience stores, headquartered in Irving, Texas. The chain was known as Tote'm Stores until it was renamed in 1946.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff Edwardo Munoz and the Classes: Mike Arias, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TORRIJOS, LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Telephone: (310) 844 9696 Facsimile: (310) 861 0168 E-mail: mike@asstlawyers.com alfredo@asstlawyers.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. Taylor T. Smith, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213 0675 Facsimile: (303) 927 0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com tsmith@woodrowpeluso.com ABILITY RECOVERY: "German" Suit Disputes Collection Letter ---------------------------------------------------------- Shabrina German, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ability Recovery Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-60624, (S.D. Fla., March 24, 2018), seeks redress for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act. German allegedly owes Phoenix Emergency Medicine which was then transferred to Pendrick Capital Partners and was then transferred to Ability Recovery. The latter attempted to collect the said debt via a collection letter that did not advise Plaintiff that the debt is in fact time-barred or that making a payment towards the consumer debt will revive the statute of limitations and failed to advise that agreeing to any "settlement offer," the current-creditor could then sue Plaintiff for the full amount of the consumer debt that was previously time-barred. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 907-1136 Facsimile: (855) 529-9540 Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com ACCELERATED RECEIVABLES: Obtains Favorable Ruling in FDCPA Case --------------------------------------------------------------- ACA International reports that the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska ruled in favor of the accounts receivable management industry April 20 in the case of Robinson v. Accelerated Receivables Solutions (A.R.S.), Inc. and David W. Brostrom, 17-00056, 2018 WL ------- (D.Neb. April 19, 2018). The key issues in Robinson were: 1. Whether Nebraska law allows for the recovery of attorney fees or interest when suing to collect medical debt; and 2. Whether Nebraska law allows a collection agency to seek and recover an award of attorney's fees when such fees are incurred by its in-house counsel. The federal district court in Nebraska held that under Nebraska statute creditors and their assignees are entitled to request attorney fees and interest on claims for "services rendered" and "material furnished," which includes unpaid debt for medical services and supplies. The district court reasoned that regardless of how the collection agency characterized its claim in the state court debt collection action as one for "services and supplies" rather than as "an action on account," the medical "debts at issue were incurred for services rendered or materials furnished" and, therefore, fell within the scope of the Nebraska law allowing the collection agency to request an award of interest and attorney fees. The district court also found that there is "no basis for disallowing attorney's fees under [Nebraska statute] by reason of [the collection agency's] employment of in-house counsel." In doing so, the district court rejected the consumer's argument that the collection agency was acting like "a law firm suing pro se, and attorney fees are not recoverable by pro se litigants, even those who are attorneys." [Editor's note: When a litigant proceeds without legal counsel, they are said to be proceeding "on one's own behalf" or "pro se."] The district court explained that while "pro se litigants cannot recover attorney's fees," there is no legal reason to define the collection agency as a "pro se law firm." In Robinson, the collection agency sought to collect payment from the consumer for unpaid medical bills. Through its in-house counsel, the agency filed a lawsuit in county court against the consumer seeking recovery of the debt, along with an award of pre-judgment interest and attorney's fees allowed under Nebraska state law. The consumer responded by filing a class action Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Nebraska Consumer Protection Act lawsuit against the agency. The consumer did so to try to end-around common practice in Nebraska in which collection agencies routinely request state law authorized pre-judgment interest and attorney's fees. Since the collection of pre-judgment interest is an important and integral part of ACA International member businesses, ACA filed an amicus brief in the Robinson case on February 13, 2018. ACA submitted the "friend of the court" brief to support its member's case, and to provide assistance and insight to the federal district court in Nebraska with respect to how the issues raised in Robinson have potential impact well beyond Nebraska. ACA asserted that if the district court were to embrace the consumer's arguments in Robinson it would "subject [the collection agency] to liability for following a practice that many prior judicial precedents had authorized. To impose liability under these circumstances would violate [constitutional] due process. This Court should . . . apply the law in the same way that the Nebraska state courts have applied it for decades." ACA is encouraged that this important decision will positively impact its members' ability to seek and collect payment of interest and attorney's fees to which they are entitled. And had the consumer's claims in Robinson been left unchallenged, the consumer's counsel would be emboldened to continue developing a cottage industry of pursuing identical class actions lawsuits against various collection agencies and their in-house counsel throughout Nebraska on the same theories. [GN] ADA PRODUCTS: Faces "Nikolovski" Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against ADA Products Company, Inc. The case is captioned as Chris Nikolovski, and Chris Nikolovski D.D.S., P.C. a Illinois corporation, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons and entities, the Plaintiffs, v. ADA Products Company, Inc., also known as: Dental Health Products, Inc. and also known as: DHPI, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03087 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2018). The case is Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman. Ada Products Company, Inc. was incorporated in February, 2002, as an independently owned and operated Company. The Company's mainstay products, marketed by the Block Drug Company (now GlaxoSmithKline) and include AdaMount (TM) Radiograph Mounts; Mynol (TM) Articulating Paper; and, Mynol (TM) Endodontic Products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Vlahakis, Esq. Ahmad Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq. Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575 8181 E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com ALABAMA: Thompson, et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled TREVA THOMPSON, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. JOHN H. MERRILL, in his official capacity as Secretary of State, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00783-WKW-CSC (M.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify class and subclasses pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(b)(2) and appoint the Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel. The Class is defined as: "all persons otherwise eligible to register to vote in Alabama who are now, or who may in the future be, denied the right to vote pursuant to Section 177(b) because of a conviction for a felony "involving moral turpitude" as defined by section (c) of Alabama Code Section 17-3-30.1." The subclasses are defined as: "all persons otherwise eligible to register to vote in Alabama who were convicted of a felony "involving moral turpitude" as defined by section (c) of Alabama Code Section 17-3-30.1 before August 1, 2017 but are unable to register to vote pursuant to Defendant Merrill's retroactive implementation of Alabama Code Section 17-3-30.1 to individuals with prior convictions"; and "all persons otherwise eligible to register to vote in Alabama who (1) are now, or who may in the future be, denied the right to vote pursuant to Section 177(b) because of a conviction for a felony "involving moral turpitude" as defined by section (c) of Alabama Code Section 17-3-30.1; and (2) are unable to pay their fines, fees, and/or restitution due to their socioeconomic status; but (3) are otherwise eligible to apply for a CERV. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VtBYucVB Counsel for Plaintiffs Danielle Lang, Esq. J. Gerald Hebert, Esq. Mark P. Gaber, Esq. CAMPAIGN LEGAL CENTER 1411 K Street NW, Suite 1400 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 736 2200 E-mail: dlang@campaignlegalcenter.org ghebert@campaignlegalcenter.org mgaber@campaignlegalcenter.org - and - J. Mitch McGuire, Esq. MCGUIRE & ASSOCIATES LLC 31 Clayton Street Montgomery, AL 36104 Telephone: (334) 517 1000 E-mail: jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com - and - James U. Blacksher, Esq. P.O. Box 636 Birmingham, AL 35201 (205) 591-7238 E-mail: jblacksher@ns.sympatico.ca - and - Jessica Ring Amunson, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 1099 New York Ave. NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 736 6000 E-mail: jamunson@jenner.com - and - Pamela Karlan, Esq. STANFORD LAW SCHOOL 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305 Telephone: (650) 725 4851 E-mail: karlan@stanford.edu - and - Aderson B. Francois, Esq. INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER 600 New Jersey Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662 6721 E-mail: abf48@georgetown.edu - and - Armand Derfner, Esq. DERFNER & ALTMAN 575 King Street, Suite B Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (843) 723 9804 E-mail: aderfner@derfneraltman.com Counsel for Defendants: Andrew Lynn Brasher, Esq. Brad A. Chynoweth, Esq. James William Davis, Esq. Laura Elizabeth Howell, Esq. Misty Shawn Fairbanks Messick, Esq. Winfield James Sinclair, Esq. STATE OF ALABAMA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36130 Telephone: (334) 353 2690 Facsimile: (334) 242 4891 E-mail: abrasher@ago.state.al.us bchynoweth@ago.state.al.us jimdavis@ago.state.al.us lhowell@ago.state.al.us mmessick@ago.state.al.us wsinclair@ago.state.al.us AMP: Quinn Emanuel Mulls Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------- Alice Uribe, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan is mulling a possible class action against financial services giant AMP, which has admitted cheating customers. The global firm said it had already secured the backing of litigation financer Burford Capital -- the world's largest provider of litigation finance. "The conduct admitted at the Royal Commission is starkly at odds with AMP's responsibilities and shareholders' legitimate expectations, requiring redress so that AMP's shareholders can recover the value that has been lost," Burford managing director Craig Arnott said. AMP shares shed more than $1 billion in market value following damning evidence presented to the financial services royal commission. The wealth giant's head of financial advice Anthony 'Jack' Regan admitted the company had misled the corporate watchdog, and its chief executive Craig Meller resigned on April 20. Financial planning fees at AMP more than doubled after new laws were introduced to ban unreasonable fees charged by financial planners, the royal commission heard. Mr Meller wrote to all the group's licensed advisers to offer them a personal apology and promise further support for the queries they are receiving from clients. "The revelations of AMP's misconduct are especially upsetting given the people who were hurt -- the ordinary mums and dads who as shareholders gave AMP one of Australia's largest shareholder registers, who have now lost their savings due to its dishonesty, and who as customers were charged for services AMP has admitted they never received, all so executives could make hefty bonuses," Quinn Emanuel partner Damian Scattini said in a statement on April 23. Mr Scattini said Quinn Emanuel had been investigating AMP's share price declines before the most recent revelations of misconduct Quinn Emanuel is the largest law firm globally dealing with business litigation and arbitration, according to its website. AMP's head of advice compliance Sarah Britt is expected to front the banking royal commission on April 23 over the provision of inappropriate financial advice. Her evidence will follow that of BT's national head of advice Michael Wright and ANZ's head of aligned dealer groups Darren Whearat. AMP admitted to the royal commission it had on multiple occasions lied to the corporate regulator and charged clients fees for no service. [GN] ARKANSAS UTILITY: "Milam" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ CALVIN MILAM, EVERETT HORTON, DAVID BRUCE, and STEVEN TRUJILLO, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARKANSAS UTILITY PROTECTION, SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00312-BSM (E.D. Ark., May 10, 2018), seeks to declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as a result of Defendant's failure to pay Plaintiffs and other Damage Prevention Specialists lawful overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendant as Damage Prevention Specialists. The Plaintiffs and other Damage Prevention Specialists regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week throughout their tenure with Defendant. The Plaintiffs and other Damage Prevention Specialists were classified as hourly employees and paid an hourly rate. The Plaintiff and other Damage Prevention Specialists were also paid nondiscretionary cash awards and bonuses on a regular basis when certain objective and measurable criteria were met.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Ford, Esq. Chris Burks, Esq. Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221 0088 Facsimile: (888) 787 2040 E-mail: daniel@sanfordlawfirm.com josh@sanfordlawfirm.com chris@sanfordlawfirm.com AUSTRALIA: Faces Class Action Over $2.7-Bil. Pink Batts Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the Rudd government's $2.7 billion pink batts scheme was music to the ears of home insulation businesses, but left scores financially devastated when it was abruptly shutdown. More than 140 of those businesses have joined a class action, seeking about $150 million in damages from the Commonwealth of Australia. They suffered heavy losses when the program was shut down for safety reasons as a result of the government's negligence, the class action claims. "This program was part of a larger economic stimulus package in response to the global financial crisis," the class action's barrister Jim Delany QC told the Victorian Supreme Court as the trial opened on April 23. "But when the Commonwealth abruptly terminated the program, it actually created a financial crisis for the group members, from which many were unable to recover." The 2009 Rudd government set up the $2.7 billion Home Insulation Program as part of a broader $42 billion economic stimulus package. But it was shut down in 2010 following the deaths of four workers in NSW and Queensland in 2009 and 2010. Mr Delany said the market for retrofitting homes with insulation totalled less than 70,000 homes annually before the scheme. But the program promised to fit 2.2 million homes over a two-year period, representing about a 15-fold increase in demand. "It was a new market which the Commonwealth created and controlled," Mr Delany said. "They knew that for this program to work there would be an exponential increase in the volume of materials and the rate of installation." The plaintiffs say businesses took on staff, expanded production and invested in new machinery and other equipment to meet demand. But Mr Delaney said the Commonwealth's program was poorly designed and didn't have enough safety measures in place. "The work generally involved older houses where there was exposed electrical wiring, very poor lighting, confined spaces," he said. "The Commonwealth was warned early by industry bodies of the electrical risks of the program and the risk to installer safety." Many of the homes lacked electrical safety switches, making conditions more dangerous. A royal commission in 2014 found that the deaths would not have occurred if the scheme had been properly designed and implemented. Class action lawyers said many businesses were forced into liquidation when the program was cancelled. "Many invested their life savings to be part of the program, only to have the rug pulled out from under them when the HIP was terminated, virtually overnight," ACA Lawyers principal Steven Lewis said. The trial, before Justice John Dixon, is expected to last six weeks. [GN] BMW BANK: Court Granted Amended Motion to Seal ---------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CITY SELECT AUTO SALES, INC., individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. BMW BANK OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, and CREDITSMARTS CORP., Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-04595-NLH-JS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Noel L. Hillman entered an order May 10, 2018: 1. granting Plaintiff's amended motion to seal; 2. denying as moot Plaintiff's original motion to seal; and 3. directing that the Court reserves the authority to modify or vacate this Order if, at later stages of the proceedings in this matter and related matters, the public interest in access to the sealed materials outweighs the interest in confidentiality. The Court is funded by the public and does not sit, in general, to resolve private disputes in secret. Any modification or lifting of an Order to Seal will be done on notice and with an opportunity to be heard. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SOomA3Px BRAMBLES: Slater and Gordon Files Investor Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Darren Gray, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that law firm Slater and Gordon has announced a proposed class action lawsuit against the supply chain logistics company Brambles, alleging the company made misleading and deceptive representations to the market and that it also breached its obligations of continuous disclosure. In a statement released on April 23, the class action law firm alleged Brambles had misled investors about its future profits and "cannibalised" its fiscal 2017 growth. Slater and Gordon senior associate Andrew Paull said investors in Brambles lost millions of dollars after the company revised its profit guidance in January and February 2017. Brambles operates in more than 60 countries around the globe and has a market capitalisation of almost $15.3 billion. Mr Paull said the costs associated with the supply chain logistics company's strong growth in fiscal 2016 effectively cannibalised the company's growth in the following financial year. "Brambles had been enjoying a steady rate of growth for a number of years, but in fiscal 2016 its revenue and earnings grew at double the historical rate," Mr Paull said. Brambles has a conundrum, particularly in the US. Amazon and others are upending traditional models and its putting downward pressure on margins. Brambles flags $200m one-off fillip from Trump cuts but no material change to its tax rate "This growth occurred after Brambles allowed a large number of its pallets to be used to transport goods to companies outside its regular distribution channels. Brambles could charge a premium for this, which increased revenue, but they also lost visibility over the whereabouts of their pallets, which significantly increased collection and repair costs," he said. "Brambles was telling the market that its fiscal 2016 sales growth of 8 per cent and profit growth of 9 per cent was the 'new normal' and could be expected into the future. We are alleging Brambles knew its increased costs would make future growth at the fiscal 2016 rate impossible and they failed to account for that in their fiscal 2017 forecast," he said. The law firm said that on 18 August 2016 Brambles released its fiscal 2016 results, as well as guidance for fiscal 2017. This guidance estimated sales revenue growth of between 7-9 nine per cent, and underlying profit growth between 9-11 per cent. Slater and Gordon said this guidance was "reiterated" later that year, at the company's annual general meeting in November 2016. But Slater and Gordon said that in January 2017 Brambles released a trading update, and "withdrew" its fiscal 2017 guidance. The law firm also said Brambles advised that "it was expecting 2017 first half constant-currency sales revenue growth of approximately 5 per cent and underlying profit growth of approximately 3 per cent; and full year sales revenue and underlying profit growth was expected to be 'below its current guidance range". Slater and Gordon said that on 20 February 2017 Brambles gave another trading update, in which it revised its fiscal 2017 guidance, forecasting constant currency revenue growth in line with 2017 first half, "and for underlying profit to be flat to fiscal 2016 (i.e. 0 per cent growth)". The Brambles update also gave more information about the factors behind the fiscal 2017 downgrade. "We've received a pretty clear and strong message from the investing community that they feel that Brambles has fallen short of its disclosure obligations in this case. Particularly for a company of its size and value, they would expect better disclosure practices," he said. In a statement to the ASX Brambles said it had "not received any formal communication, nor has it been served with any proceeding and so is not able to comment further. However, Brambles strongly believes that it has at all times complied with its continuous disclosure and other regulatory obligations. Brambles therefore intends to vigorously defend any action if filed." [GN] BRANCH BANKING: Lee Sues over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- RALPH LEE, JEORGE IRIZARRY, SHARON MONTMIMY, and BEN NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. BRANCH BANKING & TRUST COMPANY; and CONVERGENCE MARKETING LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-21876-RNS (S.D. Fla., May 10, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to the telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their conduct. Defendant BB&T is a large regional bank with 2,100 retail branch locations. In an effort to solicit potential and former customers, BB&T recruited, or employed call centers, including Defendant Convergence, to place telephone calls, en masse, to consumers across the country. On information and belief, Defendants and or their agents purchase "leads" containing consumers' contact information and create electronic databases from which Defendants make automated calls. BB&T also contacted, through Convergence, former customers who had closed their accounts years ago in an attempt to win back their business. Convergence, on behalf of BB&T, conducted wide scale telemarketing campaigns and repeatedly made unsolicited calls to consumers' telephones -- whose numbers appear on the National Do Not Call Registry -- without consent, all in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. By making the telephone calls at issue in this Complaint, Defendants caused Plaintiffs and the members of a putative Class of consumers actual harm, including the aggravation, nuisance, and invasion of privacy that necessarily accompanies the receipt of unsolicited and harassing telephone calls, as well as the monies paid to their carriers for the receipt of such telephone calls.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class: Raymond Dieppa, Esq. FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC 14 Northeast First Avenue Suite 1001 Miami, Florida 33132 Telephone: (305) 901 2209 Facsimile: (786) 870 4030 - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. W. Craft Hughes, Esq. HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP 2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120 Galleria Tower I Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 554 2377 Facsimile: (888) 995 3335 E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com craft@hughesellzey.com BRIGHTER INC: New Concept Dental Sues over Unsolicited Ads ---------------------------------------------------------- NEW CONCEPT DENTAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRIGHTER, INC.; DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendant(s), Case No. 2:18-cv-03900 (C.D. Cal., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover 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 via "telephone facsimile machine" in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby causing Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to incur the costs of receiving unsolicited advertisement messages via "telephone facsimile machines" and invading their privacy. According to the complaint, beginning in or around March of 2017, the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff's telephone facsimile number ending in -8083, in an effort to sell or solicit its services. The Defendant contacted Plaintiff via facsimile from telephone numbers that belong to Defendant. Defendant's facsimile transmissions to Plaintiff constituted an invasion of privacy to properly conduct business. The Defendant contacted Plaintiff between on or around March of 2017 in an effort to solicit its business. Brighter, Inc. provides a platform that connects patients, providers, and payers.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com C & C ENTERPRISES: Keshner Seeks Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- AMANDA KESHNER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. C & C ENTERPRISES OF SI, LLC d/b/a THE HOP SHOPPE, CRAIG REGINA, and CARMINE GUALTIERI, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-02806 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act. According to the complaint, beginning on or about April 17, 2017 and continuing through on or about January 14, 2018, the Plaintiff worked five days per week, and her work schedule consisted of eight and three-quarter hours per day on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Sunday from 10:45 a.m. until 7:30 p.m.; and nine hours on Saturday from 5:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. During this period, the Plaintiff continued to work additional days or shifts to cover for co-workers who could not or did not show up for work. Thus, during this period Plaintiff normally worked 44 hours per week (and sometimes more). During this period of time, Plaintiff was not paid proper minimum wages and overtime compensation. During this period, Plaintiff was paid, partly by check and partly in cash, at the rate of $7.50 per hour straight time for all hours worked, and worked 44 hours per week (an sometimes more). Work performed above 40 hours per week was not paid at the statutory rate of time and one-half as required by state and federal law.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third A venue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209 3933 Facsimile: (212) 209 7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com C & V 77: "Tapia" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANTONIO FUENTES TAPIA, ISRAEL CRISPIN BAQUIAX CASIA, SAMUEL SANTOS MENDOZA, and SEBASTIAN BENEDICTO PASTOR HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. C & V 77 ENTERPRISES, LLC (D/B/A GREEN KITCHEN), VASILI KARABATSOS, and CONSTANTINE KASIMIS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04210 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendants. The Defendants own, operate, or control a diner, located at 1477 First Avenue, New York, NY 10075 under the name "Green Kitchen". The Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers and dishwashers at the restaurant located at 1477 First Avenue, New York, NY 10075. 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 dishwashing, taking out the trash, preparing, peeling and boiling potatoes, bringing out plates, cleaning bathrooms, cleaning the kitchen, washing the hot broiler with cleaning chemicals, cleaning the walls, sweeping and mopping, unloading sodas and drinks, bringing chairs from the basement to the restaurant, cleaning the front and the street and preparing salads hereafter. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiffs worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hour's compensation for the hours that they worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which they had to work over 10 hours a day. 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, 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. 12 N.Y. C.R.R. section 146. 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 above the tip-credit rate, but below the minimum wage. Defendants' conduct extended beyond Plaintiffs to all other similarly situated employees. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime 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 E-mail: Faillace@emplyomentcompliance.com CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA: Comforte Files Suit for Invasion of Privacy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Victor James Comforte, II and Brendan Michael Carr, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg and John and Jane Does 1-100, Case No. 18-cv-02120, (N.D. Ill., March 22, 2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages pursuant to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, Stored Communications Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. Cambridge is privately held company that has been actively engaged in data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis. Facebook Inc. is a publically-traded social media company with Mark Zuckerberg as CEO. Plaintiffs are registered voters in the North District of Illinois. They allege that the Defendants engaged in data mining, data brokerage, and data analysis for the purpose of influencing the 2016 electoral process, using the personal information of millions of Facebook users to influence the 2016 United States presidential election. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James Vlahakis, Esq. Joseph Davidson, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Tel: (630) 581-5456 Email: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com CAPITAL SOURCE: Faces "Nikolovski" Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Source Lending, LLC. The case is captioned as Chris Nikolovski, as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons and entities, and Chris Nikolovski D.D.S., P.C., an Illinois corporation, the Plaintiffs, v. Capital Source Lending, LLC, also known as: CSI doing business as: Lending Biz Solutions, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03086 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Gary Feinerman. CapitalSource Finance LLC provides commercial loans to small and middle-market businesses in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Vlahakis, Esq. Ahmad Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq. Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575 8181 E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com CARECENTRIX INC: "Deluca" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Rosa Deluca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Carecentrix, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-04135 (D. N.J., March 23, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. CareCentrix -- https://www.carecentrix.com/ -- is into technology and analytics for patient care for health plans. It attempted to contact Deluca using an automated dialing system. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Swigart, Esq. Yana A. Hart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 to 26 Email: Josh@westcoastlitigation.com yana@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Ross Howard Schmierer, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE PC 315 Madison Avenue 3rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (646) 979-3642 Email: rschmierer@denittislaw.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com CENTRAL BUS SERVICE: "Johnson" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------------- Rashid Johnson, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Central Bus Service OF NJ, LLC., (a/k/a Central Bus Service LLC), Jay's Bus Service, Inc., Mayer Gindoff, Individually and Jay Elinson, individually, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 04292 (D. N.J., March 26, 2018), seeks recovery of unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law. Johnson performed non-exempt mechanic duties for Defendants' privately-owned school bus service from their location in Lakewood, Ocean County, NJ. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. 301 N Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306 Princeton, NJ 08540 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 Email: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com CHURCH AND DWIGHT: Faces "Patton" Suit in C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Church and Dwight Co., Inc. The case is captioned as Crishanda Patton, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Church and Dwight Co., Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-00903-MWF-KK (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Church & Dwight Co, Inc. is a major American manufacturer of household products that is based in Ewing, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Kelsey M Szamet, Esq. KINGSLEY AND KINGSLEY APC 16133 Ventura Boulevard Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990 8300 Facsimile: (818) 990 2903 E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com - and - Emil Davtyan, Esq. DAVTYAN PLC 21900 Burbank Boulevard 3rd Floor Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 992 2925 Facsimile: (818) 975 5525 E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com CIRCUITRY RECYCLING: No Opt-out Provision on Faxed Ads, Says Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Oren Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Circuitry Recycling, LP, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-60591 (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2018), seeks statutory damages for each unsolicited facsimile advertisements sent to the Plaintiff that do not contain the legally required opt-out language in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Circuitry Recycling offers the removal of computers and electronics in exchange for the right to keep them. Their faxed advertisement failed to contain an opt-out notice stating that the recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any future faxes and that failure to comply with the request within 30 days is unlawful, says the Plaintiff. