/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/180810.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, August 10, 2018, Vol. 20, No. 160 Headlines 7-ELEVEN INC: Wins Prelim. Approval of Gittens Suit Settlement ABC METRO CLEANERS: Doesn't Pay OT to Ironers, Pastor Alleges ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 17 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ACE AMERICAN: Denied Minimum Wages, Paystubs, Sandbergen Says ADVANTAGE RN: Court Certifies Health Care Professionals Class AIR CANADA: Former Aveos Employees' Class Action Can Proceed ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Denies Franco Bid to Certify Class AMALIE AOC: Opalka Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Agrees to Settle Class-Action Lawsuit AMP: Financial Planner Pressured to Sell Inferior Products AMP: To Vigorously Defend Claims in Shareholder Class Action ANGRY CRAB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alarcon Suit Alleges ANSELMO LINDBERG: Rongey Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Unauthorized Property Inspection Fees BHP: Faces Class Action in Australia Over Samarco Dam Failure BIG PICTURE LOANS: Faces McCoy et al. RICO Suit in N.D. Georgia BLUESTEM BRANDS: Williams Seeks Class Certification Under TCPA BOLD ENERGY: Olenik Appeals Securities Suit Ruling BRIUS HEALTHCARE: Faces 15 Class-Action Lawsuits CALIFORNIA: Plaintiffs' Motion in Solitary Confinement Case OK'd CANADA: RCMP Faces Another Harassment, Bullying Class Action CAPTIVA MVP RESTAURANT: Faces Tsao Suit over Data Breach CBS MEDICAL: Davis Neurology Appeals Judgment to Eighth Circuit CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Prizler Suit to Recover Overtime Pay CITIBANK: Home Loan Borrowers File Class Action in California CLEARONE ADVANTAGE: Souders Hits Autodialed Telemarketing Calls CLIMB WORKS: Faces Class Action Over E. Coli Outbreak COGZIDEL CORP: Williams Hits Autodialed Telemarketing Calls CONN'S INC: Motley Rice Files Class Action Settlement CONNECTICUT: Correction Dept. Sued Over Expensive Hep C Drugs COWORX STAFFING: Underpays Call Center Reps, Robin Bell Claims CRAFT BREW: Broomfield Moves to Certify Two Classes of Consumers D'AMBRA CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguilar Alleges DR. PEPPER: Drink Doesn't Contain Real Ginger, Childers Claims ECHELON CORP: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Fraud Class Action ELI LILLY: Bentele et al. RICO Suit Underway in New Jersey ELIOT MANAGEMENT: Underpays Sales Representatives, Anemanna Says EPIC SYSTEMS: Kane Russell Attorney Discusses Arbitration Ruling FACEBOOK INC: Former Soldier Leads Class Action in Australia FACEBOOK INC: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit FACEBOOK INC: Sept. 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline FACEBOOK: Pierce Bainbridge Probing Potential Securities Suit FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Are FHFA & the GSEs Government Actors? FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Nelson Personal Injury Suit Removed to D.S.C. FOUR CORNERS: Faces Class Action Over Withheld Tips FULTON COUNT, GA: To Spend Big Bucks to Defend Tax Class Action FYRE MEDIA: Music Festival Creator Faces New Fraud Charges GEOFFREY PALMER: Sued for Witholding Tenants' Security Deposits GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC: Gumm et al. Seek to Certify Class GEORGIA: Firefighters Seek to Reverse Racial Bias Case Ruling HASHFLARE: Class Action Mulled Over Bitcoin Mining Contracts IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Settles Shareholder Class Action INVESTA SERVICES: BC Grand Sues over Real Property Tax Assessments JUNIPER PHARMA: Rosenblatt Challenges Sale to Catalent Pharma KIA MOTORS: Appeals Court Reinstates $6.3MM Class Action Award LIFE INSURANCE: Class of Policy Purchasers Certified in "Walker" LIFESAFER INC: Spencer Sues over Ignition Interlock Devices LOCK HAVEN: AG Shapiro Seeks Ruling in Title IX Class Action LOGMEIN INC: Wortman Sues over Auto-Renewal Policy MAJOR MODEL: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime, Raske Says MATERIAL TRANSPORT: Search and Rose Sue over Minimum & OT Pay MDL 2084: Court Denies Bid to Certify Direct Purchaser Class MERCK & CO: Smith's Bid to Certify Nixed Pending Aug. 17 Hearing MICRO FOCUS: Schmitt Securities Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. MONSANTO CO: Faces 4-R Farms Suit over Herbicide Products MONSANTO CO: Ray Suit Seeks Damages Over Roundup Exposure MONSANTO CO: Schade Suit Says Herbicide Exposure Caused Lymphoma MONSANTO CO: Smith Blames Roundup Exposure as Cause for Lymphoma NERIUM INTERNATIONAL: Faces Fraud Class Action in California NEW YORK: US/Nurses Suit Settlement Provisionally Approved NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities Class Action for $19MM NISSAN MOTORS: Must Face Class Action Over Defective Sentra CVTs NORDSTROM INC: Alex Ponce's Wage-and-Hour Suit Dismissed NOVARTIS PHARMA: Turlock Hits Hypertension Meds Price-rigging NY FAST GENERAL: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Premium O'GARA COACH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Kevin Amini Alleges OHIO STATE: Rep. Jim Jordan Named as Defendant in Class Action PACIFIC WINE: Bejarano Seeks Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers PE CONTROL: US Energy Alleges Violation of N.Y. State Lien Law PEERLESS CREDIT: Margereum Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections PNC BANK: Fergerstrom et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses PPG PLAN ADMINISTRATOR: Bellon et al. Sue over Welfare Benefits PRECISION FOCUS: Underpays Security Personnel, Jordan Craft Says PRO LABEL: Thomas Melzer Alleges Time-Shaving QUORUM HEALTH: Zwick Partners et al. Seek to Certify Class R.J. DELIVERY: Underpays Movers & Helpers, Campos Suit Alleges RCD INC: Hermenegildo Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Too Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ROYAL WINNIPEG: National Student Class Action Certified SALESUMO LLC: Pino Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums SECURUS TECH: Romero et al. Renew Bid to Certify Class SERVICE CORP: Trinidad Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA SEWARD PARK: Averts Homeowners' Suit Over Parking Spaces SI PROPERTIES: Nash Alleges Unsafe & Unsanitary Housing SILVERSTAR DELIVERY: Wasilewski Seeks to Certify Employees Class SKYLINE FINANCIAL: Abdus-Salaam Seeks to Certify FLSA Suit SOCAL GAS: Judge Orders Key Witness to Testify in Class Action SOUTH KOREA: Top Court Delays Ruling in Human Rights Case SPECIALIZED LOAN: Quinn's Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement STARBUCKS CORP: Must Pay Workers for Off-Clock Work, Court Rules SUMMIT CASING: Rains Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime SUNWORKS UNITED: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls SYNERGIES3 TEC: Jones Seeks to Certify Collective Action THORN GROUP: Aug. 9 Hearing Set to Resolve Outstanding Issues TICKETMASTER: Offers Freebies, Discounts as Part of Settlement TOPPS TOWING: Sosa Seeks Payment of Minimum & OT Wages TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Cardenas & Kirton Suit over Defective HVAC TRUSTEDID INC: Williams Suit Transferred to S. Carolina Dist. Ct. UNITED STATES: 24 Montana Counties Joint PILT Class Action UNITED STATES: Immigrant Reunifications Must Be Transparent UNITED STATES: Misses Deadline to Reunify Immigrant Families UNITED STATES: Ravalli County Joints PILT Payments Class Action UNIVERSAL TRANSPORTATION: Sprague Moves to Certify FLSA Class UTAH HIGH SCHOOL: Class Action Mulled Over Title IX Disparity VECTREN CORP: Faces Michael Kuebler Suit over CenterPoint Merger VERMONT DOC: Russell Seeks to Certify Muslim Inmates Class WAL-MART STORES: Quiles et al. Seek to Certify Class WASHINGTON, DC: Lawsuits Over Unjust Teacher Dismissals Ongoing XPLORE TECH: Scarantino Seeks to Block Sale to Zebra Tech ZOCO PRODUCTIONS: Dr. Oz Settles False Advertising Class Action Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baldor Electric Dismissed From Dickens' Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bergeron Couple Sues Alleges Asbestos Exposure ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bonvillain Couple Sues Dow Chemical Over Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Avon Sole Factory Posts Asbestos Warning ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 3 Suits, Claims for $195K ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.5-Bil. Liabilities at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records US$918MM NARCO Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jack's PI Claims vs. M.W. Custom Papers Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Sides With Celanese in $8MM Asbestos Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kraus Bid to Strike Government Defense Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Withdraws Stay of T. Pogacnick's Suit ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Connor Appeal Withdrawn from Docket ASBESTOS UPDATE: Opioid Lawsuits Not Comparable to Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partially Collapsed Bank Building Has Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Deems Non-PC Claims Inactive ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 475 Open Claims at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Remains Shielded from PC Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Kraus' Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Devries ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Mullinax's Claims vs. Honeywell Dropped ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scots Woman Negligently Exposed to Asbestos ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thrash's PI Claims vs. Boeing Company Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.2-Bil. Net Reserves at June 30 ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Dickens' Claims vs. Gardner Denver Dismissed ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Admits to Asbestos Fraud Scheme ********* 7-ELEVEN INC: Wins Prelim. Approval of Gittens Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Sandra J. Feuerstein grants the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of their settlement resolving the lawsuit titled SHAKEIRA GITTENS, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. 7-ELEVEN, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-06378-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y.). Shakeira Gittens initiated this case on November 1, 2017. In her Complaint, which was later joined by two Opt-In Plaintiffs, Daniealla Adames and Lisanyela Gonzalez, the Plaintiff asserts collective action claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and Rule 23 class action claims under New York Labor Law. The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the settlement classes, defined as: a. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), all individuals who spent at least one day performing any work for Defendant as an hourly, non-exempt employee at either 7-Eleven Store No. 11159 (located at 80 Brooklyn A venue, Freeport, NY 11520) and/or Store No. 24568 (located at 1571 Hempstead Turnpike, Elmont, NY 11003) (together, the "Relevant Stores") at any time from February 12, 2016 through January 12, 2017 (the "Relevant Time Period ") ("New York Class"); and b. Under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), all individuals who spent at least one day performing any work for Defendant as an hourly employee in the Relevant Stores during the Relevant Time Period, and who negotiates his/her settlement check received as a result of this settlement, thereby opting in to the settlement of all FLSA claims ("Federal Class"). Judge Feuerstein appoints Shakeira Gittens as Class Representative; Borrelli & Associates, P.L.L.C., as Class Counsel; and Arden Claims Service, LLC, as Claims Administrator. Arden Claims will be responsible for communicating with Class Members, disseminating the Notice, accepting and maintaining documents sent by Class Members, including Opt-out statements and other documents relating to claims administration, and administering claims for allocation, according to the formula set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Parties are directed to require the Claims Administrator to send the Notice and Claim Form to putative class members by August 14, 2018. Any potential Class Member may opt out of the Class by mailing a written, signed statement to the Claims Administrator postmarked or received on or before September 28, 2018. Class Counsel must file their Motion for Final Approval on or before October 29, 2018. The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on the settlement on November 29, 2018, at 11:15 a.m. E.S.T. ABC METRO CLEANERS: Doesn't Pay OT to Ironers, Pastor Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE LUIS PASTOR, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABC METRO CLEANERS, INC. (D/B/A ABC CLEANER NYC); SAU YING WANG; DAVY MAK; JOSE DOE, and EMY DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06089 (S.D.N.Y., July 5, 2018) is an action against the Defendants to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Luis Pastor was employed by the Defendants as ironer from June 19, 2017 to June 16, 2018. ABC Metro Cleaners, Inc. d/b/a ABC Cleaner NYC is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. The Company own, operate, or control a laundry service, located at 184 Avenue C, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sept. 17 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until September 17, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nasdaq:ACAD), if they purchased the Company's securities between April 29, 2016 and July 9, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. What You May Do If you purchased securities of ACADIA Pharmaceuticals and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-acad/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by September 17, 2018. About the Lawsuit ACADIA and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On July 9, 2018, a report published by the Southern Investigative Reporting Foundation highlighted problems associated with the Company's sole drug, Nuplazid, a treatment for Parkinson's disease, as well as the Company's growth strategies that "have attracted intense regulatory scrutiny for other drug companies" including "dispensing wads of cash to doctors to incentivize prescription writing and downplaying mounting reports of patient deaths." On this news, the price of ACADIA's shares plummeted $1.21/share, or 6.8%, to close at $16.63/share on July 9, 2018. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders. The firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. [GN] ACE AMERICAN: Denied Minimum Wages, Paystubs, Sandbergen Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Sandbergen, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ACE American Insurance Co., Federal Insurance Co. and Does 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04567, (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages, redress for failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, accurate itemized wage statements and all wages due upon separation of employment pursuant to the Business and Professions Code, the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Defendants operate as Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, providing insurance products to commercial and personal customers. Sandbergen worked as an insurance underwriter for three years out of Chubb's San Francisco office. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq. Eduard Meleshinsky, Esq. Logan Starr, Esq. BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW 1330 Broadway, Suite 1630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 444-9300 Facsimile: (510) 444-9301 Email: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com eduard@bryanschwartzlaw.com logan@bryanschwartzlaw.com ADVANTAGE RN: Court Certifies Health Care Professionals Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled EMILY HOWELL, an individual on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ADVANTAGE RN, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00883-JLS-BLM (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Janis L. Sammartino entered an order: 1. granting Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of: "all non-exempt hourly