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Heller, Esq. Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL 434 Skinner Blvd., #206 Dunedin, FL 34698 Tel: (305) 323-6433 Email: shawn@sjlawcollective.com josh@sjlawcollective.com - and - Peter Bennett, Esq. Richard Bennett, Esq. BENNETT & BENNETT 1200 Anastasia Ave., Office 360 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: (305) 444-5925 Email: peterbennettlaw@gmail.com richardbennett27@gmail.com CITYWIDE TRANSMISSIONS: Rosario Seeks Unpaid Overtime under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Rosario, the Plaintiff, v. Citywide Transmissions & Clutches, Inc., and John Delostia, the Defendants, Case No. 7:18- cv-04202 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unlawful wage deductions, and unpaid overtime, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff sued the Defendants on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated. The Defendants, individually and/or jointly, employed six or more employees. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from in or around August 2015 to on or about April 27, 2018. The Plaintiff was individually and/or jointly employed by Defendants as an auto body mechanic/technician. The Plaintiff was paid at a regular rate of $22.50 an hour and was not paid any wages for his overtime hours (weekly hours over 40), worked each week.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue, Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740 1000 Facsimile: (718) 740 2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com CLUB CLIMAXXX: Court Denied Certification of Exotic Dancers Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CORTNEY WALLACE, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. CLUB CLIMAXXX INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 22585-UU (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Ursula Ungaro entered an order on May 10, 2018: 1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of: "[a]ll current or former Exotic Dancers who worked for Club Rol-Lexx and/or Club Climaxxx, during the three years preceding the filing of this action, and who were not paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked, and overtime pay for all hours worked over 40 hours, in each workweek, through and including the date of entry of judgment in this case"; 2. denying issuance of notice to potential class members. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AzBz8KhI COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Website Not Accessible to Blind, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JASON CAMACHO AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03926-AJN (S.D.N.Y., May 1, 2018), seeks permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.[BN] Columbia University, established in 1754, is a private Ivy League research university in Upper Manhattan, New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey M. Gottlieb. Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: 212 879 0240 Facsimile: 212 982 6284 E-mail: nyjg@aol.com COMPASS GROUP: Hawkins Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Hawkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Compass Group USA, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01196-L (N.D. Tex., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff Hawkins sues on behalf of himself and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees of Defendant who worked as Route Drivers or Delivery Drivers in Texas for Defendant, and who were not paid overtime premium pay by Defendant for work hours over 40 in each workweek of the relevant statutory time period. The Plaintiff Hawkins worked for Defendant from around February 2016 through around July 2016, as a Route Driver. As one of Defendant's business operations, Defendant operates throughout Texas and other states under the assumed name Canteen Vending Services. Defendant, in relevant part, provides product, and services, vending machines at various commercial and residential third-party locations. Hawkins worked for Defendant as a Route Driver, refilling vending machines with snack products and drinks. In addition to stocking his assigned vehicle with product for his routes at Defendant's warehouse, Hawkins drove a daily route in Dallas County and adjacent counties to the various vending machines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kerry V. O'Brien, Esq. O'BRIEN LAW FIRM 1011 Westlake Drive Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 410 1960 Facsimile: (512) 410 6171 E-mail: ko@obrienlawpc.com - and - Kay E. Goggin, Esq. GOGGIN LAW FIRM 6440 N. Central Expy, Ste 804, LB 54 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (972) 437 1965 Facsimile: (214) 520 9211 E-mail: kay@gogginlaw.com CONTINENTAL SERVICE: "Davis" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA ----------------------------------------------------------- Joann Davis, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Continental Service Group, Inc. and Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00676 (M.D. Fla., March 20, 2018), seeks statutory damages, injunctive relief as well as their reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Continental is a debt collection agency assigned to collect an alleged debt incurred by Davis to Hillsborough Community College. It sent a collection letter that falsely stated that the creditor assessed interest, and fees would be accruing and overshadowed Plaintiff's right to dispute and/or validate the said debt, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Zeig, Esq. ZEIG LAW FIRM LLC 3475 Sheridan St., Suite 310 Hollywood, FL 33021 Tel: (954) 217-3084 Fax: (954) 272-7807 Email: justin@zeiglawfirm.com CROWN INTERNATIONAL: Jackson Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- MARCUS JACKSON on behalf of himself individually, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. CROWN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-01512 (S.D. Tex., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Crown International Security does not pay their Security Guards overtime as required by the FLSA. Instead, Crown International Security pays its Security Guards straight time, not time and a half for overtime hours worked. Crown International Security has a policy, enforced at all of its locations throughout the United States, denying Plaintiffs and putative class members compensation at time and a half, and paying only straight time for hours worked above 40 per week. Crown International Security is a domestic corporation with locations throughout Texas and the United States. Crown can be served with process through its owner, David Zigray at 9802 Forum Park Drive No. 3236 Houston, Texas 77036.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. THE FOLEY LAW FIRM 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Telephone: (832) 778 8182 Facsimile: (832) 778 8353 E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com DITECH FINANCIAL: Charges Borrowers Improper Fees, Rodriguez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES S. RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DITECH FINANCIAL, LLC and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, the Defendants, Case No. 6:18-cv-00721-CEM-TBS (M.D. Fla., May 10, 2018), seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Truth In Lending Act, and the Federal National Mortgage Association. According to the complaint, Ditech charges borrowers improper fees that are disguised to look legitimate. In this case, Ditech generally labeled drive-by property inspections as "Corp Adv Disb" fees on a borrower's mortgage statements instead of what these fees are. The result is that Ditech can charge drive-by property inspection at an inappropriate and unreasonable frequency without notice or dispute from the borrower. Indeed, Ditech is incentivized to keep borrowers in foreclosure because, while the amount charged is relatively small, the profit generating mark-up on the fees charged and repetitive nature in which the disguised fees are charged results in Ditech reaping thousands of dollars in profit from borrowers who are unlikely to challenge the fee when fighting to save their home. Ditech Financial LLC is a provider of home loan, loan servicing and refinance products to consumers and institutional partners in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Kaufmann, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER 1054 31st Street, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463 2101 Facsimile: (202) 342 2103 E-mail: jkauffmann@baileyglasser.com - and - Darren R. Newhart, Esq. J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A. 721 US Highway 1, Suite 201 North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 692 6013 Facsimile: (305) 574 0132 E-mail: Darren@cloorg.com DCAard@Consumerlaworg.com DR. PEPPER: "Newman" Suit Seeks to Block Keurig Merger ------------------------------------------------------ Samuel Newman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc., Wayne R. Sanders, Larry D. Young, David E. Alexander, Antonio Carrillo, Jose Gutierrez, Pamela H. Patsley, Ronald G. Rogers, Dunia Shive, And M. Anne Szostak, Case No. 18-cv-00442 (D. Del., March 22, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating or closing the merger between Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. and Maple Parent Holdings Corp., with its indirect subsidiary, Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., rescinding it in the event defendants consummate the merger. The Plaintiff further seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Dr. Pepper's shareholders stand to receive a $103.75 cash dividend per share, plus stock constituting 13% of the combined company in a deal worth more than $21 billion. Despite Dr. Pepper continuing on as the surviving entity, its shareholders will give up 87% ownership in the combined company to current Maple shareholders via a stock issuance, notes the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that the cash dividend appears inadequate in light of the Dr. Pepper's recent financial performance and prospects for future growth. The Company has reported double- digit Gross Profit Margin growth for 2017. Moreover, the Company recently reported double-digit net income growth for the fiscal quarter for 2016 and 2017. Apparently, Dr. Pepper's is well- positioned for financial growth, and that the cash dividend fails to adequately compensate the company's shareholders, he adds. Dr. Pepper's is an integrated brand owner, manufacturer and distributor of non-alcoholic beverages in the United States, Mexico and Canada. It offers a diverse portfolio of flavored carbonated soft drinks and non-carbonated beverages, including ready-to-drink teas, juices, juice drinks, water and mixers. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Nadeem Faruqi, Esq. James M. Wilson, Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 685 Third Ave., 26th Fl. New Yor006B, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Email: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com - and - Michael Van Gorder, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: (302) 482-3182 Email: mvangorder@faruqilaw.com DRILL CUTTINGS: Technicians Seek Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Gutierrez, Kyle Lynn and Ryan Stephens, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Drill Cuttings Disposal Company, LLC, The Reddoch Development Company, L.L.C., Jeffrey Reddoch, Sr., Jeffrey Reddoch, Jr., Chiquita Reddoch, Allison Reddoch Reaux, Leah M. Reddoch O'Meara, Jeremiah M. Reddoch and Sean M. Reddoch., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00257 (W.D. Tex., March 20, 2018), seeks overtime compensation for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Drill Cuttings Disposal provides drill cuttings disposal services to the oil and gas industry where Plaintiffs worked as solids control technicians. They claim to have regularly in excess of 40 hours in a week without overtime. The Drill Cuttings Disposal Company is owned and operated by Reddoch Development Company of the Reddoch Family. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. Burch, Esq. Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com mparmet@brucknerburch.com EAGLE DINER: "Flores" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Damages --------------------------------------------------------- Alexis Flores and Virginia Goold, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Eagle Diner Corp., James Rokos, Maria Rokos and Marko Rokos, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv- 01206, (E.D. Pa., March 22, 2017), seeks overtime wages, compensatory and liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968. Eagle Diner is a restaurant located at 739 W. Street Road in Warminster, PA where Flores and Goold worked as a server. They worked about 50-60 hours per week, were paid at the tipped minimum wage rate for all of their work and made required contributions into Defendants' tip pool. Defendants pay servers at the tipped minimum wage rate of $2.83 per hour for all untipped work they perform on-the-clock, way below the mandated wage rates, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 604 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19106 Tel: (215) 873-4836 - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 233-1550 XCELIGENT INC: "Borchers" Data Breach Suit Removed to W.D. Mo. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Elisabeth Borchers, on behalf of herself and all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Xceligent, Inc. and Erin Curry, Defendants, Case No. 1716-cv-08149 (Mo. Cir., March 23, 2018), was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on March 23, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-00225. Borchers accuses Xceligent of improper disclosure of personally identifying information of its employees to phishing scammers resulting in alleged damages during a data breach. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Bryce B. Bell, Esq. Mark W. Schmitz, Esq. BELL LAW, LLC 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580 Kansas City, MO 64108 Tel: (816) 886-8206 Fax: (816) 817-8500 Email: Bryce@BellLawKC.com MS@BellLawKC.com - and - A. Scott Waddell, Esq. WADDELL LAW FIRM LLC 2600 Grand Blvd., Suite 580 Kansas City, MO 64108 Tel: (816) 914-5365 Fax: (816) 817-8500 Email: scott@aswlawfirm.com - and - Jack D. McInnes, Esq. MCINNES LAW LLC 3500 W. 75th Street, Suite 200 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Tel: (913) 378-9830 Email: jack@mcinnes-law.com Erin Curry is represented by: Justin M. Dean, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4520 Main Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 471-1301 Facsimile: (816) 471-1303 Email: justin.dean@ogletree.com - and - Paul Karlsgodt, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Tel: (303) 764-4013 Fax: (303) 861-7805 Email: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com Xceligent, Inc. is represented by: John T. Carroll, III, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 1201 North Market Street, Suite 1001 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 295-2028 Fax: (302) 295-2013 Email: jcarroll@cozen.com FORT WAYNE, IN: "See" Amended Class Certification Bid Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled KEITH SEE, individually and on behalf of ) all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FORT WAYNE, in its official capacity, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv- 00105-TLS (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Theresa L. Springmann entered an order denying, with leave to refile, the Plaintiff's first amended motion for class certification of: "all individuals residing in FortWayne, Indiana who are homeless or without a fixed address possessing personal property that may be left temporarily unattended and subject to the seizure and destruction policy of Defendant." The Court said, "In its Response the Defendant briefly mentions that the Plaintiff lacks standing and appears to suggest that this controversy may be moot because the Plaintiff is no longer homeless. If the Defendant wishes to challenge jurisdiction, it may file a more detailed motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). While the Plaintiff's First Amended Motion for Class Certification has defects, these defects may be remedied. As such, the Plaintiff may file a second amended motion for class certification that more precisely addresses the requirements under Rule 23, rather than stating in conclusory terms that the requirements are satisfied." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=enqXHfxY GLOBAL CREDIT: Certification of Settlement Class Sought ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SAMUEL WILLIAMS, pleading on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL CREDIT & COLLECTIONS; VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03323 (N.D. Ill.), the Parties will move the Court, on a date and time to be determined by the Court for an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action and granting preliminary approval of the Parties' class settlement agreement. Specifically, the Parties will jointly move the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, for an order certifying this case to proceed as a class action, and granting preliminary approval of the settlement, on behalf of the following class: "all persons in the State of Pennsylvania who were sent collection letters and/or notices from GCC on a debt owed to Velocity that was beyond the statute of limitations, wherein Defendant made a settlement offer on said debt without disclosing the debt was beyond the statute of limitations, during a period beginning May 2, 2016 through June 9, 2017." A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ImX56OVe Attorneys for Plaintiff: Daniel Zemel, Esq. Elizabeth Apostola, Esq. ZEMEL LAW, LLC 1373 Broad St., Suite 203-C Clifton, NJ 07013 Telephone: (862) 227 3106 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com ea@zemellawllc.com Attorneys for Defendants Brian W. Ledebuhr, Esq. VEDDER PRICE 222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 609 7845 E-mail: bledebuhr@vedderprice.com GOOSEBUMPS INC: "Meggs" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON MEGGS, BRANDY L. MILLER, DENISE O. WEIR, AND LEANNE N. COMBS, the Plaintiffs, v. GOOSEBUMPS, INC., BRUCE DOBBS, GEORGE KELLY AND MARK STEVENS, Sr., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv- 01893-SCJ (N.D. Ga., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case is a wage and hour case. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendants owned and operated an adult nightclub in Atlanta under the trade name "Goosebumps". The Defendants employed Plaintiffs as dancers and entertainers. Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors; failed to pay Plaintiffs minimum wages as set in accordance with the FLSA; required Plaintiffs to kickback tips to Defendants and others for Defendants benefit; and failed to pay Plaintiffs an overtime premium for work in excess of 40 hours in a week.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs: Charles R. Bridgers, Esq. Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr. DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC 3100 Centennial Tower 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Telephone: (404) 979 3171 Facsimile: (404) 979 3170 E-mail: charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com GW: Faces Class Action Over Expensive Retirement Plans ------------------------------------------------------ Dani Grace and Lizzie Mintz, writing for The GW Hatchet, report that a former employee representing faculty and staff filed a class-action lawsuit against the University for allegedly providing unnecessarily expensive retirement plans. Former and current employees allege in a 74-page class-action complaint -- filed April 13 in D.C.'s U.S. District Court -- that GW breached its legal obligation to act in the best interest of its clients by offering a "dizzying array" of overpriced retirement plans that leave employees unsure of the best investment option. Experts said similar claims have been increasingly common over the past several years, and that while the plaintiff has good legal standing, parties are likely to settle out of court to avoid superfluous spending. The plaintiffs claim GW violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which compels the University to "act prudently and loyally to safeguard plan participants' retirement dollars." The plaintiffs request that the University reimburse its employees for retirement plan losses after the court determines the best way to calculate them. The plaintiffs allege the University did not properly vet investment choices available for faculty and staff, which caused employees to pay higher fees than they would if they were offered plans from lower-cost fund providers. The University provides retirement plan participants with roughly 135 investment options from four companies instead of offering plans from a single provider, the suit states. "The participants lost the potential growth their investments could have achieved had the defendants properly discharged their fiduciary duties," the complaint states. "By selecting a single recordkeeper, plan sponsors can enhance their purchasing power and negotiate lower, transparent investment fees for participants." University spokeswoman Lindsay Hamilton said the case is the 18th the plaintiff's lawyers -- a series of attorneys from four separate firms -- have filed against "the nation's most prestigious universities." She said the University intends to "vigorously defend itself in court." "The University provides its retirement plan participants with a very competitive retirement savings program that is administered prudently and that offers its participants an array of investment options and tools to assist in making investment choices," Hamilton said. Jason Rathod, Esq. -- jrathod@classlawdc.com -- an attorney at Migliaccio and Rathod LLP, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs and the only one to represent the plaintiff in court - - declined to comment on the case. Combating excessive fees The complaint states that, despite offering lower-cost options, the University mostly offers investment options with higher administrative fees -- payments that cover record-keeping costs -- which has wasted millions of dollars in the past six years. Norman Stein, a law professor at Drexel University, said administrative and investment fees are much lower than they were 10 to 15 years ago, and there is no perfect way to choose which retirement fund options to offer. But, he said there is a "strong argument" that institutions should constantly re-evaluate how costly their retirement plan fees are to avoid giving faculty and staff options that are unaffordable. "You shouldn't assume employees simply have the ability to sift through and figure out which of the investments have the lowest fees," he said. He added that the complaint highlights the need for low-priced retirement plan options because costly plans can negatively impact participants' quality of life after retirement. "Small differences of fees throughout a 25- or 30-year career make a tremendous difference in how much money you accumulate in retirement," Stein said. Tyler Anbinder, a history professor who has researched the cost of faculty benefits, said the plaintiffs claim the University should have negotiated a better deal for its retirement plan options, but that the companies mentioned, like Fidelity or AXA Equitable, are not the most expensive when compared to providers like Merrill-Lynch. "Vanguard has super cut-rate expenses," Mr. Anbinder said, referring to another of the University's platforms. "The suit is kind of getting at the fact that we have these medium-priced options, that we are paying these companies a healthy amount to manage the funds and we could have shopped at something cheaper, like Vanguard." Abundance of plans The plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the University provides too many retirement plan options, citing roughly 135 different funding plans offered by various companies, which cause plan participants to lose confidence in their investment decision or not invest in retirement plans at all. "The inefficient and costly structure maintained by defendants caused plans' participants to pay duplicative, excessive and unreasonable fees for record-keeping and administrative services," the complaint states. "There was no prudent reason for defendants' failure to engage in a process to reduce duplicative services and fees." John Banzhaf, a public interest law professor, said the University must find a middle-ground between offering too few options -- which could trap employees in a plan they don't want - - and offering an abundance of plans, which could overwhelm participants. "There's a range and there's a judgment," he said. "Some people might think three or four choices is more than enough. Exactly where you draw the line is unclear." Stein, the Drexel University law professor, said participants in the case likely want fewer options because they don't have enough knowledge to distinguish the best plans from hundreds of options, which can freeze people's ability to make decisions. "There is some academic research that says with too many choices, people make bad decisions because they are just hobbled," he said. A pressure to settle Stein said similar retirement plan cases have been brought before court for years, but he has only seen an increase in cases against universities in the last two years. Two of GW's peers -- Georgetown and New York universities -- were sued over high- priced retirement plans and bad investment options. Duke University announced in February that it will switch from four retirement plan providers to just one in 2019, after employees sued the school in 2016 for offering too many options. Several of the cases against universities have received class status -- allowing multiple groups of people with the same injuries to together sue the same defendant -- but the cases have not yet been resolved. Legal experts said GW's case will most likely settle because class-action lawsuits can quickly become expensive. Richard Renner, a partner in the D.C.-based employment law firm of Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman and Fitch, PC, said once the case is considered a class action, it becomes very expensive for the University to spend court fees to defend itself and the risk of liability is so daunting that most of these cases will settle. "At that point, it's actually in the University's interest to settle because in a class-action settlement, they resolve the possibility that any other class members could bring a similar suit," he said. Mr. Banzhaf, the public interest law professor, said prestigious universities typically avoid going through trials concerning the mistreatment of students, faculty or staff because the cases can provide adverse publicity to the school. He said there is a tremendous financial pressure to settle to avoid huge court costs. "This is a class-action lawsuit, and if the other side were to win a complete victory, the University could be facing huge losses," Mr. Banzhaf said. [GN] HARLEY-DAVIDSON: Website not Deaf-Accessible, "Conner" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Sullivan, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02587, (S.D. N.Y., March 23, 2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Defendant is a motorcycle company that operates https://www.harley-davidson.com which provides information about motorcycles, allowing the user to browse news, information and videos. Sullivan is a deaf person who alleges that their website is not deaf-friendly. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 HEALTH INSURANCE: Foote Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------- Paula Foote, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00690 (M.D. Fla., March 21, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from violations of the of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Health Insurance Innovations, Inc. is a company engaged in the business of selling health insurance. It used an automatic telephone dialing system seeking to solicit its services. Foote's number is on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond R. Dieppa, Esq. FLORIDA LEGAL, LLC 14 NE First Ave, Suite 1001 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 901-2209 Email: Ray.dieppa@floridalegal.law HKGDJ INC: Park Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------ YOUNG DOL PARK, 6909 West Q Avenue Kalamazoo MI 49009, the Plaintiff, v. JONG HWA LEE, 11923 Hampstead Green Ellicott City MD 21042; KYE S. LEE, 11923 Hampstead Green Ellicott City MD 21042; and HKGDJ Inc. R/A Jong Hwa Lee 3301 N. Ridge Rd Ellicott City MD 21043, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-01258-JKB (D. Md., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff sued the Defendants, being owners and directors of the HKGDJ, for (1) unpaid overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a work week; (2) an amount equivalent to their unpaid overtime wages as liquidated damages on their federal claim; (3) an amount equivalent to three times their unpaid overtime wages as liquidated damages on their state claim brought pursuant to the supplemental jurisdiction of this court; and (4) their statutory attorney's fees and the costs of bringing this action.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Weon G. Kim, Esq. WEON G KIM LAW OFFICE 8200 Greensboro Dr. #900 McLean VA 22102 Telephone: (571) 278 3728 Facsimile: (703) 288 4003 E-mail: JKKCHADOL99@GMAIL.COM HOHLA & WYSS: Arp Asks Court to Approve Notice to Employees ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Ray Arp, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hohla & Wyss Enterprises, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-00119-WHR (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: 1. allowing him to send notice of this action to the following similarly situated employees: "all non-owner, non-employer delivery drivers who worked for Defendants at any Jimmy John's location from April 12, 2015 to present. 2. approving Plaintiff's proposed notice of the action; 3. directing Defendants to provide name and contact information for all potential collective members in a computer-readable format; 4. authorizing Plaintiff to send the notices via first class mail, email, and text message (if the conditions outlined above are met); 5. requiring Defendants to post the notice in their work locations, and (6) allow putative opt-in plaintiffs 90 days to join the case. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wB1mxKzI Counsel for Plaintiff Andrew R. Biller, Esq. Andrew P. Kimble, Esq. Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Telephone: (513) 651 3700 Facsimile: (513) 665 0219 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com pkrzeski@msdlegal.com www.msdlegal.com HONG HOLDINGS: Underpays Truck Drivers, Madrigal Says ----------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL MADRIGAL, an individual, and all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. HONG HOLDINGS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC762263 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid wages, premium pay, and penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Defendants have employed approximately 100 employees who worked in the state of California. The Plaintiff worked as a truck driver for Defendants from June 26, 2016 until his termination on May 12, 2017. During his employment with the Defendants, the Plaintiff was transporting hazardous materials, such as fuel and diesel. As a result, he was required to attend to the truck at all times (thus, he was required to remain on duty at all times). The Defendants also told Plaintiff "don't ever leave these trucks unattended," or words to that effect. When Plaintiff asked about opportunities to eat during his shift, Defendants told Plaintiff that if he left the truck unattended, he would be terminated. As a result, the Plaintiff could not be relieved of his work duties to take a duty-free meal period. The Plaintiff also never received a second meal period when working more than 10 hours in a shift. The Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 12 or more hours each shift, approximately 5 days per week. However, Defendants failed to provide second meal periods to Plaintiff and failed to pay him premium payments in lieu thereof. For the same reasons that the Plaintiff was required to monitor the truck at all times, the Plaintiff also did not receive any duty-free rest periods during his employment with Defendants, or premium payments in lieu thereof. In addition, dispatchers discouraged Plaintiff from taking duty-free meal and rest periods. For example, dispatchers remarked to Plaintiff, "can you please hurry up" and "why are you taking so long?", or words to that effect. The Plaintiff estimates that the dispatchers regularly made such comments to him. Furthermore, Plaintiff had approximately 4 loads per day. The completion for each load took approximately 3 hours. As a result of being overworked, the Plaintiff could not receive duty free meal and rest periods. At the time of Plaintiff's hire, the Defendants informed Plaintiff that he was required to use his personal cellular telephone to communicate with Defendants regarding his work. At the beginning of Plaintiff's employment, Plaintiff's cellular phone did not function properly because the screen of his phone was cracked. Defendants told Plaintiff that he needed to get a "better phone" and a "smart phone," or words to that effect. In addition, Defendants told Plaintiff that "when we call you, you have to answer. We need to get a hold of you at all times," or words to that effect. The Plaintiff was required to contact the dispatchers several times during his shift. For example, when Plaintiff arrived at the refinery to load up fuel, he was required to contact the dispatcher and provide a status update of his whereabouts. In addition, after Plaintiff arrived at a gas station to unload fuel, he was required to contact the dispatcher to verify that the location was correct, as well as to verify the type of fuel and amount of gallons that he was unloading. The Plaintiff estimates that he made or received approximately 10 to 12 calls each day from dispatchers, with each call lasting approximately 5 to 10 minutes. Hong Holdings, LLC was founded in 2003. The Company's line of business includes holding and owning securities of companies other than banks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Omid Nosrati, Esq. Tatiana Avakian, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF OMID NOSRATI 1875 Century Park East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553 5630 Facsimile: (310) 553 5691 E-mail: omid@nosratilaw.com tatiana@nosratilaw.com HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Farmer Files Suit Over Faulty Hip Implant -------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Audette, writing for Brattleboro Reformer, reports that a local farmer hopes to join a multi-district litigation intended to hold a hip implant manufacturer liable for faulty components. According to documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, Charles B. Robb Sr., "suffered permanent and continuing injuries" after a portion of the hip implant he received in 2008 broke, resulting in significant pain and the inability to stand or walk. "Charlie is doing OK," said James Valente, of Costello Valente and Gentry in Brattleboro, which is representing Robb. "He's a tough guy." According to court documents, the femoral stem -- the portion of the hip implant that is designed to mesh with the femur bone -- broke and became displaced. The failure of the stem required a revision total hip replacement, which is described by OrthoInfo, the website for the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, as a longer, more complex procedure than a total replacement. "This is not a class-action suit," said Mr. Valente. "Multi- district litigation is a different animal. It's meant to consolidate similar claims under one judge and one set of staffers." Mr. Robb declined to comment on the filing. According to court documents, the hip implant Mr. Robb received was manufactured by Howmedica Osteonics Corp., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson. The original plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which is being consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, are a husband and wife who live in New Jersey. "You don't want 50 different courts in 50 different states all figuring out how to deal with," said Mr. Valente. "When you put them all together in one court, the plaintiffs and defendant can get a reasonable idea of what the claims are worth. Multi- district litigation can enable an en masse settlement." Mr. Valente said Mr. Robb, after years as a farmer in Brattleboro, "has lived through a lifetime of physical rigor and probably all sorts of injuries we who sit at desks all day don't experience. I wouldn't say he's happy about the situation, but for him it's 'Here's another problem. Let's deal with it.'" Mr. Robb had the original implant installed at Brattleboro Memorial Hospital in 2008 and had it removed and replaced at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass., in 2017. The action filed on behalf of Robb accuses Howmedica of negligence, consumer fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Mr. Valente said eventually Mr. Robb's suit will be consolidated into the multi-district litigation in Massachusetts, but he did not know exactly when. The Robb Farm was established in 1907 by Thomas and Christine Betterly, Hermon Robb's grandparents. The large barn was moved from Halifax in 1912 and the farm house was built in 1914, both are still in use. The farm is currently run by Hermon's son, Charles Sr., and Charles Sr.'s wife, Helen, and their son Charles Jr., and his wife, Karen. [GN] IDAHO: Faces Class Action Over Faulty Public Defense System ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Blaine County commissioners say they are contemplating establishing an in-house office to provide representation for poor people caught in the criminal justice system. The discussion comes at a time when Idaho is facing a class- action lawsuit over allegations the state's public defense system is faulty and violates the 6th Amendment rights of its citizens. Commissioner Jacob Greenberg said during an April 19 meeting that there's no guarantee that the county's current system will survive the legal challenge and that the county should be ready to adapt whichever way the ruling comes down. The Idaho Mountain Express reports the central Idaho county contracts with seven lawyers who provide public defense to indigent defendants on a monthly rotation. The commissioners didn't make a decision during the meeting, but plan on exploring possible costs to creating the public defense office. [GN] INCLUSION SERVICES: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, Williams Says ---------------------------------------------------------- ROSEMARIE WILLIAMS, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. INCLUSION SERVICES, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC702272 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime pay under the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other class members worked for Defendants providing supported living services in order to train and support individuals with developmental disabilities through providing necessary skills for them to live independently in an inclusive and supportive environment throughout California. The Plaintiff and other Class members consistently worked at Defendants' behest without being paid all wages due. More specifically, the Plaintiff and the other similarly situated Class members were employed by Defendants and worked throughout California where the conduct giving rise to the allegations in this Class Action Complaint occurred, including based out of Defendants' Whittier, Los Angeles, Downey, El Monte, Napa, and Culver City, California offices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. Jason Rothman, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230 8380 Facsimile: (818) 230 0308 E-mail: David@yeremianlaw.com Jason@yeremianlaw.com ISAIA CORP: "Fischler" Suit Says Website not Blind-accessible ------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Fischler, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Isaia Corp., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-02634, (S.D. N.Y., March 26, 2018), seeks preliminary and permanent injunction, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages and fines, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and further relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. Isaia owns and operates stores throughout the United States, including a location at 819 Madison Avenue, New York, New York. It sells, at these stores, suits, jackets, button down shirts, formal wear, overcoats, sweaters and similar items. It also provides a website, www.isaia.it which allows all consumers to access the facilities and services that it offers about its retail stores. Fischler browsed and intended to make avail of their services. However, the Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that the Defendant's website cannot be accessed by the visually-impaired. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Lipsky, Esq. Christopher H. Lowe, Esq. LIPSKY LOWE LLP 630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor New York, NY 10017-6705 Tel: (212) 392-4772 Fax: (212) 444-1030 Email: doug@lipskylowe.com chris@lipskylowe.com ITG INC: Class Certification Sought in "Mauthe" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ROBERT W. MAUTHE, M.D., PC, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. ITG, INC., and M SCIENCE LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-01968-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff moves for entry of an order certifying a class of: "each person sent one or more telephone facsimile messages on or after May 10, 2014 from "ITG Market Research" that invited them to participate for payment or compensation in a survey or telephone interview." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NO4zlRT9 The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS, LLC P.O. Box 7255 New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: (412) 716 5800 Facsimile: (888) 769 1774 E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com JOHN DOES: Levy Sues Over Volatility Index Derivative Rigging ------------------------------------------------------------- Eric J. Levy (Living Trust UA dated January 21, 2010) and Avril E. Levy (Living Trust UA date January 21, 2010), individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. John Does, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02303 (S.D. N.Y., March 22, 2018), seeks treble damages arising out of the alleged manipulation of the prices of financial instruments linked to the Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index in violation of the Sherman Act and the Commodities Exchange Act. Defendants allegedly colluded with each other to manipulate the trading prices of Volatility Index Derivatives through the placing of manipulative S&P 500 Index options orders that were intended to cause Volatility Index Derivative settlement prices to spike artificially. Eric J. Levy transacted in the iPath S&P 500 VIX ST Futures ETN, ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF, ProShares UltraShort S&P500 and the ProShares Ultra VIX Short-Term Futures ETF. Avril E. Levy transacted in the ProShares Short VIX Short-Term Futures ETF. Unnamed Defendants are a group of financial institutions, market makers, and/or traders on the Chicago Board Options Exchange. Plaintiffs will be able to identify Defendants through discovery and will request leave to amend this complaint upon learning the identity of Defendants. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. Bart D. Cohen, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1211 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10036-8718 Tel: (917) 438-9189 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com bcohen@nussbaumpc.com - and - Lynda J. Grant, Esq. THE GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC 521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Tel: (212) 292-4441 Email: lgrant@grantfirm.com JOHNNY MORALES: Bid to Designate Class Action Denied as Moot ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled ABDUL HAKEEN JAHMAL NASEER SHABAZZ aka Owen D. Denson, Jr., the Plaintiff, v. JOHNNY MORALES and SCOTT STEWART, Adm. Lieutenant, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00648- JES-CM (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge John E. Steele entered an order on May 10, 2018: 1. denying as moot the following motions: Plaintiff's motion for order designating class action; Motion for Permissive Joinder filed by nonparty Raymond Lewis; Defendants Julies L. Jones, Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections, J. Sanchez, L. Norwood, and P. Murphy's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint; Plaintiff's Motion for Enlargement of Time; and Defendant Millette's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint; and The Plaintiff shall complete and return the enclosed service forms for Defendants Morales and Stewart within 14 days from the date of this Order, the Court says. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nic9JcWm K & S GLATT: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- RAFAEL AGUILAR, TOSHUA GERMAN, and ISRAEL RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, V. K& S GLATT FARM INC., d/b/a GLATT FARM, A&Z GLATT FARM, INC., dba GLATT FARM, HASAN OZCAN, as an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02574-SJF-SIL (E.D.N.Y., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover damages for violations of state and federal wage laws arising out of Plaintiffs' employment at Defendants' farm. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked approximately 54 hours or more per week for Defendants from 2012 to 2018. The Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and half for hours worked over 40 hours, a blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263 9591 KNORR-BREMSE AG: Faces "Carson" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Knorr-Bremse AG. The case is captioned as JASON CARSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KNORR-BREMSE AG, KNORR BRAKE COMPANY LLC, NEW YORK AIR BRAKE LLC, WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, and FAIVELEY TRANSPORT NORTH AMERICA, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-00564-CRE (W.D. Pa., April 30, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy. Knorr-Bremse is a manufacturer of braking systems for rail and commercial vehicles that has operated in the field for over 110 years.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. LINDE CORP: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Terrie Morgan-Besecker, writing for The Times-Tribune, reports that a Pittston construction firm agreed to pay up to $950,000 to settle a federal class action lawsuit that alleged it wrongly denied overtime pay to certain employees. Linde Corp., 118 Armstrong Road, agreed to pay $636,500 to 73 employees who contend they were denied overtime for hours they worked between March 22, 2013, and Jan. 2, 2016. An additional $313,500 will be paid to Dresher attorney Peter Winebrake and Clarks Summit attorney Brian Petula, both of whom filed the lawsuit. The suit, filed in 2016, on behalf of Michael Trevorah, of Binghamton, New York, and other employees alleged Linde violated state and federal wage laws by paying certain salaried employees "extra compensation units" in lieu of overtime for work they performed building, maintaining and testing well pads for the natural gas industry. The settlement, recently approved by Senior U.S. District Judge James Munley, says Linde denies it violated the law. It agreed to the settlement to avoid the cost of litigating the case. Payments to employees included in the settlement will range from around $450 to about $22,000, according to an exhibit attached to the agreement. Notice of the settlement will be sent to all affected employees, who must return the settlement form to obtain payment. The lawsuit is one of two filed against the firm relating to the overtime issue. A second lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Labor remains pending in federal court. [GN] LIPOCINE INC: July 2 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on April 23 disclosed that the United States District Court for the District of Utah has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of securities of Lipocene, Inc. (NASDAQ:LPCN): SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING To: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SECURITIES OF LIPOCINE INC. BETWEEN JUNE 30, 2015 AND JUNE 28, 2016, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the District of Utah that a hearing will be held on July 2, 2018, at 2:00 p.m. before the Honorable Dee Benson, United States District Judge of the District of Utah, 351 South West Temple, Courtroom 8.300, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101 for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of $4,250,000 should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement Amount ($1,416,666.67) plus interest, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $150,000, and a Compensatory Award to Lead Plaintiff of no more than $22,500 collectively (or $7,500 each) should be approved; and (4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated March 9, 2018 (the "Settlement Stipulation"). If you purchased Lipocine Inc. ("Lipocine") securities between June 30, 2015 and June 28, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your ownership interest in Lipocine securities. If you have not received a detailed Notice Of Proposed Settlement Of Class Action, Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Expenses, And Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain copies by visiting http://www.strategicclaims.net/or by contacting the Claims Administrator toll-free at (866) 274-4004 or at info@strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form to the Claims Administrator postmarked no later than June 11, 2018, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that it is received no later than June 11, 2018, in the manner and form explained in the Notice. All members of the Settlement Class who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and award to Lead Plaintiff must be in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no later than June 11, 2018, by each of the following: Clerk of the Court United States District Court District of Utah 351 South West Temple Rm. 1.100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Lead Counsel Jeremy A. Lieberman POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, Floor 20 New York, NY 10016 Counsel For Defendants David Kistenbroker DECHERT LLP 35 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3400 Chicago, IL 60601 If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may visit http://www.strategicclaims.netor write to Lead Counsel at the above address. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Dated: March 28, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH {GN] LITTLE BROTHERS: Fails to Pay All Wages Earned, Medina Says ----------------------------------------------------------- HECTOR MEDINA, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. LITTLE BROTHERS BAKERY, LLC, a California limited liability company; PAUL G. G1ULIANO, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC702260 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid wages for all hours worked under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to him and other similarly situated current and former California-based hourly workers, including but not limited to warehouse workers, for unpaid wages and other related relief. These claims are based on Defendants' alleged failures to provide all meal and paid rest periods in compliance with California law, pay all wages earned for all hours worked, provide accurate wage statements, timely pay final wages upon termination of employment, and fairly compete. Defendants are also liable to Plaintiff for unlawful retaliation and wrongful termination.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Sehyung (Logan) Park, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 312 Encino, CA9I436 Telephone: (818) 582 3086 Facsimile: (818) 582 2561 E-mail: davidt@spivaklaw.com logan@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter Hawes, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Boisa Ave. Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256 1047 Facsimile: (562) 256 1006 E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Court Certifies Landlord & Renter Classes ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Brandi Garris, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. City of Los Angeles, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 01452-MWF-E (C.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order certifying these classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2): Landlord Class: "all landlords who, between October 9, 2014 and class certification, owned a residential rental property subject to the Los Angeles Housing Code, Section 161.101 to 161.1201, and paid a fee pursuant to Section 161.352, and who were not reimbursed by a renter for such fee"; and Renter Class: "all renters who, between October 9, 2014 and class certification, rented a residential rental unit subject to the Los Angeles Housing Code, Section 161.101 to 161.1201, and reimbursed their landlords for a fee the landlord paid pursuant to Section 161.352". Excluded from the Landlord Class and Renter Class are Defendants, their employees, agents and attorneys, and the Court. A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SGV4RJfl M & J ASPHALT: Roman, et al. Seek to Notify Class Members --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled CESAR ARREOLA-ORTEGA, SALVADOR CANTERO, NOE ROMAN on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. M & J ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY, Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox INC., and JAMES V. DISTASIO, Individually, Case No. 1:17-cv-05927 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to approve and allow sending of Notice to: "other similarly situated past and present employees who have worked for Defendants as laborers at various locations serviced by Defendants, within the pertinent statutory time period." A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SnyRF0C7 The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Geoghegan, Esq. Michael P. Persoon, Esq. Michael A. Schorsch, Esq. DESPRES, SCHWARTZ & GEOGHEGAN, LTD. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 711 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372 2511 MCDONALD'S CORP: "Magee" Class Certification Bid Denied ------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Scott Magee, the Plaintiff, v. McDonald's Corporation, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05652 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Joan B. Gottschall entered an order denying, without prejudice, the motion for class certification. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk of Court on May 10, 2018, the District Court on June 15, 2017, referred "all discovery supervision" to Judge Schenkier. Judge Schenkier entered the parties' revised joint discovery plan as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 scheduling order on December 7, 2018. That order states that a "Discovery Plan for class discovery will be set after the ruling(s) on Dispositive Motions." Expert discovery on plaintiff's individual claims closes June 29, 2018, and dispositive motions on the individual claims must be filed by August 29, 2018. The Plaintiff nevertheless filed a motion for class certification and motion to file a supporting memorandum in excess of 15 pages and noticed both motions before the district judge. The Defendants responded with a motion to deny the motion for class certification, which they also have noticed for presentment to the district judge. The Defendants ask the court to sanction plaintiff for violating the December 7, 2017 scheduling order. Because the filing of a motion for class certification without leave from Judge Schenkier apparently violates the December 7, scheduling order and would, in any event, have a significant impact on the discovery schedule, the motion for class certification is denied without prejudice, and the motion to exceed page limits is denied as moot. The Defendants' motion for sanctions is referred to Judge Schenkier. The Defendants must renotice that motion for presentment to Judge Schenkier. The May 11 motion hearings were stricken. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gXRsVd6N MDL 2804: City of Lynn Joins Opioid Epidemic Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Daily Item reports that the city of Lynn has joined other communities in Massachusetts and across the country in a class- action lawsuit to hold prescription opioid manufacturers and wholesale distributors accountable for their role in fueling the current opioid epidemic, according to an announcement from Mayor Thomas M. McGee. The lawsuit is against five of the largest manufacturers of prescription opioids and their related companies, as well as the country's three largest wholesale drug distributors. "Drug companies and wholesale distributors have made billions of dollars pushing the use of prescription opioids," said Mr. McGee in a statement. "These companies need to be held accountable for their role in the opioid epidemic which has spun out of control across the nation and greatly impacted our city. "Nothing can replace the families that have been ripped apart or the lives lost to opioid addiction, but we must do everything in our power to turn the tide and prevent further addiction and loss." In 1970, Congress designed a system to control the volume of opioid pills being distributed in the country because prescription opioids are highly addictive. It let only a few wholesalers gain the right to deliver opioids, with those companies agreeing to halt suspicious orders and control against the diversion of those dangerous drugs to illegitimate uses. But in recent years, those companies have failed to do that, according to the mayor's office. Lynn, along with other communities, is working with a consortium of law firms to hold pharmaceutical drug manufacturers and wholesale distributors accountable for failing to do what they were charged with under the federal Controlled Substances Act -- monitor, identify and report suspicious activity in the size and frequency of opioid shipments to pharmacies and hospitals, according to the mayor's office. The manufacturing companies pushed highly addictive and dangerous opioids, falsely representing to doctors that patients would only rarely succumb to drug addiction, according to the mayor's office. Opioids are now the most prescribed class of drugs and sales in the country and have exceeded $8 billion in revenue annually since 2009. Opioid abuse is the leading cause of death for people under 50. Last year, 1,977 people lost their lives due to opioid-related overdoses in the state, according to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. In addition to the cost of human life, researchers estimate the total economic burden of the prescription opioid epidemic at $78.5 billion, according to the mayor's office. No taxpayer money is being used for the lawsuit, with all costs paid through any litigation settlement. [GN] MED ONE MOBILE: "Johnston" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Johnston and Amy Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Med One Mobile LLC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00212 (N.D. Ind., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover wages and other damages to which they are entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Med One operates an ambulance transport service for emergency and non-emergency situations. Johnston was employed by Med One as an ambulance driver while Davis was an emergency medical technician. They claim to be paid straight hourly time for all hours worked and were not paid overtime for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 419-1008 Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com - and - Philip Bohrer, Esq. Scott E. Brady, Esq. BOHRER BRADY, L.L.C. 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (225) 925-5297 Facsimile: (225) 231-7000 Email: phil@bohrerbrady.com scott@bohrerbrady.com MENARD INC: "Astarita" Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ALBERT J. ASTARITA, and DIANA M. OWENS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MENARD, INC. d/b/a MENARDS, the Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-06151-RK (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: a. conditionally certifying a class of: "all persons currently and formerly employed by Defendant in hourly, non-exempt positions within the United States who participated in Defendant's In-Home Training Program at any time during the last three years"; b. appointing Plaintiffs as class representatives; c. appointing McClelland Law Firm, P.C. as class counsel; d. directing Defendant to produce the following information for all proposed Class members in an electronic and importable format (e.g., Microsoft Excel document) within 10 days of the Court's Order granting this motion: (1) full name; (2) last known address; (3) last known phone number(s); (4) last known e-mail address; (5) dates of employment; (6) location(s) of employment; and (7) last four digits of their social security number; e. requiring that notice be mailed via first-class mail and electronic mail to such persons within 45 days of the Court's Order granting this motion; f. requiring the posting of notice of the pending suit in conspicuous locations at Defendant's stores where putative class members are employed (including lunch room bulletin boards or bulletin boards where job notices are posted) during the opt-in period; g. allowing a reminder postcard or electronic mail notice to putative class members 30 days before the opt-in deadline; h. tolling the Fair Labor Standards Act limitations period during the pendency of the briefing period of this motion, for individuals that untimely opt-in to this action to ensure that claims are not lost; i. approving the Notice to Class Members and Consent Form, and setting forth a final date in which the Consent Form must be submitted for those Class members opting in, which should be at least 120 days from the date of this Court's Order conditionally certifying a class and from the date that Defendant produces the required contact information; and j. granting such further relief as the Court deems appropriate. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=15jIHYRp The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. Michael J. Rahmberg, Esq. McCLELLAND LAW FIRM, A P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068-1170 Telephone: (816) 781 0002 Facsimile: (816) 781 1984 E-mail: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com mrahmberg@mcclellandlawfirm.com MERCEDES-BENZ: Faces "Oppenheim" Suit in C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC. The case is captioned as Michael Oppenheim, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03610-RGK-AGR (C.D. Cal., April 30, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner. Mercedes-Benz is a global automobile marque and a division of the German company Daimler AG. The brand is known for luxury vehicles, buses, coaches, and lorries. The headquarters is in Stuttgart, Baden-Wurttemberg.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Jared Meiselas, Esq. Jeffrey Kwatinetz, Esq. Mark John Geragos, Esq. GERAGOS AND GERAGOS APC 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411 Telephone: (213) 625 3900 Facsimile: (213) 232 3255 E-mail: meiselas@geragos.com mark@geragos.com MICRO FOCUS: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Securities Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder Rights Law Firm Johnson Fistel, LLP is investigating potential claims against Micro Focus International plc ("Micro Focus)" (NYSE: MFGP). On March 19, 2018, Micro Focus announced the resignation of its Chief Executive Officer and revealed that the Company was lowering its constant currency revenue guidance for the twelve months ending October 31, 2018. Following this news, shares of Micro Focus plunged. [GN] MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Cooper" Suit in M.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management Inc. The case is captioned as KEITH COOPER, Individually on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00082-CDL (M.D. Ga., May 1, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Clay D. Land.[BN] Midland Credit, a licensed debt collector, assists customers in resolving past-due financial obligations through various education and payment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tristan Wade Gillespie, Esq. 5150 COTTAGE FARM RD Johns Creek, GA 30022 Telephone: (404) 984 8260 E-mail: gillespie.tristan@gmail.com MIZUHO BANK: Justice to Recover Losses in Cryptocurrency Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Justice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., a Japanese financial institution and Mark Karpeles, an individual, Defendants., Case No. 18-cv-00286 (D. N.M., March 26, 2018), seeks actual, punitive or exemplary damages, restitution, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment and negligence. Karpeles owned and ran Mt. Gox KK, a business into buying and selling bitcoins using its trading platform with Mizuho as its banking partner who maintained Mt. Gox's operating accounts. Mizuho, a Japanese banking firm, likewise received transaction fees on every wire deposit that it processed into the exchange. Mt. Gox was under scrutiny by US authorities for alleged money laundering while Mizuho Bank allegedly loaned money to organized crime syndicates and was under investigation by Japan's Financial Services Agency. Eventually, Mizuho Bank decided to distance itself from Karpeles and Mt. Gox. Ultimately, in June 2013, Mizuho stopped processing international wire withdrawals for Mt. Gox altogether but continued to accept user deposits into the Mt. Gox Exchange. In September 2015, Karpeles was arrested by Tokyo police and formally charged with fraud and embezzlement in connection to his management of Mt. Gox after it went bankrupt. [BN] Justice joined Mt. Gox in early February 16, 2013. He never recovered his investment after the bankruptcy. Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Esq. EDELSON P.C. 350 North Lasalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Tel: (312) 589-6370 Fax: (312) 589-6378 Email: bthomassen@edelson.com MOKSHA HOTELS: Hotel Employees Seek to Recoup Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Corrozzo, Kevin Ishee, Danielle Rocha and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Moksha Hotels, LLC and Pradeep Kumar, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00297 (M.D. Tenn., March 20, 2018), seeks overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Moksha owns and operates the Clarion Inn, in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where Michael Corrozzo and Kevin Ishee worked as maintenance workers while Rocha worked at the front desk of the hotel. They claimed to have worked more than forty hours per week without receiving overtime compensation for those hours worked in excess of forty. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kerry E. Knox, Esq. 117 South Academy Street Murfreesboro, TN 37130 Tel: (615) 896-1000 Website: www.castelliknox.com - and - Stephen W. Grace, Esq. Delain L. Deatherage, Esq. 1019 16th Avenue, South Nashville, TN 37212 Tel: (615) 255-5225 MR. HOMECARE: "Leonard" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Cyntia Green, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Mr. Homecare Of Cleveland, OH, Inc. and Samantha Belfer, Defendants, Case No. 17-cv-00669 (N.D. Ohio, March 23, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime compensation as well as liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio Labor Laws. Defendants are in the business of in-home healthcare, private duty nursing and in-home care as a home health agency where Belfer worked for the Defendants as a home health care provider often working up to eighty hours per week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC The Caxton Building 812 E. Huron Road, Suite 490 Cleveland, OH 44114 Tel. (440) 498-9100 Fax (216) 621-1094 Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com NATIONAL CONGRESS: Bilek Sues over Robocalls -------------------------------------------- MARY BILEK, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL CONGRESS OF EMPLOYERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-03083 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2018), seeks to secure redress for Defendant's practice of calling the cellular telephone numbers of Plaintiff and others using an automatic telephone dialing system and prerecorded voice, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 729 5288 Facsimile: (312) 729 5289 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com NEPTUNE OYSTER: Website not Blind Accessible, "Conner" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Conner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Neptune Oyster, LLC,, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-10526, (D. Mass., March 20, 2018), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendant owns and operates Neptune Oyster a seafood restaurant located at 63 Salem Street, Boston, MA 02109. Plaintiff attempted to browse Defendant's menu and location on their website. Plaintiff is legally blind and claims that the website is not accessible to the blind. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 NEXEN CORP: Hegedus et al. Seek Conditional Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled ANTHONY HEGEDUS, BRYANT LOWE, JONATHAN OGNIAN, RICHARD CARSON, and DEOSHA BATTLES, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. NEXEN CORPORATION, a Michigan for- profit corporation, STEVEN KIRKA, a natural person, PACE RUNNERS, INC., a Michigan for-profit corporation, AMAZON.COM DEDC LLC, a Washington for-profit corporation, and AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware for-profit corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18- cv-10798-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to enter an order: 1. conditionally certifying a collective action and authorizing the dissemination of a written notice to: "all similarly situated employees pursuant to the "opt-in" mechanism authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)"; 2. permitting a 60-day period for additional plaintiffs to join this litigation; 3. directing the Defendants to provide each employee's last known telephone number, last known mailing address, and last known e-mail address within 10 days from the entry of the Court's Order; 4. requiring proposed notice to be posted in Defendants' workplaces (away from view of customers but in a common place for its employees to view); and 5. granting the other relief. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AzBz8KhI The Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan Yaldou, Esq. Omar Badr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC 23000 Telegraph, Suite 5 Brownstown, MI 48134 Telephone: (734) 692 9200 Facsimile: (734) 692 9201 E-mail: bryan@yaldoulaw.com OHIO ELDERLY: Adams Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ----------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled Adams, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Central Ohio Elderly Care, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv- 00134-MHW-EPD (S.D. Ohio), 1. conditionally certifying a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collective; 2. implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to: "all current and former employees of Defendants who worked over 40 hours in any workweek beginning three years immediately preceding the filing of the Complaint through the date of final disposition of this case, and were not paid one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 because (i) Defendants divided their hours worked between two entities and paid them with two (2) paychecks for the same pay periods; and/or (ii) Defendants reduced their employees' regular rate of pay; and/or (iii) Defendants failed to pay for travel time; and 3. requiring Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's Order, to provide a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendants at any time from three years preceding the filing of this Motion through the present. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=iL5Roox6 Attorneys for Plaintiff and those similarly situated: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Telephone: (614) 949 1181 Facsimile: (614) 386 9964 E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Peter A. Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC PO Box 215 Amlin, OH 43002 Telephone: (614) 787 4878 Facsimile: (614) 923 7369 E-mail: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com PARAGON SYSTEMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Thomas Says --------------------------------------------------------- JOHNATHAN THOMAS, 13121 Larchdale Road Apt. 3 Laurel, MD 20708, On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PARAGON SYSTEMS, INC., 13655 Dulles Technology Drive Suite 100 Herndon, VA 20171, Resident Agent: National Registered Agents Inc. 1090 Vermont A venue Suite 910 Washington, D.C. 20005, the Defendant, Case No. 3056 (D. D.C. Fla., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover overtime compensation under D.C. Payment and Collection of Wages Act and the D.C. Minimum Wage Revision Act.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs: Andrew D. Howell, Esq. Nicholas Woodfield, Esq. R. Scott Oswald, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, PC 888 17th Street NW, 9th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 261 2829 Facsimile: (202) 261 2835 E-mail: dhowel1@employmentlawgroup.com nwoodfield@employmentlawgroup.com soswald@employmentlawgroup.com PASCHALL TRUCK LINES: Drivers' Labor Suit Transferred to W.D. Ky. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Gale Carter and Forbes Hayes, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Paschall Truck Lines, Inc., ECN Financial LLC, PNC Equipment Finance, LLC and John Does 1-20, Case No. 17-cv-04543 (E.D. Pa., October 11, 2017), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on March 20, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv- 00041. Plaintiffs seek redress for unlawful wage deductions thereby reducing their wages below the mandated rates in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Paschall is a truckload carrier operating throughout the United States with a terminal in Philadelphia PA. Element leased tractor trailers to ECB who in turn subleased said tractor trailers and their driving services to Pachall, permitting then to misclassify Plaintiffs as independent contractors. Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as commercial truck drivers. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Joshua S. Boyette, Esq. Travis Martindale-Jarvis, Esq. Manali Arora, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Phone: (856) 685-7420 Fax: (856) 685-7417 Email: jswidler@swartz-legal.com tmartindale@swartz-legal.com marora@swartz-legal.com Paschall Truck Lines Inc is represented by: Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq. SCOPELITIS, GARVIN, LIGHT, HANSON AND FEARY P.C. 10 West Market St., Suite 1400 Indianapolis IN 46204 Tel: (312) 637-1777 Fax: (317) 687-2414 Email: ceckhart@scopelitis.com - and - Delia A. Clark, Esq. RAWLE & HENDERSON LLP One S. Penn Square, 16th Floor The Widener Bldg. Philadelphia, PA 19107 Tel: (215) 575-4291 Email: dclark@rawle.com ECN Financial in represented by: Richard L. Etter, Esq. MCNEES, WALLACE AND NURICK LLC 100 Pine St., PO Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17180 Tel: (412) 513-4332 Fax: (412) 513-4229 Email: retter@fbtlaw.com PAT'S SELECT: Workers Seek to Recoup Minimum Wages, Reimbursement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cassondra Casorio-Sahin, Andres Quintana and Jonathan Thomas, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pat's Select Pizza & Grill LLC, Pat's Select Pizza & Grill of Cockeysville, MD, LLC 224 South Bridge Street Elkton, MD 21921 Serve: Stavros Kalaitzoglou 224 South Bridge Street Elkton, MD 21921, Pat's Select Pizza & Grill of Severn, LLC, Pat's Pizza of North East, Inc., Pat's Pizzeria of Aberdeen, LLC, Pat's Pizza of Oxford, LLC, Apostolos' Pizzerias, Inc., "John Doe" Restaurants, Apostolos Kalaitzoglou and Dimitrios Tangalidis, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00851 (D. Md., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover wages and other damages to which they are entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendants own and operate a chain of restaurants commonly known as Pat's Select Pizza and Grill in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Sahin and Thomas were employed as delivery persons primarily at the Pat's Select located at Pulaski Hi-way MD and claim to be denied the applicable minimum wage when they performed work that was not subject to tipping. They also claim reimbursements for uniform shirts and car and cellphone used for the company errands. Quintana was employed primarily at the North East Pat's Select as a kitchen staff. He regularly works over 60 hours a week but has not been paid overtime, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Joyce E. Smithey, Esq. RIFKIN WEINER LIVINGSTON LLC 225 Duke of Gloucester Street Annapolis, MD 21401 Tel: (410) 269-5066 Fax: (410) 269-1235 Email: jsmithey@rwllaw.com - and - Alan B. Sternstein, Esq. RIFKIN WEINER LIVINGSTON LLC 7979 Old Georgetown Road, Fourth Floor Bethesda, MD 20814 Tel: (301) 951-0150 Fax: (301) 951-0172 Email: asternstein@rwllaw.com PAUL J. HOOTEN: Faces "Burgos" Suit in E.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paul J. Hooten & Associates, PLLC. The case is captioned as Deserae Burgos, an individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Paul J. Hooten & Associates, PLLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-02583-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y., May 1, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Joan M. Azrack. Paul J Hooten & Associates is a law firm. The Firm provides full service legal advice.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abraham Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN, LLC 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556-0626 Telephone: (516) 522 2621 Facsimile: (888) 522 1692 E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com PIZZA HUT: "Ramm" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages & OT under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- HEATHER RAMM, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. PIZZA HUT OF ARIZONA, INC., PIZZA HUT OF COTTONWOOD, INC., PATRICK MCCONAUGHEY, and BRENT KYTE, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-00231-JAS (D. Ariz., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Employment Practices and Working Conditions law. According to the complaint, the Defendants operate numerous Pizza Hut franchise stores. Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles, Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Matthew Haynie, Esq. Jay Forester, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 1701 N. Market St., #201 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 210 2100 E-mail: matthew@foresterhaynie.com jay@foresterhaynie.com POSEIDON CONCEPTS: Siskinds Reaches $36MM Class Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------- Siskinds LLP on April 23 disclosed that the Court-appointed representatives of a class of shareholders of Poseidon Concepts Corp. ("Poseidon") have reached a global settlement with all of the defendants in the proposed securities class actions arising from the circumstances of Poseidon ("Global Settlement"). The Global Settlement is currently subject to the approval of the Court of Queen's Bench of the Province of Alberta ("Alberta Court") and recognition by Ontario, Quebec and United States Courts, which will be asked to dismiss the proposed class action claims. The Global Settlement supersedes the partial settlement with Poseidon's directors and officers and certain of its related entities, which was previously announced on December 21, 2017. Subject to Court approval and certain other preconditions, the Global Settlement compromises and finally releases all the claims asserted against and by Poseidon, its directors and officers and certain of its employees, Poseidon's former auditor, Poseidon's underwriters and Peyto Exploration & Development Corp. The Global Settlement does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of the defendants, who dispute the claims. As consideration for the Global Settlement, the defendants will pay at least $34,632,800 and up to $36,606,200 for the benefit of a class of Poseidon's shareholders. The manner of distribution of the settlement proceeds will be determined by further Court order to be sought in the future after the necessary approvals have been obtained and the settlement has become final. A further notice will be issued to the investors when the settlement proceeds are available for distribution. The litigation arises from alleged misrepresentations in Poseidon's disclosure documents issued in 2011 and 2012, including with respect to the recognition of allegedly improper revenues and accounts receivable. Poseidon, which formerly traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange under ticker symbol ("PSN"), commenced insolvency proceedings in April 2013 and was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange in May 2013. The Global Settlement is being presented as part of a plan of compromise and arrangement filed with the Alberta Court under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. A sanction hearing will be held on May 4, 2018, during which the Alberta Court will consider whether the proposed plan of compromise and arrangement is fair and should be approved. If you are an investor in Poseidon securities and wish to object to the Global Settlement, your only opportunity to object to it is at the sanction hearing. If you want to object, you must register your objection by no later than May 3, 2018 at noon, Calgary time. If the Global Settlement is approved, all members of the class will be bound by it. For further details, please consult the notice available [here] (English) and [here] (French). "We are pleased with this result for our clients and the shareholders," said Daniel Bach, a partner at Siskinds LLP. "Poseidon's unfortunate circumstances caused significant financial losses to its investors, and its insolvency added multiple layers of complexity to the litigation. The settlement represents a significant recovery for the benefit of the shareholder class," said Robert Hawkes -- hawkesr@jssbarristers.ca -- a partner at Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP. The Plaintiffs have been appointed representatives for Poseidon's investors by Order of the Alberta Court, and are represented by the law firms of Siskinds LLP, Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP and Siskinds Desmeules, Avocats. [GN] POTJANEE INC: Delivery Staff Seeks Unpaid OT Wages, Withheld Tips ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Juarez Sanchez, Santos Rodriguez Garcia, Cristobal Badillo, Sergio Guadalupe Palafox, Jorge Arturo Castillo Cerezo and Kris Suthayabhorn, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Potjanee Inc. (d/b/a Potjanee), Potjanee Authentic Thai Restaurant Inc. (d/b/a Potjanee), Thinawan Maneepong, Potjanee Maneepong, Chiraphat Khemdaeng, Arthit Maneepong and Bhimwalan Tanajam, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02664 (S.D. N.Y., March 26, 2018), seeks to recover, withheld tips and overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and New York Labor Law. Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant, located at 48 Carmine St, New York, NY 10014 under the name "Potjanee" where Plaintiffs were employed as delivery workers but spent a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties. They worked without appropriate minimum wage compensation for the hours worked and overtime pay. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com PRIME CAPITAL: Faces "Nikolovski" Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prime Capital Source, Inc. The case is captioned as Chris Nikolovski, and Chris Nikolovski D.D.S., P.C., a Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative s of a class of similarly situated persons and entities, the Plaintiffs, v. Prime Capital Source, Inc. and Scott Davidson, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03085 (N.D. Ill., April 30, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. Manish S. Shah.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James C. Vlahakis, Esq. Ahmad Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq. Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575 8181 E-mail: jvlahakis@sulaimanlaw.com ahmad.sulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com PROST LLC: Fails to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked, Acosta Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LUIZ M. ACOSTA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PROST LLC, a California limited liability company d/b/a Bolt Brewery, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-2018-00021811-CU-0E-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. This action arises from Bolt Brewery's uniform, systematic practices of, inter alia: (a) failing to provide Plaintiff and the Class members with meal periods; failing to authorize and permit Plaintiff and the Class members to take rest periods; (c) failing to pay Plaintiff and the Class members any compensation (including overtime pay where appropriate) for all hours worked off-the-clock during meal periods; and (d) failing to pay Plaintiff and the Class members all wages due upon termination of their employment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel V. Santiago, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL V. SANTIAGO, P.C. Torrey Reserve North Court 11622 El CaminoReal, 1st Floor Del Mar, CA 92130 Telephone: (760) 652 9801 Facsimile: (760) 652 9802 E-mail: dvs@dvslawoffices.com PURDUE PHARMA: Canadian Doctors Call for Opioid Investigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Crowe, writing for CBC News, reports that on April 20, a group of Canadian doctors and opioid researchers sent a letter to the Attorney General of Canada and to Health Canada demanding a criminal investigation into the marketing of opioids to Canadian doctors. "While Purdue has already pleaded guilty to illegally marketing opioids in the U.S., no opioid manufacturer has been prosecuted in Canada," the letter stated. "The opioid crisis is one of the defining issues of this time," said Dr. Nav Persaud, a family doctor at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto. "It's pretty rare to call for a criminal investigation, as a doctor or researcher, but a group of colleagues and I have decided to do so because this is such an important issue." Purdue Pharma, which introduced OxyContin to the marketplace in the mid-1990s, heavily promoted the pain medication to doctors at the time by claiming that it was less addictive. In the U.S. in 2007, Purdue executives pleaded guilty to criminal charges that they misled doctors and patients about the drug's addictive potential. "Now I am stating publicly with my colleagues that there should be a criminal investigation in Canada," Dr. Persaud said, adding that Canada has laws preventing companies from making false and misleading claims about products. "There are definitely laws that could have been broken in this case." "Purdue Pharma (Canada) has always marketed its products in line with the Health Canada approved product monograph and in compliance with all relevant rules, regulations and codes, including the Food and Drugs Act and the Pharmaceutical Advertising Advisory Board (PAAB) Code," Purdue Pharma (Canada) spokesperson Walter Robinson wrote in an email to CBC News. In the U.S., Purdue has stated it will no longer market opioids to doctors. But the Canadian company, which operates independently, has not made a similar declaration. Dr. Persaud said he and his colleagues decided to call for a criminal investigation now after a decision in March by a Saskatchewan judge to reject the settlement Purdue Pharma (Canada) had agreed to pay Canadian opioid victims after they launched a class action suit. Justice Brian Barrington-Foote stated in his decision that he was not convinced the $20-million settlement was "fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the class as a whole." Lawyers estimated that individual opioid victims would have received up to $13,500. Purdue Pharma (Canada) said in an email that the company is "considering next steps" following the Saskatchewan decision and that "Purdue Pharma (Canada) has made no admissions of liability." Dr. Persaud and his colleagues are also calling on Ottawa to directly compensate victims by using legislation to recover funds from the continued sale of the opioids in Canada. "I think it's important to note that companies that may have contributed to the opioid crisis are continuing to profit from it," said Persaud. Health Canada told CBC News in an email that Canada's opioid prescribing rate is still the second highest in the world after the United States. "The government of Canada recognizes that the high level of opioids historically prescribed in Canada has contributed to the devastating impacts of the current opioid crisis." [GN] RENT-A-CENTER: "Blair" Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled PAULA L. BLAIR, ANDREA ROBINSON, and FALECHIA A. HARRIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RENT-A-CENTER, INC., a Delaware corporation; RENT-A-CENTER WEST, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02335-WHA (S.D. Cal.), Paula Blair, Andrea Robinson, and Falechia Harris will move the Court for an order: 1. certifying class of: "all individuals who entered into a rent-to-own transaction with RAC in California at any time between March 13, 2013, and the date notice is sent to the class"; 2. certifying subclass of: "class members for whose transactions RAC has no applicable arbitration agreement"; and 3. appointing Celinda Garza as Class Representatives, and appointing Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP and Altshuler Berzon LLP as Class Counsel. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1u1dGvZ0 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: James T. Hannink, Esq. Zach P. Dostart, Esq. DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530 La Jolla, CA 92037-1474 Telephone: (858) 623 4200 Facsimile: (858) 623 4299 E-mail: jhannink@sdlaw.com zdostart@sdlaw.com - and - Michael Rubin, Esq. Eric P. Brown, Esq. ALTSHULER BERZON LLP 177 Post Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 421 7151 Facsimile: (415) 362 8064 E-mail: mrubin@altber.com ebrown@altber.com SCHAEFER AUTOBODY: Hubbard, Farmer Seek Conditional Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled AMBER HUBBARD and SIEADAH FARMER, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SCHAEFER AUTOBODY CENTERS, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:18-cv-00232-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the parties jointly ask the Court to: a. conditionally certify case to proceed as a collective action; b. order the Defendant to identify and provide referenced information for all putative class members that have worked for Defendant from February 9, 2015 and the present; c. order the Defendant to provide information in the form of a computer-readable list (in Excel format) to Plaintiffs' counsel within 14 days of the Court's Order; d. direct the issuance of Plaintiffs' proposed notice and consent form, attached hereby as Exhibit 1, to all such persons on an expedited schedule via U.S. Mail and email; and e. order a 45-day opt-in period, running from the date that the class notice is first disseminated by Plaintiffs' counsel. The parties pray for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B97uzop7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated: Russell C. Riggan, Esq. Samuel W. Moore, Esq. RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC 132 W Washington Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkwood, Missouri 63122 Telephone: (314) 835 9100 Facsimile: (314) 735 1054 E-mail: russ@rigganlawfirm.com smoore@rigganlawfirm.com Attorney for Defendant: Kevin P. Clark, Esq. LITCHFIELD CAVO, LLP 222 South Central Ave., Suite 200 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725 1227 Facsimile: (314) 725 3006 E-mail: clark@litchfieldcavo.com SCI DIRECT: Sales Reps Seek Minimum Wages, Reimbursements ---------------------------------------------------------- Nicole Romano and Jonathan Bono, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SCI Direct, Inc. and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02377, (C.D. Cal., March 23, 2018), seeks recovery of minimum wages, reimbursement of reasonable business expenses and losses, applicable statutory penalties and any other and further relief for violation of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission wage orders. Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as Sales Representatives and claim to be misclassified as independent contractors instead of employees. SCI allegedly failed to reimburse them for reasonable business expenses, failed to provide them with accurate, itemized wage statements and failed to timely pay full wages upon termination or resignation. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com SHIFTPIXY INC: Johnson Fistel Probes Potential Securities Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- On or About June 30, 2017, ShiftPixy, (NASDAQ: PIXY) ("ShiftPixy") completed the Company's initial public offering. The Company successfully raised $12 Million through the sale of 2,000,000 of its shares to the public at $6.00 per share. However, since the IPO, ShiftPixy stock has imploded, on April 20, 2018, the stock closed at $3.18. Specifically, Johnson Fistel's investigation seeks to determine whether ShiftPixy Company's filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission related to the stock offering contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading. [GN] SIRIUS XM: Bell Sues over Lifetime Subscriptions ------------------------------------------------ MARC BELL, the Plaintiff, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., the Defendant, Case No. 71506755 (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Miami-Dade County, May 1, 2018), seeks to recover damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant related to Plaintiffs lifetime subscriptions, which Defendant has subsequently refused to honor without encumbrances. The Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of himself individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons as a class action pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220(b)(3). The Plaintiff's claims against Defendant, and the resulting injuries caused to Plaintiff by Defendant, arose in substantial part from Defendant's advertising and trade practices related to its satellite radio services to Plaintiff and other Florida residents. Defendant's conduct amounts to a breach of express and implied contracts, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Sirius XM Satellite Radio is an American broadcasting company that provides three satellite radio and online radio services operating in the United States: Sirius Satellite Radio, XM Satellite Radio, and Sirius XM Radio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN HALL LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 900 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 357 2107 Facsimile: (305) 200 8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinhall.com SMILE BRANDS: "DeForest" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- Dan DeForest, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Smile Brands, Inc., Smile Brands Finance, Inc. (d/b/a Bright Now! Dental, Inc.), Does 1-10, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00472 (C.D. Cal., March 23, 2018), seeks statutory damages and injunctive relief resulting from violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Smile Brands is a company involved in providing dental insurance and recovery/collections. They contacted DeForest on her cellular telephone, in an attempt to collect an alleged outstanding debt using an automatic telephone dialing system. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com SPINNAKER RESORTS: Cardenas Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- Henna Cardenas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Spinnaker Resorts, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00761 (D. S.C., March 20, 2018), seeks an injunction to cease all telemarketing calls, an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint says Spinnaker utilized unsolicited telemarketing as a way to increase its customer base in order to generate sales for its vacation ownership business. Cardenas is on the National Do-Not-Call Registry. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Margaret A. Collins, Esq. P.S.L.G., LLC (d/b/a Palmetto State Law Group, LLC) 1087B Harbor Drive West Columbia, SC 29169 Tel: (803) 708-7442 PBX: (803) 251-9003 Facsimile: (803) 753-9352 - and - Steven Woodrow, Esq. Patrick Peluso, Esq. Woodrow & Peluso, LLC 3900 E. Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Phone: (720) 213-0675 Email: swoodrow@ppeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. Law Offices of Stefan Coleman, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Tel: (877) 333-9427 Fax: (888) 498-8946 Email: stefan@classaction.ws SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT: "Sebastian" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Donovan Sebastian, individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sprint/United Management Company, a Kansas Corporation and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 30-02018-00982220-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana) on May 1, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:18-cv-00757-JLS-KES to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton. Sprint/United Management Company, Inc. is based in Overland Park, Kansas. Sprint/United Management Company, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Sprint Nextel Corp.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Brian J Mankin, Esq. Peter Carlson, Esq. FERNANDEZ AND LAUBY LLP 4590 Allstate Drive Riverside, CA 92501 Telephone: (951) 320 1444 Facsimile: (951) 320 1445 E-mail: bjm@fernandezlauby.com pjc@fernandezlauby.com Attorneys for Sprint/United Management Company: Harold M Brody, Esq. Tracey Lynne Silver, Esq. Pietro Antonio Deserio, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2049 Century Park East 32nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 Telephone: (310) 557 2900 Facsimile: (310) 557 2193 E-mail: hbrody@proskauer.com tsilver@proskauer.com pdeserio@proskauer.com STEPHEN EINSTEIN: "Cole" Suit Seeks Damages Under FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------- Alex J. Cole, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C. and Second Round, L.P. Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06230, (W.D. N.Y., March 20, 2017), seeks statutory damages and equitable relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Einstein is a law firm in the business of the collection of debts with principal place of business at 39 Broadway, Suite 1250, New York, New York 10006. Second Round is in the business of collection of debts with principal place of business at 1701 Directors Boulevard, Suite 900, Austin, Texas, 78744. Defendants were attempting to collect on an alleged credit card debt from Cole. Though substantial amounts of late fees have accrued on this account, Defendant's collection letter falsely stated that the amount of accrued charges or fees was $0.00, notes the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander J. Douglas, Esq. DOUGLAS FIRM, P.C. New York Bar No. 5343892 36 West Main Street, Ste. 500 Rochester, NY 14614 Tel: (585) 568-2224 Fax: (585) 546-6185 Email: alex@lawroc.com TA OPERATING: Faces "Salcedo" Suit in California State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against TA OPERATING LLC. The case is captioned as ROSAURA SALCEDO, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. TA OPERATING LLC, the Defendant, Case No. BCV-18-101006 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 30, 2017). The case is assigned to the Stephen D. Schuett.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 TENET FLORIDA: MSPA to Appeal Case Dismissal to 11th Cir. --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned as MSPA CLAIMS 1, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. TENET FLORIDA, INC., and ST. MARY'S MEDICAL CENTER, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-20039-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2018), the Plaintiff provides notice that it is taking an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit from the District Court's Order Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. This case is a putative class action purportedly arising out of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Tenet Florida, Inc. and St. Mary's Medical Center, Inc. failed to reimburse Florida Healthcare Plus -- the assignor Medicare Advantage Organization -- for conditional payments made on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries who were separately covered by a private insurer qualifying as a primary payer under the MSPA. Tenet Florida, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Health Services Network Hospitals, Inc.[BN] Lead Counsel for Plaintiff and the Class: Andres Rivero, Esq. Jorge A. Mestre, Esq. Alan H. Rolnick, Esq. Charles E. Whorton, Esq. Kingsley C. Nwamah, Esq. David L. Daponte, Esq. RIVERO MESTRE LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 445 2500 Facsimile: (305) 445 2505 E-mail: arivero@riveromestre.com jmestre@riveromestre.com arolnick@riveromestre.com cwhorton@riveromestre.com knwamah@riveromestre.com ddaponte@riveromestre.com npuentes@riveromestre.com - and - Frank C. Quesada, Esq. MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM 5000 S.W. 