health care professionals employed by Advantage RN in California from May 2, 2013 through the date of class certification who worked pursuant to a Traveler Assignment Confirmation, worked overtime, and had the value of the per diem stipend and/or loyalty, extension or completion bonus paid to them excluded from their regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime"; and 2. conditionally certifying Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standards Act collective as: "all non-exempt hourly health care professionals employed by Defendant Advantage RN LLC in the United States within three years prior to the date of certification who worked pursuant to a Traveler Assignment Confirmation, worked in excess of 40 hours in one or more workweeks, and had the value of the per diem stipend and/or loyalty, extension or completion bonus paid to them excluded from their regular rate for purposes of calculating overtime"; and 3. appointing Plaintiff Emily Howell as the class representative and Plaintiff's counsel Matthew B. Hayes and Hayes Pawlenko LLP as class counsel. AIR CANADA: Former Aveos Employees' Class Action Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ News 1130 reports that Air Canada discusses second-quarter results on July 20. Former Aveos employees have been authorized to proceed with a class action lawsuit against the airline, which sold most of its shares in Aveos in 2007 and gradually reduced its contracts with the maintenance company, forcing it to close permanently in 2012 due to lack of orders. [GN] ALLIED INTERSTATE: Court Denies Franco Bid to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned GILBERTO FRANCO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC f/k/a ALLIED INTERSTATE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:13-cv-04053-KBF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine B. Forrest entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Court required the parties to meet and confer and file a joint letter setting forth a proposed schedule for resolution of plaintiff's individual claims. The Court said, "Plaintiff has suggested that defendant's offer of judgment and subsequent argument against class certification allow it to 'unilaterally avoid class liability through gimmicks or creative litigation strategies.' Presumably, plaintiff is concerned that defendant will be incentivized to offer judgment to any named plaintiff brought into this action (or other action), and that plaintiff will therefore be deemed 'inadequate' under Rule 23. That concern is purely hypothetical, and on the record here, speculative. It is not based in any facts tethered to this case. There is not a single fact suggesting that: (1) if plaintiff is deemed an inadequate representative due to his rejection of a fulsome offer, another potential plaintiff would or could be proffered; (2) that defendant would then proceed to 'pick off' by making a similar offer. Thus, this argument is without factual basis and is purely speculative. Moreover, any future plaintiff would be subject to their own individualized analysis under Rule 23, and that plaintiff might submit an adequate factual record under Rule 23." AMALIE AOC: Opalka Suit Removed to S.D. Fla. -------------------------------------------- Brandon Opalka an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amalie AOC, Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 18-19664-CA-44, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami) on July 27, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-23072. Opalka bought a bottle of Amalie AOC's premium motor oil and claims that its XCEL line of premium motor oils lacks sufficient additives and could cause engine failure. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Harley S. Tropin, Esq. Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq. Robert J. Neary, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 Email: hst@kttlaw.com tjl@kttlaw.com gfranjola@kttlaw.com Amalie AOC is represented by: Irma T. Reboso-Solares, Esq. Julianna Thomas McCabe, Esq. Michael N. Wolgin, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A. Miami Tower 100 S.E. Second Street, Suite 4200 Miami, FL 33131-2113 Tel: (305) 347-6843, 347-6870, 530-0050 Fax: (305) 530-0055 Email: isolares@carltonfields.com jtmccabe@carltonfields.com mwolgin@cfjblaw.com AMERICAN OSTEOPATHIC: Agrees to Settle Class-Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- The American Osteopathic Association (AOA) has agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by four of its members and, after final approval of the settlement, will no longer require that its board-certified physicians maintain membership in the association. The plaintiffs' attorneys, Philadelphia-based Duane Morris, LLP, will receive fees and costs in an amount not to exceed $2,617,000. Subject to court approval, Duane Morris will then pay $15,000 to each of the four plaintiffs -- Albert Talone, DO, Craig Wax, DO, Richard Renza, DO, and Roy Stoller, DO -- from its legal fees. There is no other monetary settlement. The AOA believes that the business practices at issue in the lawsuit were lawful, but chose to settle the case because the litigation appeared likely to extend for several years, said AOA President William S. Mayo, DO. The legal case prevented the AOA from fully implementing strategic initiatives in membership and board certification and strained staff resources, he explained. "For two years, the AOA's human and financial resources have