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (305) 614 2239 E-mail: serve@msprecovery.com fquesada@msprecovery.com TEZOS: Co-Founder Faces FINRA Fine Amid Class Actions ----------------------------------------------------- Gerald Fenech, writing for Coingeek, reports that Arthur Breitman, the controversial co-founder of Tezos tech project, is once again in the headlines following reports that he was fined by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to the tune of $20,000. This occurred due to the fact that Mr. Breitman made a number of false statements regarding his venture whilst he was still an employee of Morgan Stanley. Securities professionals that are registered with the FINRA are required to explain any activity that is carried out for profit that has nothing to do with their employment if this activity results in some sort of compensation. Mr. Breitman, a French citizen registered with FINRA, reportedly started working in the Tezos project between 2014 and 2015, while he's still employed at Morgan Stanley. A Reuters report published a business plan written by Mr. Breitman that listed him as chief executive of the company--which its executives expected to make $20 billion in over 15 years. Additionally, Mr. Breitman wrote two papers under the pseudonym L.M. Goodman, an indication that he wanted to hide his connection with the company. It appears, however, that the Wall Street regulator has already reached an agreement with Mr. Breitman over that incident. In its settlement agreement, FINRA said: "Breitman did not notify Morgan Stanley at any time that he was engaging in these outside business activities," He was fined $20,000 and was also banned from entering into any brokerage dealings for a period of two years. Mr. Breitman did not specifically admit or deny the charges, and his lawyer Sarah Lightdale said, "The settlement with FINRA is unrelated to and has no impact on the launch of the Tezos network. Arthur cooperated fully with FINRA at all times and Arthur is pleased to put this personal matter behind him." This is not the first time that Tezos has been involved in conflicts and controversy. The Tezos Foundation allegedly raised $232 million in July 2017 to build a blockchain network for smart contracts. However, none of the cryptocurrency has been delivered as yet due to problems with legal issues and internal conflict at board level. According to reports, there were substantial conflicts between Kathleen and Mr. Breitman and the president of the Tezos Foundation, Johann Gevers, who was also accused of attempting to embezzle funds and hindering the progress of the coin. There were also a number of class action lawsuits brought against the Tezos Foundation from investors as well as accusations of securities fraud and persistent rumours that the SEC would be launching an investigation into the foundation's operations. [GN] TRUECOVERAGE LLC: Dudley Seeks OT & Minimum Wages under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ MONIQUE DUDLEY and NOREEN COSTA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. TRUECOVERAGE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:18-cv-03760-PA-AGR (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2018), seeks to recover overtime premiums and minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Defendant is in the business of selling insurance for insurance companies to consumers over the phone, in an at-home call center setting, via inbound and outbound calls. As part of its business practices, the Defendant generates their leads through marketing campaigns to entice consumers to enroll in insurance plans over the phone. To make and field these calls, the Defendant employed insurance agents in an at-home call center setting. The Defendant misclassified its Agents as independent contractors. The Defendant required its Agents to work a full- time schedule, plus overtime. However, the Defendant did not record its Agents' compensable work time as required by law. Instead of paying Agents based on hours worked, the Defendant paid its Agents on a contingent, commission-only basis whereby Defendant paid commissions but then "charged back" their Agents for a return of any commissions (up to 100%) on sales that were cancelled within the first several months. The Defendant's contingent, commission-only compensation system resulted in Agents not being paid for all time worked, including overtime. The Defendant's Agents performed the same basic job duties and were required to use the same or similar computer networks, software programs, applications, and phone systems. TrueCoverage is the private health insurance marketplace established at New Mexico.[BN] Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class and Collective Members: James Hawkins, Esq. Gregory Mauro, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS, APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA. 92618 Telephone: (949) 387 7200 E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Charles R. Ash IV, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MH 48076 Telephone: (248) 355 0300 E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com crash@sommerspc.com TRUSTMARK NATIONAL: Fodge Sues Over Excessive Interest Rates ------------------------------------------------------------ Steven D. Fodge, Joseph E. Carey, Jon Adrian Tokay, Pamela Rhea Jeffcoat, Individually, Andrew J. Kaltenmark, Individually, Lance K. Inovejas and Deborah A. Inovejas, individually and as representatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs V. Trustmark National Bank, OCWEN Loan Servicing, LLC, Barksdale Federal Credit Union, Pennymac Loan Services, LLC, Bank of America, N.A. and PHH Mortgage Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00386 (W.D. La., March 20, 2018), seeks damages and injunctive relief for violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Plaintiffs are United States military service members who took out real estate mortgage loans with the individual Defendants while they were in service and accuse them of charging interest in excess of 6%, the cap set by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. Defendants are financial institutions that provide real estate mortgages and services. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John S. Odom, Esq. JONES AND ODOM LLP 2124 Fairfield Ave. Shreveport LA 71104 Tel: (318) 221-1600 Fax: (318) 425-1256 Email: john.odom@jodplaw.com - and - M. Chad Trammell, Esq. TRAMMELL PIAZZA LAW FIRM, PLLC 418 North State Line Avenue Texarkana, AR 71854 Telephone: (870) 779-1860 Facsimile: (870) 779-1861 UNITED STATES: "Broussard" Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit styled WILFRED BROUSSARD and CATHERINE MARCEAUX LASETER, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 6:18- cv-00176-UDJ-CBW (W.D. La.), Wilfred Broussard, Catherine Marceaux Laseter, and Icy Seafood, Inc. ask the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons or entities who or which own property in Louisiana on the Intracoastal Waterway in which the Intracoastal Waterway has exceeded the boundaries established in the servitudes granted to Defendant"; and 2. naming themselves as Representative Plaintiffs and appointing Couhig Partners, LLC, and The Sallinger Law Firm to serve as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Aaz72M6o Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Robert E. Couhig Jr., Esq. Ralph H. Wall, Esq. Jonathan P. Lemann, Esq. Jason A. Cavignac, Esq. COUHIG PARTNERS, L.L.C. 3250 Energy Centre 1100 Poydras Street New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 588 1288 Facsimile: (504) 588 9750 - and - Barry J. Sallinger, Esq. P.O. Box. 2433 Lafayette, LA 70502 Telephone: (337) 235 5791 Facsimile: (337) 235 1067 E-mail: bjs@sallingerlaw.com UNITED STATES: Faces "Purnell" Suit in N.D. Mississippi ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against the United States President Donald Trump. The case is captioned as Leroy Purnell, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Petitioner, v. Donald Trump, President of the United States; U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"); U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm, and Explosive ("ATF"); Federal Bureau and Investigation; Jeff Sessions, U.S. Attorney General; Jim Hood, MS Attorney General; John Kelly, U.S. Secretary of DHS; Mark McKee, MS Director of DHS; National Security Agency ("NSA")'; Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"); the Respondent, Case No. 4:18-cv- 00099-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., April 30, 2018). The case is assigned to the Hon. District Judge Debra M. Brown. Donald John Trump is the 45th and current President of the United States, in office since January 20, 2017. Before entering politics, he was a businessman and television personality.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. VIVID SEATS: Sold Overpriced Tickets, "Giesea" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------- Todd Giesea, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Vivid Seats LLC, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01776, (N.D. Cal., March 21, 2018), seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease advertising and selling subject tickets; and damages together with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of the California False Advertising Act and the Unfair Business Practices Act. Defendant is engaged in the, marketing, supplying, and distributing of pre-sale tickets for various events. On September 12, 2017, Giesea purchased tickets for an event advertised on Vivid's webpage. He paid the Defendant approximately three times more for the tickets than he would have had he purchased the tickets from the producers of the event or their agents, says the complaint. Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St. Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com WAGEWORKS INC: "Hadden" Suit Hits Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------- Robin Hadden, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wageworks, Inc., Joseph L. Jackson and Colm M. Callan, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv -01796, (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2018), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. WageWorks, Inc. provides tax-advantaged programs for consumer- directed health, commuter, and other employee spending account benefits in the United States. Defendants allegedly failed to disclose material weaknesses in its systems of internal controls and that its practices and controls were ineffective, that it failed to adequately manage and assess risk relating to certain complex transactions, including certain government contracts, and that it improperly recognized revenue, thereby inflating its earnings and related financial metrics. On this news, WageWorks' share price fell $9.75, or 18.58%, to close at $42.70 per share on March 1, 2018, on heavy volume. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com WALLE CORPORATION: Brumfield Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled BRIDGET BRUMFIELD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WALLE CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-08440-JCZ-JCW (E.D. La.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for conditional certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act Collective Action Class and Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b): "all persons who worked for Defendant since May 2015, who were paid by the hour at different rates of pay for different shifts that they worked for Defendant, but who were not paid overtime based upon their averaged rate of pay." The Defendant does not oppose the filing of this motion, but reserves all rights to move for decertification at the appropriate time or to advance any defenses that it may have to the substantive claims in this lawsuit. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BUU90uXp Attorneys for Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Action Plaintiffs: Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. JACKSON+JACKSON 201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 599-5953 Facsimile: (888) 988-6499 E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net mjackson@jackson-law.net WESTERN REFINING: Fails to Pay All Wages, Dilworth Claims --------------------------------------------------------- AMIA DILWORTH, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. WESTERN REFINING RETAIL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; ANDEAVOR, a Delaware corporation; CONICO BULLLTON, LLC, a California limited liability company; CONICO HARBOR, LLC, a California limited liability company: CONICO LOMITA, LLC a California limited liability company; CONICO MACVALLF.Y. LLC, a California limited liability company; CONICO ROSE, LLC. a California limited liability company; CONICO SANTA MONICA, LLC, a California limited liability company; CONICO STATE, LLC. a California limited liability company; CONICO VICTORY, LLC, a California limited liability company; CONICO WEST LAKE, LLC, a California limited liability company; CONICO WHOLESALE. LLC, a California limited liability company; CONICO YOSEMITE LLC, a California limited liability company; CONICO CORO, INC., a California corporation; CONICO ROR.O, INC., a California corporation; CONICOTORO, INC., a California corporation; PETER HONG, an individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC702261 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 30, 2018), seeks to recover all unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are liable to her and other similarly situated current and former California-based hourly workers, including but not limited to cashiers, for unpaid wages and other related relief. These claims are based on Defendants' alleged failures to (1) provide all meal and paid rest periods in compliance with California law, (2) pay all wages earned for all hours worked, (3) indemnify for all expenses, (4) provide accurate wage statements, (5) timely pay final wages upon termination of employment, and (6) fairly compete. Western Refining Texas Retail Services, LLC is based in El Paso, Texas. Western Refining Texas Retail Services, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Western Refining, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David G. Spivak, Esq. Sehyung (Logan) Park, Esq. THE SPIVAK LAW FIRM 16530 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 312 Encino, CA9I436 Telephone: (818) 582 3086 Facsimile: (818) 582 2561 E-mail: davidt@spivaklaw.com logan@spivaklaw.com - and - Walter Hawes, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Boisa Ave. Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (562) 256 1047 Facsimile: (562) 256 1006 E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION: Underfills Pre-Workout Product, Lopez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- GUSTAVO LOPEZ, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WOODBOLT DISTRIBUTION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. (S.D. Fla., April 30, 2018), seeks to enjoin Defendant from further deceptive advertising, sales, and other business practices with respect to its Cellucor C4 PreWorkout packaging. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, against Defendant, based on Defendant's misleading business practices with respect to the packaging and sale of Cellucor C4 Pre-Workout powders sold in 30- and 60-serving size containers. According to the complaint, the Defendant has packaged and sold the C4 Pre-Workout in opaque packaging that conceals from consumers the amount of product actually contained therein. The C4 Pre-Workout is sold fully enclosed in an opaque plastic container significantly comprised of non-functional empty space. This packaging prevents the consumer from directly seeing or handling the product and leads the reasonable consumer to believe that the package contains significantly more product than it actually does. Defendant's practice of approximately half-filling its C4 Pre- Workout containers with pre-workout powder inside of an opaque container creates non-functional slack fill. The use of non- functional slack fill allows Defendant to lower their costs by deceiving customers into paying a higher price for more product than they truly receive. The Plaintiff and others have reasonably relied on Defendant's deceptive packaging in purchasing C4 Pre-Workout. If Plaintiff and other consumers had known the actual amount of pre-workout powder contained in the packaging, they would not have purchased the C4 Pre-Workout or would have paid less for it. Therefore, Plaintiff and other consumers have suffered injury-in-fact as a result of Defendant's deceptive practices, including, but not limited to, out-of-pocket costs incurred in purchasing the overvalued C4 Pre-Workout. Woodbolt Distribution LLC, doing business as Woodbolt International, provides sports nutrition and dietary supplements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. Robert K. Friedl, Esq. Trisha K. Monesi, Esq. Capstone Law APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556 4811 Facsimile: (310) 943 0396 E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com XUNLEI: Faces Class Action Over Initial Coin Offering ----------------------------------------------------- Samuel Haig, writing for Bitcoin.com, reports that Nasdaq-listed technology firm Xunlei has become the subject of multiple class- action lawsuits from investors who purchased the company's digital token, Linktoken. Xunlei is accused of misleading investors to disguise an initial coin offering (ICO) through which Linktoken was distributed. The chief executive officer of Xunlei, Chen Lei, has rejected accusations that the company misled investors in order to illegally conduct an ICO in China. Xunlei's Linktoken was distributed to users in exchange for a contribution of idle internet bandwidth, according to South China Morning Post. Chen Lei has claimed that the Linktoken distribution did not comprise an ICO due to the company not raising any funds through the issuance of the tokens, and due to Linktoken comprising a utility token that is not allowed to be traded. "By making a public offering, really you need to use it to raise money. We have never used a coin to raise any money at all, that's never our intention," Mr. Lei stated. In October 2017, Linktoken was launched in conjunction with other efforts by Xunlei to enter the booming blockchain industry. Whilst the distribution of the Linktoken appears to have been the catalyst for many weeks of sharp bullish action, the value of Xunlei's stock has more than halved since posting 500% gains and setting record highs of $25 USD in November 2017. Xunlei's Stock Plummets Since then, the price of Xunlei's shares had plummeted to approximately $10 by early April, prompting some U.S.-based investors to seek action against the company for allegations of giving false and/or misleading statements regarding the legitimacy of the company's cryptocurrency-related activities between October 2017 and January 2018. Among other allegations, investors have pointed to the requirement that they purchase hardware from Xunlei in order to share bandwidth and claim the digital tokens in return. Chen Lei has refuted the allegations, stating "We are a small capital company, so our stock price does fluctuate, but I don't think there's any basis for the lawsuit because we're operating in China and it is the Chinese law and regulations that we need to observe," adding that "the definition of [an] ICO has to be interpreted in the Chinese market." Mr. Lei also indicated that Xunlei is currently in the process of hiring legal counsel to refute the allegations. Chen Lei Claims to Support Regulatory Action Against ICOs Chen Lei also criticized initial coin offerings and advocated for greater regulatory action to be taken against such, stating "ICOs are terrible, and give a bad name to blockchain technology. Governments should clamp down on these practices -- a crackdown is the only way blockchain can rebuild its reputation." Mr. Lei added: "We have been very straight on our business practices -- we do not sell tokens." China's National Internet Finance Association (NIFA), a self- regulatory body established by the People's Bank of China and authorized by China's State Council, conducted an investigation into Xunlei's token distribution, concluding in January the company had evaded regulations through conducting an "initial miner offering." NIFA stated "In the case of Lianke issued by Xunlei, for example, the issuing company in effect substitutes Lianke for the duty to pay back project contributors with legal tender, making it essentially a financing activity and a form of disguised ICO. In addition, with frequent promotional activities and publishing of trading tutorials, Xunlei has lured many citizens without sound discernment into IMO activities." Xunlei Shares Bounce After Blockchain Launch Despite the controversy and ongoing class-action lawsuits, Xunlie's stock has bounced in recent days following the company's announcement that its "Thunderchain" blockchain platform designed to facilitate the development of decentralized applications has been launched. Xunlei's shares (XNET) are currently trading at $13.46, after retracing from highs of $14 on the 20th of April. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chicago Bridge Had 1,200 Claims at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. had approximately 1,200 claims pending for allege exposure to asbestos, 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 are a defendant in numerous lawsuits wherein plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer, distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past several decades and through December 31, 2017, we have been named a defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving approximately 6,200 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately 1,200 claims were pending and 5,000 have been closed through dismissals or settlements. "Over the past several decades and through December 31, 2017, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an average settlement amount of approximately two thousand dollars per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accruals based on the probability of loss and our estimates of the amount of liability and related expenses, if any. Although we have seen an increase in the number of recent filings, especially in one specific venue, we do not believe the increase or any unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effect on our future results of operations, financial position or cash flow, and at December 31, 2017, we had approximately US$8.5 million accrued for liability and related expenses. With respect to unasserted asbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of potential claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probability of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any. "While we continue to pursue recovery for recognized and unrecognized contingent losses through insurance, indemnification arrangements or other sources, we are unable to quantify the amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because of the variability in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles or the viability of carriers, with respect to our insurance policies for the years in question." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/AZey9E ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto's Unit Still Defends Fibro Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Advance Auto Parts, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2017, that its subsidiary still defends itself against asbestos-related lawsuits. Advance Auto states, "The Company's Western Auto subsidiary, together with other defendants (including the Company and other of its subsidiaries), has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products. The plaintiffs have alleged that certain products contained asbestos and were manufactured, distributed and/or sold by the various defendants. Many of the cases pending against the Company are in the early stages of litigation. While the damages claimed against the defendants in some of these proceedings are substantial, the Company believes many of these claims are at least partially covered by insurance and historically asbestos claims against the Company have been inconsistent in fact patterns alleged and immaterial. The Company does not believe the cases currently pending will have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/5KlAYf ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Steel Faces 820 Active Cases at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- United States Steel Corporation continues to defend itself against 820 active asbestos cases involving approximately 3,315 plaintiffs 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. The Company states: "As of December 31, 2017, U.S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 820 active cases involving approximately 3,315 plaintiffs. The vast majority of these cases involve multiple defendants. As of December 31, 2016, U.S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 845 cases involving approximately 3,340 plaintiffs. About 2,500, or approximately 75 percent, of these plaintiff claims are currently pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs. Based upon U.S. Steel's experience in such cases, it believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U.S. Steel will likely be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs. "Historically, asbestos-related claims against U.S. Steel fall into three groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were exposed to asbestos on the premises of U.S. Steel facilities; (2) claims made by persons allegedly exposed to products manufactured by U.S. Steel; and (3) claims made under certain federal and maritime laws by employees of former operations of U.S. Steel. "The amount U.S. Steel accrues for pending asbestos claims is not material to U.S. Steel's financial condition. However, U.S. Steel is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of asbestos- related claims due to a number of uncertainties, including: (1) the rates at which new claims are filed, (2) the number of and effect of bankruptcies of other companies traditionally defending asbestos claims, (3) uncertainties associated with the variations in the litigation process from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, (4) uncertainties regarding the facts, circumstances and disease process with each claim, and (5) any new legislation enacted to address asbestos-related claims. Despite these uncertainties, management believes that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on U.S. Steel's financial condition, although the resolution of such matters could significantly impact results of operations for a particular quarter." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/8NwFQa ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Units Had 8 Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------- Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that eight plaintiffs have claims against the Company's subsidiaries at December 31, 2017. The Company states, "In 2004, several of our subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other unaffiliated defendants, in complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of the State of Mississippi, and in 2014, a group of similar complaints were filed in Louisiana. "The plaintiffs, former employees of some of the defendants, generally allege that the defendants used or manufactured asbestos containing drilling mud additives for use in connection with drilling operations, claiming negligence, products liability, strict liability and claims allowed under the Jones Act and general maritime law. The plaintiffs generally seek awards of unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, but the court appointed special master has ruled that a Jones Act employer defendant, such as us, cannot be sued for punitive damages. "At December 31, 2017, eight plaintiffs have claims pending in Louisiana in which we have or may have an interest. "We intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously, although we can provide no assurance as to the outcome. We historically have maintained broad liability insurance, although we are not certain whether insurance will cover the liabilities, if any, arising out of these claims. Based on our evaluation of the exposure to date, we do not expect the liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/8bFYYG ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Unit Had 140 Injury Suits at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Transocean Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, that one of its subsidiaries was a defendant in approximately 140 asbestos-related lawsuits as of December 31, 2017. The Company states, "One of our subsidiaries has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the subsidiary's manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. "As of December 31, 2017, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 140 lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs. "For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided with sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. "The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold and its operations were discontinued in 1989, and the subsidiary has no remaining assets other than insurance policies, rights and proceeds, including (i) certain policies subject to litigation and (ii) certain rights and proceeds held directly or indirectly through a qualified settlement fund. The subsidiary has in excess of US$1.0 billion in insurance limits potentially available to the subsidiary. "Although not all of the policies may be fully available due to the insolvency of certain insurers, we believe that the subsidiary will have sufficient funding directly or indirectly, including from settlements and payments from insurers, assigned rights from insurers and coverage-in-place settlement agreements with insurers to respond to these claims. "While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/8bFYYG ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Had 215 Cases at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, faces a total of 215 asserted claims related to asbestos exposure, according to Duke Energy Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2017. The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has experienced numerous claims for indemnification and medical cost reimbursement related to asbestos exposure. These claims relate to damages for bodily injuries alleged to have arisen from exposure to or use of asbestos in connection with construction and maintenance activities conducted on its electric generation plants prior to 1985. As of December 31, 2017, there were 161 asserted claims for non-malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to US$42 million and 54 asserted claims for malignant cases with the cumulative relief sought of up to US$16 million. Based on Duke Energy Carolinas' experience, it is expected that the ultimate resolution of most of these claims likely will be less than the amount claimed." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/RZVGzI ASBESTOS UPDATE: Duke Energy Carolinas Has $489-Mil. Liabilities ---------------------------------------------------------------- Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC has recognized asbestos-related reserves of US$489 million at December 31, 2017, according to the Duke Energy Corporation's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal period ended December 31, 2017. The Company states, "Duke Energy Carolinas has recognized asbestos-related reserves of US$489 million and US$512 million at December 31, 2017, and 2016, respectively. These reserves are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Liabilities and Other within Current Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. These reserves are based upon the minimum amount of the range of loss for current and future asbestos claims through 2037, are recorded on an undiscounted basis and incorporate anticipated inflation. In light of the uncertainties inherent in a longer- term forecast, management does not believe they can reasonably estimate the indemnity and medical costs that might be incurred after 2037 related to such potential claims. It is possible Duke Energy Carolinas may incur asbestos liabilities in excess of the recorded reserves. "Duke Energy Carolinas has third-party insurance to cover certain losses related to asbestos-related injuries and damages above an aggregate self-insured retention. Duke Energy Carolinas' cumulative payments began to exceed the self-insurance retention in 2008. Future payments up to the policy limit will be reimbursed by the third-party insurance carrier. The insurance policy limit for potential future insurance recoveries indemnification and medical cost claim payments is US$797 million in excess of the self-insured retention. Receivables for insurance recoveries were US$585 million and US$587 million at December 31, 2017, and 2016, respectively. These amounts are classified in Other within Other Noncurrent Assets and Receivables within Current Assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets. Duke Energy Carolinas is not aware of any uncertainties regarding the legal sufficiency of insurance claims. Duke Energy Carolinas believes the insurance recovery asset is probable of recovery as the insurance carrier continues to have a strong financial strength rating." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/RZVGzI ASBESTOS UPDATE: Class Action vs. Johnson & Johnson Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ Johnson & Johnson is facing a securities class action lawsuit related to alleged asbestos contamination in body powders with talc, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2018, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017. The Company states, "In February 2018, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Johnson & Johnson violated the federal Securities laws by failing to adequately disclose the alleged asbestos contamination in body powders containing talc, primarily JOHNSONS(R) Baby Powder. The lawsuit was assigned to the District Court Judge managing the personal injury multi-district litigation." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/vP3oxQ ASBESTOS UPDATE: GATX Corp. Had 17 Asbestos Claims at Jan. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- GATX Corporation and its subsidiaries are facing 17 remaining asbestos-related cases as of January 31, 2018, 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, "Several of our subsidiaries have also been named as defendants or co-defendants in cases alleging injury caused by exposure to asbestos. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages based on common law, statutory, or premises liability or, in the case of claims against ASC, the Jones Act, which provides limited remedies to certain maritime employees. During 2017, courts dismissed five asbestos cases without any payment by GATX, and GATX settled three additional cases for an immaterial amount. As of January 31, 2018, there were 17 remaining asbestos-related cases pending against GATX and its subsidiaries, which included three new asbestos cases filed during 2017. In addition, demand has been made against GATX for asbestos-related claims under limited indemnities given in connection with the sale of certain of our former subsidiaries. It is possible that the number of these cases or claims for indemnity could begin to grow and that the cost of these cases, including costs to defend, could correspondingly increase in the future." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/iGge7o ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Faces 59 Cases at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., faces 59 asbestos cases 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. Aerojet Rocketdyne states, "The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and Illinois. There were 59 asbestos cases pending as of December 31, 2017. "Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. "The aggregate settlement costs and legal and administrative fees associated with asbestos cases were immaterial for fiscal 2017, 2016, 2015, and the one month ended December 31, 2015." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/zZhy4Y ASBESTOS UPDATE: UPS Injurious Asbestos Exposure Finding Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of North Carolina affirms the North Carolina Industrial Commission's finding of fact that Decedent Johnny Ray Penegar's was last injuriously exposed to asbestos, and the hazards of developing mesothelioma, during his employment with United Parcel Service. The Court also affirms the Commission's recalculation of Decedent's average weekly wage and dismisses as moot Plaintiff's appeal regarding the determination of the maximum compensation rate. This case arises out of a workers' compensation claim filed by Johnny Ray Penegar against United Parcel Service and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, asserting compensation for Decedent's mesothelioma. Carra Jane Penegar, Decedent's wife and executrix of his estate, was substituted as Plaintiff following Decedent's death on 26 March 2015 during the pendency of this action. Both parties appeal from the opinion and award of the Full North Carolina Industrial Commission, which awarded Plaintiff compensation for all of Decedent's medical expenses associated with his diagnosis of mesothelioma, total disability compensation, burial expenses, and death benefits. Decedent worked for United Parcel Service for thirty years, from 1967 until 1998, as a feeder driver based in United Parcel Service's Charlotte facility. Decedent's duties included driving a tracker-trailer to destinations within 200 miles and back each day. The Charlotte facility was a large, in which the main area, referred to by employees as the "shop," consisted of various unseparated bays designated "tractor shop" or "package car shop" depending on what vehicles were being repaired or maintained in each. Decedent walked through the shop nearly every day to get from his truck to the employee locker room. Decedent would often stop in the shop to talk with mechanics while they worked. On 8 February 2013, Decedent was diagnosed with mesothelioma. Prior to his death on 26 March 2016, Decedent filed a claim with the Commission alleging that his mesothelioma developed as a result of asbestos exposure during his employment with United Parcel Service. Plaintiff presented testimony from two former United Parcel Service mechanics and two medical experts. The mechanics testified that asbestos was present at the Charlotte facility. The medical experts testified that exposure to asbestos in the United Parcel Service facility caused Decedent to develop mesothelioma or contributed to him developing that disease. Defendants presented two expert witnesses -- an expert in industrial hygiene and an expert in pathology. Defendants challenge the Commission's findings that (1) the brakes used by United Parcel Service at its Charlotte facility while Decedent was employed there contained asbestos and (2) Decedent was at an increased risk of asbestos exposure during his employment with United Parcel Service. The Court disagrees with Defendants argument that Plaintiff failed to present evidence that Decedent was not exposed to asbestos during his subsequent employments, and therefore, the Commission's finding that Decedent's last injurious exposure to asbestos occurred at United Parcel Service is also unsupported by the evidence. The Court determines that the Commission's findings are consistent with the witnesses' testimonies and therefore are supported by competent evidence. Specifically, Vernon Thomas Pond testified that he worked with United Parcel Service as a mechanic at the Charlotte facility from 1972 until 2003. He further testified that it was his knowledge that all brake pads, including those used by United Parcel Service during Decedent's employment, contained asbestos, and that it was common practice for the mechanics to knock the brake drums on the floor and to use compressed air to clean the brake dust from the drums. Likewise, Mr. Bobby Bolin testified that it was his understanding that the brake pads used by United Parcel Service contained asbestos, and that it was not until the 1980s that United Parcel Service began providing protective masks -- and then only to the mechanics. Both witnesses testified that they frequently saw Decedent in the shop where these brake jobs were performed. Based on this testimony alone, the Court concludes that the Commission's findings that (1) the brakes used by United Parcel Service during Decedent's employment contained asbestos and (2) Decedent was exposed to increased levels of asbestos beyond that of the general public are supported by competent evidence. Moreover, the Court also finds that the testimonies of Dr. Harpole and Dr. Barry Horn -- the medical experts called by Plaintiff -- also provide competent evidence to support the Commission's findings of fact. Defendants argue that their expert witnesses, Mr. Agopsowicz and Dr. Roggli, offered testimony that contradicts the testimony of Plaintiff's witnesses. However, the Court maintains that it is not within the Court's authority to reweigh the evidence and credibility of the witnesses. Since the Commission explicitly found that Plaintiff's expert witnesses presented more credible testimony than Defendants' expert witnesses, and, because the Commission is the sole judge of credibility, the Court rules that Commission's findings must stand. Accordingly, the Court holds that the Commission's findings that Decedent -- while employed with United Parcel Service -- was exposed to asbestos at levels above those of the general public and was injured as a result thereof are supported by competent evidence. The Commission also found that "there is no evidence of record that any of [Decedent's subsequent] jobs exposed decedent to the hazards of asbestos." The Court notes that this finding is logically consistent with the Commission's conclusion that Decedent's last injurious exposure to asbestos occurred at United Parcel Service -- because if there is no evidence of later exposure, the last exposure must necessarily have occurred at United Parcel Service. The Court points out that Plaintiff provided competent evidence that Decedent was injuriously exposed to asbestos during his employment with United Parcel Service and that his exposure contributed to his development of mesothelioma. While there is no affirmative evidence proving a lack of exposure to asbestos in his subsequent employment, nothing in the evidence regarding his subsequent employment -- as a van driver and a church and school employee -- suggests any inference to the contrary. Without any such evidence, it would have been error for the Commission to find that Decedent was later exposed. Thus, in the absence of any evidence establishing a nexus between Plaintiff's subsequent employment and asbestos exposure, the Court concludes that the Commission did not err in finding that Plaintiff's last injurious exposure to asbestos was at United Parcel Service. The Commission looked at Decedent's earnings for 2012 from his employment with Union County -- $4,272.92 -- which were evidenced by Decedent's Social Security Earnings Statement.2 The Commission then divided this amount by 52 weeks and obtained an average weekly wage of $82.17 with a resulting compensation rate of $54.78 for Decedent. Decedent's Social Security Earnings Statement is competent evidence that supports the Commission's findings, and therefore, we are bound by such findings on appeal. Plaintiff also filed a motion for reconsideration of the maximum compensation rate, arguing that the Deputy Commissioner should have used the maximum compensation rate from 2015 -- the date of Decedent's death. The Deputy Commissioner denied Plaintiff's motion. The Deputy Commissioner awarded Plaintiff 500 weeks of wage compensation, calculated using Decedent's average weekly wage from 1998 of $690.10, the last year he worked for United Parcel Service, and limited by the maximum compensation rate for 1998, so that Plaintiff was awarded $532.00 per week. The opinion and award also compensated Plaintiff for the medical expenses incurred treating Decedent's mesothelioma. The Commission looked at Decedent's earnings for 2012 from his employment with Union County -- $4,273 -- which were evidenced by Decedent's Social Security Earnings Statement. The Court finds the Decedent's Social Security Earnings Statement as competent evidence that supports the Commission's findings, and therefore, the Court is bound by such findings on appeal. The appealed case is Carra Jane Penegar, Widow and Executrix of the Estate of Johnny Ray Penegar, Deceased Employee, Plaintiff, v. United Parcel Service, Employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., Carrier, Defendants, No. COA17-404, (N.C. Ct. App.). A copy of the Order dated May 1, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7u4s6f9 from Leagle.com. Wallace and Graham, P.A., by Michael B. Pross, for Plaintiff- Appellant. Goodman McGuffey, LLP, by Jennifer Jerzak Blackman -- jblackman@GM-LLP.com -- for Defendants-Appellants. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Summary Judgment Re-Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Calvin L. Scott, Jr., of the Superior Court of Delaware has granted Defendant Union Carbide Corporation's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case styled Sandra Kivell, individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Milton J. Kivell, deceased, Plaintiff, v. Union Carbide Corp. et al., Defendants, C.A. No. N15C-07-093 ASB, (Del. Super.). On August 30, 2017, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant Union Carbide Corporation based on Louisiana case law including Western District of Louisiana's decision in Roach v. Air Liquid America. On their Motion for Reargument, Plaintiff argued that Union Carbide did not advance any of the evidentiary issues relied on by the Court in its motion for summary judgment, and thus waived the arguments concerning the presence of asbestos in the Taft facility. The Plaintiff's main argument on her Motion is that evidence, not available at the time of summary judgment, was discovered by Plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff contends that the contracts, and subsequent documents produced by Kiewit contain evidence that the Court determined Plaintiff was missing on summary judgment. The Court considered the documents as newly discovered evidence because it was evidence that the Court did not have and was not able to consider at the time of its decision. In Plaintiff's motion for reargument three facts are called into question upon which summary judgment was granted: (a) that Union Carbide exercised a degree control over its independent contractor and Mr. Kivell so as to impute vicarious liability to Union Carbide, (b) that the Taft facility contained asbestos sufficient to hold Union Carbide directly liable, and (c) that Union Carbide can be held strictly liable based on the custody of asbestos Mr. Kivell encountered through his work at the Union Carbide facility. Generally a principal is not liable for acts of an independent contractor in the performance of their contractual obligations. The two exceptions to this rule are (1) the independent Contractor is involved in "ultrahazardous" work, or (2) the principal is in direct control over the manner in which the independent contractor completes the work. The determination of "ultrahazardous" activity has been held by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to include activities that can cause injury to others, "even when conducted with the greatest prudence and care." When the activity at issue is not ultrahazardous, the principal has no duty to ensure, through instructions or supervision, that the independent contractor performs its obligations in a reasonably safe manner. The second exception is based on a determination that the principal was in direct control over the manner in which the independent contractor completed the work. The Court explains that in making the determination of whether a principal retained supervision or control over the contractor, it is the principal's right to exercise control that is of primary concern, not the supervision and control actually exercised. A principal who exercises no operational control has no duty to discover and remedy hazards created by acts of its independent contractors. Similarly contractual obligations to observe prevailing safety rules "does not signify requisite right of operational control necessary to vitiate the independent contractor relationship." Plaintiff again points to Union Carbide safety monitoring of contract personnel as evidence of control over Kiewit's contractual obligations. The Court in Davenport correctly points out that periodic safety inspections and pointing out violations does not constitute sufficient right to control so as to impose liability on the principal. To hold any principal liable based on monitoring their contractors would lead to the undesirable result of condoning or ignoring unsafe activities. Plaintiff points to contractual obligations of Kiewit to perform projects as directed by Union Carbide as evidence of the right to control the independent contractor. The right to control is not a question of controlling the work to be performed, but rather the manner in which the independent contractor performs the work assigned. Plaintiff concedes in their motion that Union Carbide employees would instruct Kiewit to have a team to perform various side jobs on site. These side jobs were contractual obligations governed by "Job Instructions" to be provided by Union Carbide. The "Job Instructions" contained in the contract provide description and scope of work to be completed, cost accounting, and other details. Neither the "Job Instructions" nor Mr. Kivell's testimony indicate that UCC retained the right to control the manner in which Mr. Kivell, Kiewit, or its employees were to complete these tasks. The Court finds no evidence that Union Carbide retained the right to control its independent contractors sufficient to hold Union Carbide vicariously liable. Plaintiff's newly discovered evidence has failed to show that Union Carbide failed to provide a safe working environment for its independent contractors. Mr. Kivell never worked directly for Union Carbide, and Union Carbide contracted Kiewit to complete construction and maintenance work at its Taft facility. The dangers posed by the work to be completed by Kiewit and its subcontractors were contemplated in the contract formation calling for Kiewit to complete its obligations in accordance with prevailing regulations and safety practices in place at the time. The Court finds the contract submitted as new evidence with their motion for reargument speaks to transferring of care, custody, and control from the independent contractor to Union Carbide. This implies that all new construction work to be performed under the contract is necessarily under the sole control and custody of the independent contractor until its acceptance by Union Carbide. This includes all materials to be installed at the facility. That Union Carbide was aware of dangers associated with asbestos is not to imply that they condoned unsafe practices related to it. Plaintiff has failed to provide new evidence that Union Carbide's premises contained any inherent hazards for which a Union Carbide owed a duty to protect its independent contractors from. Plaintiff argues that as Union Carbide retained the "right to benefit from the thing controlled" -- namely the Taft facility -- Union Carbide was in custody of any asbestos the plaintiff worked with. The Court finds that Plaintiffs argument in favor of a finding of strict liability based on Union Carbide's "right to benefit from the thing controlled" an impermissible extension of Louisiana jurisprudence. To hold that a premises owner meets the "care and custody" requirement for strict liability based on "receiving a benefit from" the premises itself would be to overrule Louisiana precedent "that mere physical presence on [the] premises does not constitute custody." Thus, Plaintiff's new evidence provides no further support for a finding of strict liability against Union Carbide. A full-text copy of the Order dated May 1, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yafk72fu from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Remand of "Templet" to State Court Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms the district court's order remanding the case appealed case Robert J. Templet, Sr. Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Huntington Ingalls, Incorporated; Albert Bossier, Jr., as an Executive Officer of Avondale Industries, Incorporated; Lamorak Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants, No. 17-30676, (5th Cir.) to state court. This case is one of several brought by former Huntington Ingalls employees in state court alleging that the company failed to warn them of the risks of asbestos exposure and failed to implement proper safety procedures for handling asbestos. Recently, in Legendre v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc., 885 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2018), the Court confirmed that asbestos claims regarding negligent failure to warn, train, or implement safety procedures do not give rise to federal jurisdiction when unrebutted evidence shows that the government did nothing to direct the shipyard's safety practices. Robert J. Templet worked for Huntington Ingalls from 1968 to 2002. He alleges that between 1968 and 1979 he handled asbestos and asbestos-containing products at various worksites, causing him to contract diffuse malignant pleural mesothelioma. Templet sued Huntington Ingalls, Huntington Ingalls executive Albert Bossier, Jr., and Lamorak Insurance Company in Louisiana state court for negligently failing to warn him of the dangers of asbestos and failing to implement safety procedures for handling asbestos. Huntington Ingalls removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana under the federal officer removal statute, alleging that the company used asbestos to construct vessels under government-mandated contract specifications. Under the federal officer removal statute, an action against any officer or agent of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office" may be removed to federal court. To remove, a defendant must show: "(1) that it is a person within the meaning of the statute, (2) that it has a colorable federal defense, (3) that it acted pursuant to a federal officer's directions, and (4) that a causal nexus exists between its actions under color of federal office and the plaintiff's claims." The Court clarifies the scope of this "causal nexus" in a line of cases culminating in Legendre. The plaintiffs in Legendre alleged that Huntington Ingalls failed to warn them of the risks of asbestos exposure and failed to implement proper safety procedures for handling asbestos. The Court explains that strict liability claims that "rest on the mere use of asbestos" support removal because they are "causally linked to the [government's] requirement that its ships contain asbestos." But negligently "failing to warn, train, and adopt safety procedures regarding asbestos" does not support removal because it is "private conduct that implicates no federal interest." Because allowing removal when the defendants were free to adopt the safety measures at issue, "would have stretched the causal nexus requirement to the point of irrelevance," the Court rules that the district court properly remanded the case to state court. Here, as in Legendre, Templet brings negligence claims concerning Huntington Ingalls's failure to warn and adopt safety procedures regarding asbestos -- "private conduct that implicates no federal interest." And here, as in Legendre, Huntington Ingalls makes no showing that it could not have adopted the safety measures Templet alleges would have prevented his injuries. Because of this, the district court correctly held that Huntington Ingalls failed to show the required "causal nexus" to support federal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Section 1442. A full-text copy of the Per Curiam dated May 1, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ybbtszp9 from Leagle.com. Brian Carl Bossier -- bbossier@bluewilliams.com -- for Defendant- Appellant. Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III -- eellinghausen@bluewilliams.com -- for Defendant-Appellant. Gary Allen Lee, for Defendant-Appellant. Samuel M. Rosamond, III, for Defendant-Appellant. Thomas More Flanagan -- tflanagan@flanaganpartners.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. Mickey P. Landry -- mlandry@landryswarr.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellee. Sean Patrick Brady, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Frank Joseph Swarr -- fswarr@landryswarr.com -- for Plaintiff- Appellee. Anders F. Holmgren -- aholmgren@flanaganpartners.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. Jeffrey A. O'Connell -- jeffreyoconnell@nemerofflaw.com -- for Plaintiff-Appellee. Ryan P. Phillips, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Roderick Scott Marshall, I, for Plaintiff-Appellee. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Claims vs. CBS Dismissed in "Airey" ------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Louis Guirola, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed with prejudice CBS Corporation, a Delaware corporation, f/k/a Viacom Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation from the claims of Plaintiff, Beatrice H. Airey, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Albert J. Airey, Deceased. In the case styled Beatrice H. Airey, Individually and on behalf of the Estate and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Albert J. Airey, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., a division of A.O. Smith Corp.; et al., Defendants, Cause No. 1:16cv317-LG-RHW, (S.D. Miss.), the Plaintiff filed motion ore tenus to dismiss its claims against CBS Corporation with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Agreed Order dated May 1, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8h2ltou from Leagle.com. Beatrice H. Airey, Individually and on behalf of the Estate and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Albert J. Airey, Deceased, Plaintiff, represented by James L. Farragut, III, Farragut Law Firm, PLLC. Foster Wheeler, LLC, Defendant, represented by Thomas E. Vaughn, Vaughn & Bowden, PA. IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Claire W. Ketner -- cketner@brunini.com -- Brunini, Grantham, Grower & Hewes. ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Gilmore" PI Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------- Judge David N. Hurd of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the action styled Stephanie Gilmore, Darryl Gilmore, Plaintiffs, v. Troy Housing Authority, John Doe U.S. Marshals, NYPD, U.S. Marshal Mike Warner, Troy Housing Authority Officer McLaughlin, Defendants. No. 16-CV- 1048(DNH)(DJS) United States District Court, N.D. New York as the parties have reached a settlement agreement. A copy of the Order dated May 2, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yab5ffdu from Leagle.com. Stephanie Gilmore, Plaintiff, pro se. Darryl Gilmore, Plaintiff, pro se. Troy Housing Authority, Housing Police & Unnamed McLaughlin, Defendants, represented by Mark T. Houston -- mark.houston@townelaw.com -- Towne, Ryan Law Firm & John W. Liguori -- john.liguori@townelaw.com -- Towne, Ryan Law Firm. N.Y.P.D., Jason Garcia & others, Defendant, represented by Erin T. Ryan, New York City Law Department. Mike Warner, U.S. Marshal, Defendant, represented by Karen Folster Lesperance, Office of United States Attorney. Troy Housing Authority, Housing Police & Unnamed McLaughlin, Cross Claimants, represented by John W. Liguori -- john.liguori@townelaw.com -- Towne, Ryan Law Firm. N.Y.P.D., Jason Garcia & others, Cross Defendant, represented by Erin T. Ryan, New York City Law Department. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Review Daubert Rulings in "Ahnert" ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Pamela Pepper of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin has entered an Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of Daubert Rulings in the case titled Beverly Ahnert, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Daniel Ahnert, Deceased. Plaintiffs, v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, Sprinkmann Sons Corp., Wisconsin Electric Power Co., Pabst Brewing Co., Defendants, Case No. 10-cv-156-pp, No. 13-cv- 1456-pp, (E.D. Wis.). In a hearing held on January 4, 2018, the Court considered and ruled on the parties' motions to exclude experts under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), as well as the majority of their motions in limine, ahead of the trial scheduled for June 4. As part of that ruling, the Court granted defendant Pabst Brewing Company's motion to bar, under Daubert, the reports, opinions and testimony of Kenneth Garza, and granted the Daubert motion of defendants Sprinkmann, Employers Insurance Company and WEPCO to exclude Garza's testimony. In analyzing Garza's reports under the Daubert standard, the Court found that his training and background gave him the knowledge and expertise to qualify as an expert in the area of industrial hygiene. The Court concluded, however, that the Plaintiffs had not demonstrated that Garza's methods -- particularly in relation to the facts of this case -- were reliable. The Court initially expressed concern that Garza's "general" report contained nothing "that in any way, shape, or form had any specific connection to this case," later, it acknowledged that Garza's "specific" report mentioned the WEPCO plant and deposition testimony of some of plaintiff Daniel Ahnert's co-workers. Despite that detail, the Court concluded that Garza's proffered opinions lacked sufficient facts or data, and that he had not explained his methodology. On February 20, 2018, the Plaintiffs filed a motion, asking the Court to reconsider its orders barring them from using Garza as an expert. The Plaintiffs appear to be asking the court to relieve them of the portion of its January 4, 2018 order that bars Garza's testimony, and they filed the motion within a reasonable time after the court issued that order. Despite spending almost forty pages asking the Court to reconsider its rulings, the Plaintiffs have not argued that any of the thirty-seven exhibits attached to the motion for reconsideration, or any of the three exhibits filed as supplemental authority, are "newly discovered." Rather, after over eight years of litigation and a scant four months before trial, the Plaintiffs have filed a bevy of exhibits that are newly created or newly produced, but decidedly are not newly discovered. In the "newly created" category, Exhibit 151-1 is a declaration from Garza dated February 19, 2018 -- over a month after the January 4, 2018 hearing. The Plaintiffs admit that they filed this February 19, 2018, declaration because they believed that their prior "briefing did not cover all the Daubert factors in the depth needed." Pabst pointed out in its brief in support of the motion to strike Garza that, during the eight years these cases have been pending, the Plaintiffs never have formally disclosed Garza as an expert. At some point prior to January 2013, the Plaintiffs simply produced two reports from Garza -- a "general" report dated May 1, 2012, and a "specific" report dated August 10, 2012. In 2013, while the case was in the Multi-District Litigation court, they produced another "general" report dated January 21, 2013, which was barred by the MDL magistrate judge as untimely. Days before the defendants were scheduled to depose Garza (in August 2017), the plaintiffs produced two more reports. Garza was deposed on August 11, 2017 -- he could have used that opportunity to explain all of the information that he provided in the February 2018 declaration. The Plaintiffs could have provided that information in their briefs in opposition to the Defendants' Daubert motions -- they even could have produced Garza at the January 4, 2018 hearing (which the court had designated several times as a "Daubert hearing"), and he could have provided the information there, in person. Instead, the plaintiffs waited until after the court had ruled that they could not use Garza, and then had Garza create a new declaration, containing information that they thought would plug the holes the Court had identified. Other exhibits are documents that the plaintiffs knew of at the time of the Daubert briefing and the January 4, 2018 hearing, but that they did not submit or reference at the hearing. In filing these documents after the hearing, the Court determines that the Plaintiffs have followed a disturbing pattern that has emerged over the course of the litigation in the consolidated cases -- a practice of filing, amending or supplementing pleadings or documents after deadlines have expired, one that has contributed to the procedural quagmire of this litigation. Plaintiff Daniel Ahnert filed the 2010 lawsuit in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, based on his asbestosis diagnosis. After the 2010 case was transferred to the Multi-District Litigation court, a doctor diagnosed Daniel Ahnert with a cancer known as mesothelioma. Rather than amending the 2010 complaint, the Plaintiffs filed a new complaint in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, then supplemented their discovery responses in the federal case to disclose the new diagnosis. The Plaintiffs later dismissed the Milwaukee County Circuit Court case and, on December 30, 2013, filed a third case in the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Case No. 13-cv-1456), grounded in the mesothelioma diagnosis and naming defendants who had been dismissed from the first case for lack of proof. When the Plaintiffs later attempted to amend the complaint in the MDL (Case No. 10-cv-156), the MDL judge denied that motion as untimely because the parties already had briefed summary judgment. While the 2010 case was pending before Magistrate Judge Strawbridge in the MDL court, the plaintiffs attempted to file an "amended" general report for Garza, dated January 21, 2013. In an order dated April 3, 2013, Judge Strawbridge struck the "amended" report. He found that the report was untimely, because it was filed beyond the deadlines set in any of the scheduling orders for any of the MDL cases. Almost nine months later, the Ahnert estate and Mrs. Ahnert filed the second federal case, 13-cv-1456. In his June 3, 2014 scheduling order, Judge Clevert ordered the Plaintiff to name their expert witnesses by August 15, 2014, and to disclose their reports by September 15, 2014. Despite Judge Strawbridge's ruling striking the January 21, 2013 "amended" report in the 2010 case, the Plaintiffs filed it, along with the reports of their other proposed experts, in the 2013 case in front of Judge Clevert. Thus, as a result of the Plaintiffs having two cases proceeding at the same time in different courts, and in different procedural postures, the plaintiffs were able to succeed in filing the new Garza report (in their words, an "amended," or "supplemental," Garza report) despite having blown the deadline for doing so in the 2010 case. Now, they seek to take advantage of that windfall by arguing that the defendants should have challenged specific portions of the "amended" report in their Daubert motions in the consolidated cases. Specifically with regard to Garza, the Plaintiffs have attempted to supplement Garza's reports on four different occasions (including the night before his deposition), not including this most recent attempt. The Court concludes that none of this is "newly discovered evidence," and all of it could have been provided before January 4, 2018. The Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that there is newly discovered evidence that warrants the Court reconsidering its January 4, 2018 decisions barring Garza from testifying. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have not argued that the Court's decision to bar Garza's testimony constituted a "wholesale disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent." Rather, they take issue with the Court's conclusion that Garza's methodology -- reviewing relevant industry literature -- was not reliable. Plaintiffs state that, "based on the Court's ruling and comments on January 4, 2018, the Plaintiffs' briefs did not cover all the Daubert factors in the depth needed." Nothing in the Plaintiffs' hundreds of pages of reconsideration material demonstrates a manifest error of fact or law. At best, the materials show a difference of opinion. The "methodology" Garza described in the two 2012 reports was to "review the literature." But the Court found no evidence of the use of appropriate training, appropriate respiratory protective equipment, and adequate engineering controls will reduce the exposure to airborne asbestos. The Court determines that neither Garza's reports nor his August 2017 deposition testimony provided any basis for the Court (or the Defendants) to assess his methodology for reliability. Garza assumed that Daniel Ahnert's exposures were above background concentrations -- whatever those were. Garza testified at his October 2017 deposition that "no person ever goes on to a site and is exposed to the same exact amount of something over time. There's a lot of factors go into that." Yet Garza admitted that he had no information about Pabst other than the fact that it was identified as a work site; that he had never visited any of the defendants' worksites; that he had never reviewed any air sampling, blueprints, maps or photographs of the sites; and that he did not know the time periods or the distance that Daniel Ahnert worked from any asbestos. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have not provided newly discovered evidence that could not have been provided before the hearing. They have not demonstrated that the court made a manifest error of law. They have not demonstrated that the court made a manifest error of fact. They have expended their resources, the defendants' resources and this court's resources in re-packaging previous submissions and arguments. The court will not change its ruling under Rule 54(b). But the Court rejects the Plaintiffs' arguments that they should be allowed to present certain of the conclusions/opinions Garza stated in the "amended" January 21, 2013 report on the sole basis that the defendants did not specifically challenge those opinions/conclusions. The Court will not reconsider its rulings on this basis, nor will it vacate the portion of its rulings that struck Garza's reports and testimony in their entirety. A copy of the Order dated May 2, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7venwrt from Leagle.com. Daniel Ahnert, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd., Daniel B. Hausman, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. Beverly Ahnert, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd., Daniel B. Hausman, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd., Jin Ho Chung, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. & Robert G. McCoy, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Sprinkmann Sons Corporation & Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Defendants, represented by James A. Niquet -- jniquet@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson SC, Laura E. Schuett -- lschuett@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson SC & Travis J. Rhoades -- trhoades@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson SC. Pabst Brewing Company, Defendant, represented by Joshua C. Schumacher, Hepler Broom LLC, Michael T. Antikainen, Hepler Broom LLC & Michael W. Drumke, Hepler Broom LLC. Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Sprinkmann Sons Corporation & Wisconsin Electric Power Company, Cross Defendants, represented by James A. Niquet -- jniquet@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson SC & Laura E. Schuett -- lschuett@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson SC. Pabst Brewing Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Michael T. Antikainen, Hepler Broom LLC & Michael W. Drumke, Hepler Broom LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ct. Won't Flip DOL Refusal of EEOICPA Benefits --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled David A. Russell, Plaintiff, v. United States Department of Labor, Defendant, No. 3:15-CV-320-DCP, (E.D. Tenn.), Judge Debra C. Poplin of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee has denied Plaintiff David A. Russell's requests to reverse Defendant's decision to denying him benefits under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. Plaintiff David A. Russell brought this action against the United States Department of Labor, alleging that its decision to deny him benefits under Part E of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, for his chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ("COPD"), is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise inconsistent with the law. On May 9, 2013, the District Office recommended that Plaintiff's claim be denied because the evidence was insufficient to establish that it was "at least as likely as not" that exposure to a toxic substance at the Oak Ridge facilities was a significant factor in aggravating, contributing, or causing Plaintiff's COPD. Plaintiff objected to the recommendation, and a hearing was held before the Final Adjudication Branch ("FAB"). On October 11, 2013, FAB issued an order remanding Plaintiff's claim to the District Office, stating that the District Office did not explain why a report from Plaintiff's treating physician, Marty Wallace, M.D., was given no probative value. On February 4, 2014, the District Office again recommended that Plaintiff's claim be denied, listing five specific reasons as to why it gave more probative value to the two Contract Medical Consultants' opinions as opposed to Dr. Wallace. The District Office also noted that Plaintiff had been a patient of East Tennessee Pulmonary Associates since at least October 2009. The District Office explained that R. Hal Hughes, M.D., with East Tennessee Pulmonary Associates did not indicate that Plaintiff's COPD was caused by occupational exposures until May 31, 2013, and that Dr. Hughes' May 31 diagnosis did not demonstrate knowledge of the frequency or level of Plaintiff's exposure to asbestos. Plaintiff objected to the recommendation, and a hearing was held on May 22, 2014. In a decision dated July 30, 2014, FAB ordered that the case be remanded to the District Office. The Director referred Plaintiff's claim to the Cleveland District Office to further develop and to provide a recommendation. The Director ordered the District Office to refer the matter to an industrial hygienist for an opinion regarding the level and intensity of Plaintiff's work-related exposures to toxic substances. In addition, the Director ordered the District Office to refer Plaintiff's claim to another CMC [Contract Medical Consultant] for an appropriate medical opinion on the purported causal relationship of the exposures to his COPD. The industrial hygienist, David Levitt, issued a report on November 19, 2015, and issued an addendum on December 7, 2015. In the November 19 report, Levitt concluded that while Plaintiff worked intermittently as a carpenter at the Oak Ridge Reservation for a total of 27 months, he was "significantly exposed to asbestos and wood dusts." Levitt continued that his exposures to both of these agents would have likely been frequent (i.e., a daily basis) and that his exposure to asbestos would have ranged from low to moderate levels, while his exposure to wood dust would have ranged from moderate to high levels. With respect to the December 7 report, Levitt stated that there was no evidence that Plaintiff "engaged in any activities that would have resulted in him being significantly exposed to crystalline silicon dioxide (i.e., sandblasting, mixing and applying drywall compound, mixing dry cement, jackhammering, etc.)." He concluded that it was "highly unlikely that [Plaintiff] was significantly exposed to this agent" and that "any exposures that he might have received would have been incidental in nature (occurring in passing only) and not significant." The CMC, Akshay Sood, M.D., issued a report on December 21, 2015. Dr. Sood concluded, "Plaintiff's work history and exposure potential does not make it at least as likely as not that exposure to the toxic substance asbestos, wood dust, and/or crystalline silicon dioxide during the course of employment at the DOE facility was a significant factor in causing, contributing to, or aggravating the condition of COPD." On January 11, 2016, the Cleveland District Office recommended that Plaintiff's claim be denied. Plaintiff objected to the recommendation, and following the hearing held before FAB, on July 25, 2016, FAB referred the case to Christopher Armstrong, M.D., the DEEOIC Medical Director, for his opinion concerning the relationship, if any, between Plaintiff's occupational exposure to toxic substances in the course of his employment at several DOE facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and his diagnosis of COPD. In his report, Dr. Armstrong opined that Plaintiff's COPD "was not, at least as likely as not, caused, contributed to, or aggravated by his occupational exposure to epoxy adhesives by themselves, or in combination with exposures to asbestos, wood dust, or silica." Dr. Armstrong reasoned that asbestos, wood dust, and silica are associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but the duration of [Plaintiff's] exposure to these was insufficient to support a causal relationship between his questionable diagnosis of mild COPD and his employment on the Oak Ridge Reservation. Epoxy adhesives are associated with occupational asthma, a reactive airway disease that [Plaintiff] does not have. Furthermore, there is neither a record of significant irritant exposure resulting in respiratory symptoms during his employment, nor a connecting history of respiratory symptoms between the period of his employment and his initial diagnosis of COPD in December 6, 2010. FAB concluded that while the evidence showed that Plaintiff was a DOE subcontractor, who was exposed to several substances during the course of his employment, the medical evidence did not establish that "such exposures were at least as likely as not a significant factor in causing, contributing, or aggravating Plaintiff's COPD. FAB reasoned that Dr. Sood's and Dr. Armstrong's opinions represent the weight of the medical evidence in the case and hold greater probative value than Dr. Wallace's report. Accordingly, FAB denied Plaintiff's claim. Now, Plaintiff moves the Court to vacate Defendant's decision and to enter judgment in his favor, or in the alternative, to remand the claim for further consideration. In support of his Motion, Plaintiff asserts Defendant's decision is arbitrary and capricious for three primary reasons. First, Plaintiff argues that Defendant's decision is inconsistent with the evidence. Second, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to consider an important aspect of the problem -- that is, the combined or synergistic effect of the three toxins at the exposure levels documented by Levitt, the industrial hygienist. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to follow its own procedures. Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant relied on the wrong labor category in determining the toxins that he was exposed to during his covered employment. Plaintiff continues that the Statement of Accepted Facts ("SOAF") identifies his labor category as "Carpenter" without further limitation and that his employment cards from Rust Engineering identify him as a "Carpenter." Plaintiff asserts that the only reference to "Carpenter- Construction" found in the record are the assertions contained within the recommended and final decisions. Plaintiff submits that Defendant relies on the employment cards for the purpose of hire and termination dates, yet it ignores the same employment cards to show that his title is "Carpenter." Plaintiff continues that given the more restrictive labor category, Defendant improperly isolated his potential toxic exposures to only three toxins. The Court has considered Plaintiff's argument, but the Court does not find Defendant's decision arbitrary and capricious. In FAB's decision, it explained that in order to determine whether an employee was exposed to a toxic substance, the record must contain evidence showing that "such substance was present at the facility where the employee worked, that there was a reasonable likelihood for employee exposure, and that the employee came into contact with such substance." Further, FAB explained that a "reasonable likelihood of exposure exists when a substance was used 'during the process involved as part of the employee's job duties and exposure routes.'" The Court has reviewed FAB's decision and does not find that it is arbitrary and capricious. FAB provided a reasonable explanation for why it used the labor category, "Carpenter, Construction," as opposed to "Carpenter." Specifically, FAB reasoned that "Carpenter" pertains to carpenters who worked permanently at the Y-12 Plant. Plaintiff does not argue that this definition is incorrect, nor does he assert that he worked permanently at the Y-12 Plant. In any event, however, FAB considered Plaintiff's claim that he was exposed to additional substances, but it found that they were not linked to COPD or Plaintiff's testimony established that he was not greatly exposed to such substances. Accordingly, the Court finds that FAB provided a reasonable explanation for its decision to categorize Plaintiff's job as "Construction, Carpenter" and finds no reason to disturb FAB's determination. Plaintiff also argues that Defendant failed to consider an important aspect of the problem when it did not consider the combined, or synergistic, effect of the three toxins at the exposure levels documented by the industrial hygienist. Plaintiff asserts Defendant did not consider the likelihood that this combined effect was a significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing Plaintiff's COPD. Plaintiff states that a careful examination of the synergistic effect of the exposure levels is integral to a proper evaluation of his claim. Plaintiff maintains that Defendant failed to consider this important aspect of the problem when it adopted the incongruent positions of the industrial hygienist and the CMC. Defendant responds that it did consider the synergistic effect of the toxins that Plaintiff was exposed to during his covered employment and that Plaintiff's assertion is baseless and contrary to the plain evidence in the Administrative Record. The Court finds that Defendant did properly consider the combined effect of the toxic substances. In its decision, FAB evaluated the relationship between Plaintiff's epoxy exposure and COPD, "as well as any synergistic effect between Plaintiff's COPD and exposure to all four substances identified and substantiated in Plaintiff's claim." The Court has considered the parties' arguments and finds Defendant properly weighed the medical evidence in this case. Both parties acknowledge that "generally, a physician who has physically examined a patient, is knowledgeable of his or her medical history, and has based the opinion on an accurate factual basis, has weight over a physician conducting a file review." The Court finds that Defendant did not err in calculating Plaintiff's covered employment, and Plaintiff has not cited to any evidence that Dr. Hughes reevaluated Plaintiff's claim after Defendant determined that 27 months was the correct length of employment. In the final decision, FAB explained that the medical opinions of Dr. Sood and Dr. Armstrong were based on a full review of the relevant medical and factual evidence, provided an accurate occupational history of Plaintiff's employment at Oak Ridge, and contained rationalized medical opinions addressing the relationship between Plaintiff's documented exposures and COPD. Accordingly, the Court finds Defendant provided reasoned explanations for its decision to rely on the CMCs' opinions and that Plaintiff has failed to establish that Defendant's explanations are arbitrary and capricious. A copy of the Memorandum Opinion dated May 2, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y79d67l4 from Leagle.com. David A Russell, Plaintiff, represented by John D Agee, Ridenour & Ridenour. United States Department of Labor, Defendant, represented by Loretta S. Harber, U S Department of Justice Office of U S Attorney. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mall Development Halted by Asbestos ---------------------------------------------------- Seattle Times reported that development of the new mall in Burlington is resuming after a two-month hiatus for removal of asbestos discovered early this year. Developer Don Sinex says crews had to temporarily stop demolition work because the asbestos might get released into the air. The Burlington Free Press reports Sinex hired a New York-based company that took out all the material containing asbestos at a cost of $700,000. Demolition resumed in April, but Sinex notes demolition work's next large obstacle is demolishing the parking garage. Construction of the new project, featuring office space, apartments and retail, is scheduled to begin before the demolition is complete. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Tests Find Asbestos in Shuttered Apt. Complex -------------------------------------------------------------- KVIA El Paso 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: Immunotherapy Brings Hope for Exposure Victims --------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Castillo of News Eminency reported that in light of recent screening on animal tests, arise a treatment that could turn into proper full-blown therapy for cancer. Mesothelioma as a form of cancer has been, more or less, a mystery until many recent times. It was not put into consideration up until 1960, with several cases noticed with their similarities. The cancer is known to be rare but still heavily incapacitating, with cancer cells taking residue in lungs, heart, and some other vital organs that may be involved in the area. In consideration for this, most scientists have flocked to create a solution for the cases that preside within the ill. As of late, there has been a recent study that provides a possible functional treatment that is of combined immunotherapy, with remarkably positive views from the test run done on animals in the first place. Mesothelioma itself is a very severe strain of cancer that targets main bodily functions such as even directing fluids throughout the body. It mostly alludes to the possible effects of asbestos exposure. Primarily fatal, it was identified to be hard to cure, especially as misdiagnosis is posed to be more likely among cases. The treatment that follows with mesothelioma comes with radiation, chemotherapy, and surgery. The options appear to be more on the fine line, but the sad portion of the bit is that only a minor part of people afflicted of the condition are eligible to receive surgery as a treatment, making it more difficult for it to be passable. On the verdict of any reparations regarding the exposure of asbestos incurring the ill, some companies, in turn, bring out mesothelioma compensation. The mesothelioma lawsuit settlements abide by time in providing for the afflicted workers. Still following up the approval from the Food and Drug Administration, there is an open view on the possibility for the product to actively treat other cancers, such as Ovarian cancer and with further testing. The primary goal that scientists want to promote with the treatment is the precise target the cells that are typically unseen by the human defenses along with targeting the malignant cells. The therapy becomes apparent with the proposal of the usage in conjunctive treatments. Under certain conditions following treatment, mesothelioma compensation can be founded for areas like Houston and other states; following up elsewhere on a mesothelioma lawyer directory; there remains a statute of limitations on mesothelioma claims. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found at Giant N.M. Apartment Complex --------------------------------------------------------------- Insurance Journal reported that testing has found that there's asbestos nearly everywhere in an abandoned Alamogordo, N.M. apartment complex, a finding that complicates the city's desire to demolish the dilapidated property. The Alamogordo Daily News reported 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: Technician Sues PSA Corp. for Asbestos Exposure ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Independent reported that a 57-year-old technician is suing Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) Corporation for exposing him to asbestos particles that he believes caused him to be afflicted with lung cancer. The technician, Mr Ajit Singh, had worked for PSA since he was employed in or around 1980, when the company was a statutory board. Mr Singh continued to work for PSA even after it became a Temasek Holdings-linked private corporation in October 1997. According to court papers, Mr Singh's duties allegedly required him to service and replace insulation material covering the exhaust systems of power units of cranes at the port. He claimed: "The power pack of the crane contains the exhaust, which is lined with asbestos which could be damaged or worn out." Asbestos is a fibrous mineral that became banned in Singapore in 1989 after studies showed that long-term exposure to the mineral, that was once popularly used in construction and insulation, is linked to illnesses such as lung cancer. Mr Singh claimed that PSA workers were neither informed of the risk of asbestos nor properly trained on how to handle the dangerous mineral. He added that workers did not receive appropriate equipment to handle asbestos, and were only given masks that did not protect them from the asbestos particles. Mr Singh has also named Gethin-Jones Medical Practice as a defendant in his lawsuit, The clinic, which served as PSA's appointed clinic for maintenance workers, should have detected the lung cancer earlier during annual check-ups, according to Mr Singh. PSA asks court to throw the case out Both PSA and Gethin-Jones Medical Practice are fighting the lawsuit. PSA is represented by one of Singapore's leading law firms, Drew & Napier. The clinic is represented by WongPartnership while Mr Singh is represented by Gavan Law Practice. PSA, which is fully owned by sovereign wealth fund Temasek, has asked the court to dismiss Mr Singh's case on a technicality, arguing that a claim should have been filed within 15 years. Noting that it has stopped using asbestos in or around 1989 and that Mr Singh's exposure to the particles would have occurred before 1990, PSA is asking for the case to be thrown out since more than 15 years have passed since the alleged negligence took place. Medical reports show that Mr Singh was found to have cancer early last year. One of the doctors who treated Mr Singh, Dr Tan Wan Ling -- an associate consultant at the National Cancer Centre Singapore -- noted in a medical report last August: "He is a lifelong non- smoker . . . The patient has sustained permanent disability due to compromised lung function and functional decline, and is unlikely to resume work duties as a technician presently and in the future." Another doctor, Dr Choo Chuan Gee -- a senior consultant who specialises in respiratory diseases at Ng Teng Fong General Hospital -- noted in another medical report that medical literature has reported that the time between exposure to asbestos particles and the development of lung cancer is about 30 years. If Mr Singh was exposed to asbestos before 1990, like PSA claims may have happened, it has been about 30 years since the exposure likely occurred. Gethin-Jones Medical Practice is arguing that annual medical check-ups for workers only covered "basic medical screenings and did not include specialised tests for the detection of lung cancer due to asbestos exposure". All parties are presently in closed-door mediation. Making the decision to sue his former employer was a difficult one for Mr Singh since he has worked for the Corporation for his entire career. Mr Singh, who was admitted to Singapore General Hospital for chemotherapy, may have little choice since he faces mounting medical expenses. Mr Singh told reporters: "I am worried about the family's finances. I won't be able to work any more." His wife, 55-year-old Koldip Kaur, said: "We are not asking for (the sake of) money. We want what is fair so that we can cover the medical expenses, his suffering, his loss of income and quality of life. He was healthy and fit; now he is in palliative care." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers at Norfolk Shipyard Urged to File Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- If you are a Navy Veteran or a shipyard worker with mesothelioma and your exposure to asbestos happened at the navy base/shipyard at Norfolk, Virginia please call us anytime at 800-714-0303 so that we can provide you with on the spot access to some of the nation's most skilled and experienced mesothelioma attorneys who consistently get the best financial compensation for their clients. Norfolk, Virginia is home to the world's largest navy base and one of the largest shipyards on the planet. Norfolk has had this status for decades and the number of Navy Veterans or shipyard workers who have rotated though this combination navy base, shipyard, ship repair facility is in the hundreds of thousands or more. Prior to the 1980's US Navy Veterans stationed at Norfolk or shipyard workers working there were exposed to asbestos constantly. Our number one priority is seeing to it that US Navy Veterans or US Navy Shipyard workers receive the very best financial compensation if they have mesothelioma, as we would like to discuss anytime at 800-714-0303. One of our most important services for a US Navy Veteran or shipyard worker with mesothelioma is we provide them with on-the-spot access to the nation's most capable mesothelioma attorneys. Important note to US Navy Veterans or Navy Shipyard workers with mesothelioma: "A mesothelioma compensation claim for a Navy Veteran or US Navy Shipyard worker does not involve suing the US Navy. The financial compensation claim is focused on manufacturers of equipment, machinery, pipes, or insulation that contained asbestos, as we would like to discuss anytime at 800- 714-0303." For more information about the US Navy Shipyard in Norfolk Virginia please visit their website: http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Shipyards/Norfolk/. For a recent news article about the condition of the Norfolk Naval Shipyard and other US Navy Shipyards please review the following news article: http://pilotonline.com/business/defense- shipyards/article_3c5e4e79-73c1-56cf-a993-fe12b3398f7c.html. Each year about 3,000 US citizens will be diagnosed with mesothelioma. Mesothelioma is caused by exposure to asbestos. High-risk work groups for exposure to asbestos include US Navy Veterans, power plant workers, shipyard workers, oil refinery workers, steel mill workers, miners, manufacturing workers, pulp or paper mill workers, printers, millwrights, welders, plumbers, electricians, auto mechanics, machinists, construction workers, rail road workers, and firemen. Typically, the exposure to asbestos for these types of workers occurred in the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's, or 1980's. The average age for a diagnosed victim of mesothelioma is about 70 years old. Frequently victims of mesothelioma are initially misdiagnosed with pneumonia. According to the CDC, the states indicated with the highest incidence of mesothelioma include Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Louisiana, Washington, and Oregon. However, based on the calls the Mesothelioma Victims Center receives a US Navy Veteran or shipyard worker mesothelioma could live in any state including New York, Florida, California, Texas, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, or Alaska. The Mesothelioma Victims Center says, "If your loved one has recently been diagnosed with mesothelioma and their medical condition is grave or if they passed away immediately after the medical diagnosis of mesothelioma please call as soon as possible at 800-714-0303 in the hopes we can do everything possible to get some of the nation's top mesothelioma attorneys to assist with the financial compensation claim." For more information about mesothelioma please refer to the National Institutes of Health's web site related to this rare form of cancer: https://www.cancer.gov/types/mesothelioma ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dispute Over Asbestos Lawsuit Fees to Continue --------------------------------------------------------------- John Breslin of Legal News Line reported that a dispute among attorneys over fees generated by asbestos litigation can proceed, a federal court has ruled. California lawyer Marc Willick sued a New York firm and its principals Paul Napoli and Marc Bern, claiming they used his name when litigating asbestos cases and pocketed the fees. The case was stayed after the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled in favor of the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The same court lifted that stay March 23 as further information emerged after arbitration talks began. It also allowed the plaintiff to add as defendants more entities linked to Napoli and Bern, both prominent asbestos attorneys who no longer practice together. Willick, who is based in Los Angeles County, signed contracts with Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates in 2011, agreeing to act as local counsel in asbestos cases for which he would receive 10 percent of fees generated. The California attorney continued to work with the firm until December the following year. He filed suit in December 2014, alleging the defendants "filed and litigated many cases in plaintiff's name without his knowledge or consent." He first sued the law firm, then added the named individuals. He alleged breach of contract, fraud, violation of California Business & Professions Code and negligent misrepresentation. After arbitration was ordered in 2015, Willick became aware that another attorney, Mary Keyes of the Keyes Law Firm in Baltimore,, may have documents relevant to his case. He asked Keyes to participate in the arbitration, but she refused, according to the order granting the motion to lift the stay. On Oct. 5, 2016, the court partially and temporarily lifted the stay to allow plaintiff to subpoena testimony and documents from Keyes and her firm. Keyes' attempt to quash the subpoena failed and she was ordered by a federal court in Maryland to produce a list of cases referred to Defendants and any compensation she received. Keyes produced a list of client names and fees from 2,521 cases, according to the motion. After Keyes produced the list of cases, Willick "discovered that additional Napoli- and Bern-affiliated law firms may have received cases from plaintiff's referral sources, and that there may be additional cases for which he is owed compensation," the motion stated. It further noted, "On Oct. 9, 2017, Keyes filed a complaint in the District of Maryland against Bern, Napoli and 16 iterations of their law firms for an accounting, declaratory judgment, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and constructive trust." On Jan. 27 this year, the arbitrator in this case "entered an interim award ordering an accounting against Napoli Bern Ripka & Associates LLP for fees the firm received on cases referred by the plaintiff's referral sources," the motion states. Willick filed the motion to lift the stay and leave to amend to add parties in February. Napoli, who has battled cancer, and Bern no longer practice together following disagreements. Willick referred to these disagreements in his original complaint. In a joint statement to Legal Newsline in 2014, Napoli and his wife, Marie, stated, "As many of you know, Marc, for inexplicable reasons, decided once I got sick to try and take over the law firm I have built over the last 20 years. "He quietly waited until I went under the knife for my transplant before firing key employees who worked for me in running the firm. At the same time, he fired my 72-year-old father (the biggest earner in the office in personal injury). While in ICU, Marie had to leave my side and rush to court to get the court to order him to cease." Napoli further said then the lawsuit was a surprise as it came out of the blue, adding that Willick "never made an inkling" of any of his allegations. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractors Convicted for APCO Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- 7thSpace Interactive reported that Shing Tai Interior Decoration Engineering Co Limited, which illegally demolished an asbestos cement sheet structure at the podium of Sun Fung Mansion at Lyndhurst Terrace in Central, was convicted April 30 at Eastern Magistrates' Courts for contravening the Air Pollution Control Ordinance (APCO). Another renovation works contractor was also convicted at Eastern Magistrates' Courts on April 23 for the illegal demolition of an asbestos canopy at the external wall of a building located at 169-170 Gloucester Road in Wan Chai. The two contractors were fined a total of $24,000. An Environmental Protection Department (EPD) spokesman said that complaints were received last October and November about the illegal demolition of an asbestos cement sheet structure at the external wall of a composite building in Wan Chai, and at the podium of a building in the commercial area of Central by works contractors. The EPD conducted investigations and found that the asbestos removal works at both locations were not carried out in accordance with the statutory requirements, as no registered asbestos contractor was hired to conduct the removal works and the EPD had not been notified prior to the commencement of the works. After evidence collection, the EPD initiated prosecutions against the contractors under the APCO. The spokesman said that, to safeguard public health, asbestos abatement works at commercial and industrial buildings or residential buildings must be carried out by a registered asbestos contractor in accordance with the statutory requirements and the code of practice on asbestos control to prevent the release of asbestos fibres from affecting the workers and public health. Offenders are liable to a maximum fine of $200,000 and six months' imprisonment. Anyone failing to give not less than 28 days' written notice to the EPD of the commencement date of the asbestos abatement work is also liable to a maximum fine of $200,000. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Co. Can't Escape Alter Ego in ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Chirs Villani of Law360 reported that a New Hampshire-based asbestos abatement company will not be able to dodge a lawsuit claiming it violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 when it allegedly created an "alter ego" company in order to avoid paying benefits, a Massachusetts federal judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton denied a motion to dismiss the suit brought by five employee benefit plans that says the asbestos removal shop Absolute Environmental Inc. created a new company, Absolute Environmental Contractors Inc. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hospital Knowingly Exposed Employees to Asbestos ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nikki Wentling of Stars and Stripes reported that management at the Department of Veterans Affairs hospital in Bedford, Mass., knew of an asbestos contamination for years but continued to put veterans and employees at risk of exposure, the U.S. Office of the Special Counsel said. In a letter to President Donald Trump and members of the House and Senate veterans' affairs committees, Special Counsel Henry Kerner said multiple buildings at the Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital were contaminated with asbestos and that management had known about it since 2014. "For years, the Bedford VA Medical Center failed to implement a robust safety inspection program to identify contaminated work spaces," Kerner said in a statement. Whistleblowers at the facility alerted the special counsel to the contamination last year, and the VA Office of Occupational Safety and Health followed up with an investigation. Investigators found several instances when workers were put at risk of exposure to airborne asbestos that could've been mitigated with better management practices. Because of the situation, "trust between management and employees is strained," the VA wrote in its report to the special counsel. The VA substantiated that hospital management was first notified of the asbestos after a 2014 inspection by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. However, the agency asserted that managers did not break any rule or law. "VA believes that the findings do not show evidence that the medical center or its employees engaged in gross mismanagement and an abuse of authority," the VA report states. "There was no indication of willful intent to harm workers or violate standards, rule or law." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rulings Offer Hope to Cancer Sufferers ------------------------------------------------------------- Lexology reported that following a long-fought battle in the case of Bussey v Anglia Heating Ltd [2018 EWCA Civ 243], it's good to be able to report positive news for future mesothelioma claims against employers, many of which have been stayed awaiting decision in the Court of Appeal. The team at Fieldfisher instructed Michael Rawlinson QC and Gemma Scott from 12 KBW to seek consideration from the Court of the application of Williams v University of Birmingham [2011 EWCA Civ 1242] in low-exposure mesothelioma claims arising out of employment. Veronica Bussey successfully pursued a claim for compensation originally against one of her husband David's employers, Pump Maintenance Limited, for exposing him to asbestos while he worked as a heating engineer. David originally instructed us but sadly died in 2016 before the second action began. Due to the shortfall in damages, on behalf of her husband, Mrs Bussey's second claim, against Anglia Heating Ltd for the balance, pursuant to Section 3 of the Compensation Act 2006, was then dismissed by His Honour Judge Yelton in the High Court in May last year. Judge Yelton decided he was bound to follow the case of Williams v University of Birmingham which was decided by the Court of Appeal in 2011. The decision in Williams held that even when it was known that exposure to asbestos at low levels could be fatal, there was no duty for an employer to take action until the level of exposure exceeded the level set out in Technical Data Note 13 (TDN13). This document was only published in March 1970, two years after the relevant period of exposure with Anglia Heating Ltd, and was primarily intended, we argued, to provide guidance to factory inspectors for prosecutions under the Asbestos Regulations that came into force in May 1970. In appeal, Mrs Bussey's legal team then argued TDN13 was not a reliable or appropriate test of acceptable levels of exposure to asbestos at the relevant time and furthermore did not apply since the victim in Williams was a visitor to the premises, rather than an employee. Instead, they argued that Mr Bussey's case more closely followed the earlier cases of Maguire and Jeromson [case citations Maguire v Harland and Wolff (2005) EWCA Civ 1, Jeromson v Shell Tankers (2001) EWCA Civ 100]] in which the Court of Appeal had decided that an employer had the duty to reduce exposure to asbestos to the "lowest level reasonably practicable". The arguments on law addressed to the Court, explained here by Mr Rawlinson, were that: * While Williams was the last CA judgment on this issue, it would only bind a lower Court in the face of earlier and apparently contrary CA authority (namely Maguire v Harland & Wolff and Jeromson v Shell Tankers) where those earlier decisions had been fully considered by the later CA. * It was now known that Jeromson had not been more than tangentially cited (and Maguire had not been cited at all) to the Court in Williams. * Thus either (i) the CA in Williams had acted in ignorance of the formulation of the test for breach in Maguire and Jeromson, namely that once the threshold of foreseeable risk had been reached the duty upon an employer was to reduce the risk from asbestos exposure to the lowest level reasonably practicable; or (ii) it must be that the CA in Williams had impliedly sought to restrict that earlier formulation of the duty to employment cases because the victim in Williams was not an employee but rather a visitor to premises. * In the first of those circumstances, it was argued that the Court in Bussey should follow the Maguire and Jeromson formulation because the CA in Williams had acted in ignorance of those earlier and applicable authorities. In the second of those circumstances, the Court should still follow Maguire and Jeromson because Mr Bussey's exposure arose as a result of his employment and hence was closer to the facts of Jeromson than Williams. * It was admitted on the facts of this case that the employer could have taken steps to materially reduce the exposure faced by the Deceased by taking simple steps. * In the alternative, the Claimant wished to argue that Williams was simply wrong insofar as it has been taken to have held that, in the face of the risk of fatal injury to an employee, a gap existed between the level of exposure at which foreseeable injury was created and some higher level of exposure at which the exposure would then be deemed unacceptable and would thereby require remediation. In their landmark ruling, the three Court of Appeal judges upheld the appeal. Lord Justice Jackson said the High Court judge in the original Bussey hearing had felt 'constrained' by relying on data in TDN 13 that was never intended to be used as a yardstick for making claims. The case has been remitted back to Judge Yelton for re- determination of liability and will be heard later this year. This reset the threshold of asbestos cases by acknowledging that the way retrospective measuring levels of asbestos fibres have been applied in the past to deny or delay Claimants the compensation they deserved is wrong, falsely creating a so-called 'safe' level of asbestos exposure, even when it was known to cause fatal cancer. This is never what the data in TDN13 were intended for but, following Williams, they became the test against which all other claims were measured. Claims that have been delayed through the need for expert engineering evidence on retrospectively measuring levels of fibres in the air can now move forward more quickly and, in principle, mesothelioma sufferers can have easier access to funds for private immunotherapy treatment which gives hope for prolonged life. Immunotherapy treatment breakthrough Although more trials and more evidence are needed involving immunotherapy, there is also tentative good news that, in some cases, the treatment can prolong the life of mesothelioma sufferers. In another recent landmark mesothelioma case, we successfully won back the original costs of immunotherapy treatment, not yet available on the NHS, for our client Pamela Stubberfield from insurers. The successful claim also included payment for all future treatments so long as it continues to be effective. As immunotherapy treatment gathers momentum, the good news is that the Bussey ruling enables Claimants to push through current and future cases faster, offering a glimmer of hope for so many sufferers and their families. ASBESTOS UPDATE: MPP Bob Bailey Pushes for Asbestos Ban ------------------------------------------------------- Melanie Erwin of BlackburnNews.com reported that Sarnia-Lambton MPP Bob Bailey's bill to ban the use, reuse, import, transport and sale of asbestos in Ontario, was reintroduced in the provincial legislature. The bill, which previously passed second reading at Queen's Park, was wiped off the legislative agenda when Premier Kathleen Wynne prorogued the legislature in March. Bailey says the federal government promised to implement an asbestos ban during the 2015 election, but three years later, the ban is still not in place. "We stopped mining asbestos in 2011, but asbestos imports into Canada and especially in Ontario, have nearly doubled in value between 2011 and 2016 to $8.2-million for the year," says Bailey. "So, that's what my big concern is." The PC member's bill would also require the province to create a public registry of all provincially owned or leased buildings containing the deadly substance. Health Canada warns that exposure to asbestos, particularly by breathing in asbestos fibers, can cause cancer and other diseases such as asbestosis; lung cancer; and mesothelioma. Canada has never banned asbestos and it continues to enter the country in imports of brake pads and pipes. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos in Corrigan Hall Not Present Danger ------------------------------------------------------------- The Setonian reported that it received an anonymous tip about apparent asbestos in the ceilings of Corrigan Hall on April 18. According to John Signorello, the associate vice president of Facilities Engineering and Business Affairs, the asbestos "does not present a present danger." "Corrigan Hall and many other buildings, schools and homes throughout the United States built prior to the 1970's contain asbestos," he wrote in an email. "This building material was used in items such as insulation, floor tile, and fire proofing. The management of this material, while in place or being removed is regulated and can only be handled by people and contractors who are trained and licensed." Signorello added that the contractors and consultants the University uses to manage this material have noted, "maintaining it in good condition is often the best approach." He then said that when it cannot be managed in good condition or when it needs to be moved for construction activities, it is done by a New Jersey contractor licensed in asbestos abatement under the New Jersey Construction Code. "This is done outside of normal business hours or when the building is unoccupied," he said. Austin Francois, a junior criminal justice and political science double major, said that he still finds the asbestos concerning. "It most certainly concerns me even though it isn't a 'present danger' and second I think the school should remove all the asbestos and replace the ceilings with new materials," he said. Morwenna Cecil, a sophomore history major, said that the asbestos in Corrigan concerns her as well. "Although it does not present a danger at the moment, if something like a leak were to disturb it then it would become an issue and pose a health risk to the students and faculty who use the building," she said. Cecil then shared how she thinks the school should deal with the situation saying: "I think that the best thing that the school could do would be to use the quieter summer months to properly assess the situation, and if necessary take the asbestos out." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found in Panama City Hall --------------------------------------------------- Eric Morgan of My Panhandle reported that while the City of Panama City moves into their new city hall, Bay County Public Works Director, Keith Bryant, said the county is planning to remodel the old city hall near the marina, to be the new temporary home for the Juvenile Justice Courthouse. "As everyone knows the county has an effort to try and keep the Federal Courthouse in Bay County, so if we can lease our current Juvenile Courthouse to the Federal government, we would move the Juvenile to Panama City Hall," he said. In order to move the Juvenile Courthouse, they have to do some remodeling at city hall. But before they could begin that process, they found asbestos in the attic above the ceiling in the city hall. Asbestos is a fire retardant used in construction starting in the 1930's, but its use was banned in the United States, because scientists discovered that is can cause lung cancer if inhaled. Panama City Interim City Manager, Jared Jones, said the city plans to make an amendment to their lease with the county to pay to remove the asbestos. "We are going to cover the cost, so I believe the whole demolition package, and the county can speak to this as well, is $180,000. $120,000 of that is for the asbestos abatement." Bryant said county staff will then remove the asbestos before beginning their remodeling process. "The first 10 days of the abatement is just air monitoring, so we'll be putting out the monitoring devices, we'll be collecting samples. Everything we do will be on the second floor at first, so the whole second floor will be sealed off, it will not be open to downstairs," he said. Bryant said all city staff will be safe during this process, since their offices are on the bottom floor. He said he anticipates that the abatement and demolition process will take about three to four weeks. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Rejects Attempts to Avoid Liability ---------------------------------------------------------- Mesothelioma.net Blog reported that despite the fact that it has long been established that mesothelioma is caused by exposure to asbestos, companies whose products were contaminated with the toxic material continue trying to avoid liability with all types of excuses, including blaming the federal government. In a recent example, Avondale Industries, Inc. argued that they should not have to face a jury in the case of Linda Guillot's malignant mesothelioma, arguing that because the federal government had ordered that their asbestos-containing materials be installed aboard Navy vessels the company built, that absolved them of responsibility for warning that the asbestos could cause harm. Ms. Guillot's husband and father had both worked for the company, and the asbestos dust that they carried home on their clothing is blamed for her fatal diagnosis. Upon hearing arguments from both sides, District Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court of Louisiana, denied Avondale's motion, indicating that their obligation to fulfill the government's request for asbestos-containing materials did not absolve the of their duty to warn. Ms. Guillot's mesothelioma lawsuit is not the first instance in which Avondale has attempted to use the argument blaming the government, and Judge Barbier pointed that out in his decision, saying that a district court had ruled that "Avondale failed to provide any evidence that the government had any control over Avondale's safety protocols. Judge Barbier's decision in the case said in part, "There is simply nothing in the record indicating that Avondale was prevented from adopting the safety measures that Plaintiff claims would have prevented her from contracting mesothelioma. At best, Avondale demonstrates that the federal government required Avondale to use asbestos when building ships." The judge goes on to say, "The shipyard failed to demonstrate that its contracts with the government prevented it from taking any of the protective measures identified by the plaintiffs." Despite the continued actions of asbestos companies, mesothelioma victims do have rights that the courts uphold. If you need information about the resources available, contact the Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net today at 1-800-692-8608. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mafefe Asbestos Road Replaced ---------------------------------------------- Chester Makana of News24 reported that in the hope that it would bring an end to the amount of deadly asbestos dust on their streets, residents of former asbestos-mining community Mafefe, have welcomed the construction of part of a road in the town at the cost of R43m. Over the past two decades, locals have complained to the government about the harmful effects of asbestos dust, used to construct roads and other infrastructure. Asbestos-mining company Cape PLC and its partners extracted asbestos mineral in the area between 1898 until the late 1960s. The mine's activities are said to have negatively affected 90% of the impoverished community, which has a 30 000-strong population. According to anti-asbestos campaign manager Zakes Matime, the construction of the road, through the government's asbestos rehabilitation programme, covers eight kilometres of Mafefe's main street. "The construction does not cover all the streets, but the main polluted street in Mafefe is being addressed," said Matime "The people who are using the road will be walking for the first time in many years on asbestos-free road," he added. Four years ago, the government demolished some schools in the area that were constructed with the use of asbestos material. However, Matime says more needs to be done. He says there are still houses and a public building which need to be demolished to remove asbestos left behind in the village. The environmental affairs department said it has developed a national secondary asbestos remediation plan that identified Limpopo and the Northern Cape as provinces that require intervention. The two provinces have significantly high levels of secondary asbestos contamination. "Mafefe in Limpopo province and Gamopedi in the Northern Cape were prioritised for remediation work in the 2017-18 financial year and will continue in the 2018-19 [financial year]," departmental spokesperson Albi Modise said. "Other villages in these provinces will be focused on as and when funding becomes available, with priority given to schools and other buildings, playgrounds and roads to contain and prevent any spread of contamination." Modise said the challenge was to obtain funding for the completion of remediation in affected areas. This means the project has to be carried out in phases when funding becomes available. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Found After Garbage Truck Smash --------------------------------------------------------- Daily Mail reported that residents of a house in Sydney's inner west which was ploughed into by a garbage truck won't be able to return home for some time after asbestos was discovered in the property. The asbestos was identified after the truck smashed into the Lilyfield house with Inner West Council general manager Rik Hart saying the property has been cordoned off while the removal process is underway. The truck began to roll down Gladstone Street after the driver got out to empty bins. He jumped back in the cabin but the truck still hit a boat, a caravan and a car before smashing into the side of the house. Two children inside at the time -- a 10-year-old boy and a 15- year-old girl -- luckily escaped uninjured. The 35-year-old driver was also uninjured but was taken to hospital for mandatory blood and urine tests. NSW Police and the Roads and Maritime Services inspected Inner West Council's fleet at its Leichhardt depot and issued six defect notices for minor faults. The truck involved in the crash has not yet been inspected as it remains lodged in the house. Council says it will work with the home owner to rectify any damage and ensure the residents have accommodation while the work takes place. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Dumped in Clitheroe Country Lane ---------------------------------------------------------- 2BR reported that Ribble Valley Borough Council is counting the cost after fly-tippers dumped over three tonnes of asbestos in a Clitheroe country lane. The asbestos was dumped along with a quantity of rubble and waste wood in Four Lane Ends, Clitheroe, overnight on May 2. Ribble Valley Borough Council workers wearing protective clothes and masks spent the best part of their day removing the asbestos using a special watering and wrapping process for transportation to a dangerous waste disposal unit. And following a forensic inspection of the site, the hunt is now on for the fly-tippers, who face hefty fines if found. Stuart Carefoot, chairman of the council's community services committee, said: "This is one of the worst asbestos dumps we have ever seen in the borough and our street cleansing team responded as soon as we were alerted. "The waste is from the demolition of a shed or outbuilding, which has been carefully checked for clues. "It has taken our workmen the best part of a day to clear the mess at a cost of hundreds of pounds to the taxpayer and we are determined to take action against the culprits." Householders undertaking renovation work are strongly advised to ensure that workmen are disposing of any waste properly, because they too face prosecution if it is traced back to their property. Fixed penalty notices for fly-tipping start at GBP400, but prosecution can result in a fine of up to GBP50,000 and 12 months imprisonment if convicted in a magistrates' court or an unlimited fine and up to five years imprisonment if convicted in a crown court. Waste crime costs the UK millions of pounds a year in clean-up costs, undermines legitimate business, blights the countryside and is a public health risk. Anyone witnessing fly-tipping in Ribble Valley is asked to report the vehicle's registration number in complete confidence to Ribble Valley Borough Council on 01200 425111. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter's 2nd-Hand Exposure Claim Denied ---------------------------------------------------------- Daily Mail reported that a woman who died after being exposed to asbestos through hugging her father has been denied compensation. Deanna Trevarthen, 45, was one of the youngest New Zealand citizens to die from the aggressive pleural mesothelioma cancer, which is caused by exposure to asbestos. When she was diagnosed she applied for ACC cover, which provides financial compensation to people who have suffered personal injuries, but was been denied as she was not employed in an asbestos risk industry, Stuff reported. Her family lawyer, Beatrix Woodhouse, told the Wellington District Court that Deanna had been exposed to the toxic asbestos dust as a young girl. It would have been on her father's work uniform when she hugged him and on piles of particle board that she would play with, the court heard. Ms Woodhouse originally perused the claim as an accident relating to the inhalation of a foreign object, rather than a work-related accident. Now, with Deanna's family members, she is gearing up for an appeal. She says that this case sets an unfortunate precedent unless they succeed. A total of 269 mesothelioma cases were lodged between 2013 and 2016 and success with Deanna's case would give hundreds of other mesothelioma sufferers potential to lodge claims. Deanna's sister-in-law, Angela Calver, has taken up the fight for compensation in the wake of her death. She says the court's rejection of the accidental inhalation claim made no sense as it suggested she had exposed herself to asbestos on purpose. 'Take this to a commonsense level -- if you employ a builder to come into your house and fix something, and he knocks a piece of ceiling that has asbestos in it, and we both inhale it, then 30 years later we both get sick, he's covered and I'm not.' Calver argued there was still asbestos in many of the countries buildings and in the future second-hand exposure cases will become more common. 'I can't tell you the turmoil this has put our family through. Not only losing a key member of the family, but because we had to do so much fundraising and cover Deanna's living expenses.' Before her death Deanna's life partner Greg Robertson raised $23,510.80 to help the couple with the medical expenses. 'So we are forced to beg, borrow and if it comes to it in the future, steal, to give her the treatment she needs to live,' he said in the post. Claver is now intending to take the case to the high court. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woodburn Workers, Students Exposed to Asbestos --------------------------------------------------------------- Tracey Loew of Statesman Journal reported that a former MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility employee has filed a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against the state, saying supervisors knowingly exposed workers and students to asbestos. Silverton resident John Neves spent 18 months supervising a team of six youth offenders who helped remodel cottages and other buildings at the Woodburn facility as part of a $52 million upgrade the Oregon Legislature approved in 2015. According to the lawsuit, on Feb. 22, 2017, as Neves was working on the final cottage, his supervisor, Steve Babcock, ordered him to quickly replace panels he had pulled off the walls of the living area. "Mr. Babcock explained that a tour of public officials was about to come through Kincaid Cottage and MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility did not want them to know about the asbestos in the walls," the lawsuit reads. "Plaintiff was shocked. He had never been told that MYCF knew there was asbestos in the walls of the living units he remodeled," it continues. "Mr. Babcock said there was asbestos 'all over the place.'" Asbestos fibers are known to cause lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis. There is no safe level of exposure. That evening, the lawsuit alleges, Neves and a painter who had been working in the cottage were put on administrative leave. Neves was told that he was accused of helping or knowing about youth creating hiding spots for contraband in the units that were being remodeled. On March 23, 2017, Neves filed a complaint with Oregon OSHA. Neves was fired July 21, four days before OSHA cited Oregon Youth Authority for two serious violations of the Oregon Safe Employment Act and fined it $500. The OSHA investigation found that OYA did not notify employees doing the renovations that the work could disturb known or suspected asbestos-containing materials; and OYA didn't provide initial and yearly training about asbestos to the employees, as required. Oregon law prohibits employers from discriminating against employees who lodge complaints against their employer for unsafe or unhealthful work conditions. Neves' lawsuit, filed Feb. 20, 2018, names the Oregon Youth Authority; Babcock; MacLaren superintendent Dan Berger; and OYA employees Rex Emery, John Cummings and Abe Rios. It asks a court to award him $935,000. Neither Neves nor his lawyer, Charese Rohny of Portland, responded to interview requests. The state has not yet filed an answer with the court. Oregon Youth Authority officials declined to answer questions about the lawsuit. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lawyer Wants $5MM Asbestos Verdict Overturned -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Storace of Law.com reported that a Hartford attorney is asking a New York court for a mistrial or directed verdict for the defense following a jury's attempt to award part of $5 million to the estate of a 77-year-old man who died of mesothelioma allegedly caused by asbestos in the 1950s. The jury found in favor of the estate of Daniel Barber against several contractors, suppliers and distributors of products containing asbestos. But attorney Morris Borea argues inconsistencies with the verdict form could bode well for overturning the multimillion-dollar award. Borea represents defendant AII Acquisition Corp., successor to Michigan-based Holland Furnace Co. The six-person jury originally answered "no" to a question on the verdict sheet asking if Barber's exposure to asbestos was a substantial factor in his fatal illness. But jurors later changed the answer to "yes" after Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Barbara Jaffe noted inconsistencies and instructed them to make corrections. "Our position is that the original answer should stand," said Borea, a partner with McGivney, Kluger & Cook. Now, the New York judge will hear the Connecticut attorney's request to enforce the original finding of no causation. Borea's client is responsible for $1.5 million of the $5 million verdict. Utica Boilers must pay $1 million, while about 10 other defendants were liable for the remaining $2.5 million. The 10 companies had earlier reached a confidential settlement with Barber's estate. Barber is a former Norwalk resident who later moved to Michigan. He died of mesothelioma in February 2017. The amended lawsuit maintains he was exposed to asbestos while working in shipyards, steel mills and industrial sites over several years. But at trial, the plaintiffs focused solely on their claim that Barber's asbestos exposure occurred between 1953 and 1958, when he was 14-19 years old, Borea said. During that time, Barber helped his stepfather install and remove boilers and furnaces from homes in the Norwalk area and in New York City. The suit linked Barber's death to asbestos exposure, and sought to hold the defendants liable. But Borea argued the plaintiffs never proved causation. Jordan Fox of Belluck & Fox in New York City is the attorney for Barber's estate. Fox did not respond to a request for comment. Attorney Christian Gannon, a shareholder with Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney in New York City, represents Utica Boilers. He did not respond to a request for comment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal Likely to Decide NYC Asbestos Ct. Future ---------------------------------------------------------------- Forbes reported that the fight over New York City's controversial asbestos court is not over, as companies worried about their treatment there are likely to appeal an order that kept alive the possibility for even bigger verdicts. On March 22, an intermediate appeals court declined to change a case management order (CMO) that was amended last year to allow for the possibility of punitive damages in asbestos cases. But it probably won't be the last word in the matter, as defendants are expected to appeal once the timeframe for doing so arrives. After all, less than a month after that order, defendants were hit with a record-breaking $60 million verdict in an asbestos trial. The March order -- issued by the Appellate Division, First Department -- was the product of the appeals of more than 300 companies that have avoided bankruptcy and, thus, still face lawsuits over asbestos exposure that occurred decades ago (other companies established bankruptcy trusts to compensate victims with a claims process). Ultimately, the case is likely to head to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals, which affirmed a pro-plaintiff ruling in 2016 over duty to warn. The ruling benefited plaintiffs' attorneys looking for solvent companies to sue. Appealing the NYCAL CMO last year were companies like Crane Co., Honeywell, Ford Motor Company, 84 Lumber, Eli Lilly, National Grid, Cooper Industries and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, among dozens of others that joined together on an appeal brief. In briefs submitted to the intermediate appeals court, defendants said their ability to fight claims all the way through trial is hampered in two major ways: An Accelerated Docket that leaves them only five months to conduct their investigations and prepare for trial and a threat of punitive damages that makes simply going to trial a multimillion-dollar threat. ASBESTOS UPDATE: RI Ct. Issues Key Ruling on Take-Home Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- Law360 reported that on April 16, 2018, a Rhode Island court addressed for the first time whether an entity has a duty of care to protect nonemployees from exposure to the asbestos-tainted work clothes of the entity's employee. The decision denies defendant Crane Co.'s motion for summary judgment in the matter of Carolyn Nichols as Executrix of the Estate of Iva Pearl Jones et al. v. Allis Chalmers Product Liability Trust et al. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wollongong Recycling Scandal Spreads to Homes -------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Langford of Illawarra Mercury reported that more than 100 tonnes of asbestos contaminated material has been found at 11 more properties across Wollongong and Shellharbour, supplied by Kembla Grange business Wollongong Recycling, the Environment Protection Authority said. The properties, from Oak Flats and Yallah in the south, to Thirroul and Austinmer in the north, included many house blocks. One site was a car storage yard near a kids' play centre at Albion Park Rail. The EPA has ordered Wollongong Recycling, which is owned by Sydney waste giant Bingo, to clean up the material and surrounding soil. The quantities range from four to more than 30 tonnes. They were identified during inspections in December and January, with the asbestos confirmed by laboratory testing, the EPA said. The EPA told the Mercury it had been working with landowners to "determine the timeframes and clean-up action required". There is no suggestion property owners were aware that the aggregate, which was recovered and supplied for development by Wollongong Recycling, was contaminated with asbestos. "Given that the recovered aggregate has been crushed and processed, the EPA reasonably suspects that there is an increased risk of asbestos fibres being released into the air which may cause harm to human health if inhaled," the EPA said in several of the clean-up notices. This brings to 23 the number of properties over which the EPA taken action against Wollongong Recycling for supplying asbestos contaminated material between June and August last year. The worst case was 3,300 tonnes of asbestos contaminated aggregate which it supplied to Lendlease's Calderwood development near Albion Park. The EPA has been "reviewing" the clean-up work there. All up about 7,500 tonnes of material supplied by Wollongong Recycling to sites around the region has been investigated by the EPA. The EPA has not fined or prosecuted Wollongong Recycling, but has issued legally enforceable clean-up notices. The agency said its investigation was still in progress. "Whilst the clean-up and removal of the asbestos has been the priority, the circumstances that resulted in the asbestos waste being delivered to the different properties is subject to an ongoing EPA investigation," an EPA spokeswoman said. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, 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 * * *