been diverted to defending this lawsuit rather than to refining our organization to meet the needs of a rapidly growing profession. Our business is to serve the 137,000 osteopathic medical students and DOs in the United States. Settling this lawsuit allows us to focus on the impactful work that is only done by the AOA, such as practice rights protection, legal assistance and federal advocacy for DOs," Dr. Mayo said. A $90 reduction of membership dues was part of the settlement agreement. Recently approved by the AOA House of Delegates, the dues reduction applies to regular members for three years starting June 1, 2019. The AOA is a physician-led organization in which members set their own dues, which necessitated the vote. The AOA also will suspend board certification maintenance fees of $90 for three years. Further, the AOA will recognize online continuing medical education (CME) as equivalent to live CME for the purpose of meeting membership requirements and will offer AOA members two free online CME courses for three years, a value of $40 to $150 per year, depending on specialty. The AOA will also continue its brand awareness campaign for osteopathic physicians through May 31, 2021. About the American Osteopathic Association The American Osteopathic Association (AOA) represents more than 137,000 osteopathic physicians (DOs) and osteopathic medical students; promotes public health; encourages scientific research; serves as the primary certifying body for DOs; and is the accrediting agency for osteopathic medical schools. [GN] AMP: Financial Planner Pressured to Sell Inferior Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Sean Nicholls, Lesley Robinson and Alice Mulheron, writing for ABC, report that a former AMP planner has described the financial services giant as a "dictatorship", claiming he was pressured to sell in-house products, including to a client who would have been left thousands of dollars a year worse off. The allegations are part of an ABC Four Corners investigation into AMP's scandal-plagued financial planning business. AMP is reeling after evidence at the financial services royal commission in April that it charged customers "fees for no service" and repeatedly misled the corporate regulator about doing so during a major, ongoing investigation. AMP also faces a shareholder class action worth potentially hundreds of millions of dollars. The company's market value has plunged by several billion dollars since the revelations. Brett Strong signed on as an AMP-licensed planner in mid-2013 after deciding to grow his independent financial advice business, which services customers in the Illawarra and on the NSW South Coast. Signing on as a self-employed representative of AMP allowed Mr Strong access to more than 2,000 clients on AMP's books — almost tripling his existing customer base of 700. Fees for no service Mr Strong told Four Corners that when he began calling the clients it became apparent they had not had any contact with an AMP adviser for many years, despite being charged a monthly adviser fee. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has investigated a range of financial institutions including AMP, ANZ, the Commonwealth Bank and NAB over charging advice fees to customers where no service was provided, since 2015. AMP has acknowledged that from 2008 it wrongly charged more than 15,000 customers $4.7 million in adviser fees when their financial planner had left the business and had not been replaced. The company said 3,500 clients were deliberately charged fees for no service, totalling less than $600,000, while the rest were charged by mistake. ASIC's investigation of AMP is ongoing. Mr Strong said the incentives AMP offered him to join its network made him feel like, "a corporate slut; a bitch to somebody's command". "A puppet would be the best way to describe it," he said. Pressure to sell in-house products Mr Strong told Four Corners AMP began to pressure him to favour AMP in-house products over others in the market. He said each time his business reviewed a client or had a new client he would send a recommendation about the type of products they needed to AMP head office. "Every time it came back, regardless of what I had put as an adviser, the product at the end of the advice or the structure was an AMP product," Mr Strong said. "The real issue in my opinion was the fact that they were trying to get my existing book of business over to their particular products and services." Mr Strong said this, "didn't sit well with me, because being in the independent market space, I already knew that there were alternative options available, and as an adviser I was utilising those alternatives". He said the final straw was when he recommended a long-standing client set up a self-managed superannuation fund. He says AMP managers pressured him into selling the client an AMP superannuation product, which, in Mr Strong's view, would have left the client thousands of dollars a year worse off. When Mr Strong argued against doing so, he says AMP pushed back and told him in a meeting, "I will be using the AMP product, because it is in the client's best interest". "Now, best-interest duties for advisers are quite simple. Whose interest is it in? This particular case it was in the best of interest of the AMP," Mr Strong said. He said he resigned as an AMP adviser over the matter. AMP to review claims Asked to describe his experience working with AMP, Mr Strong said: "I guess the best way to describe that would be that it was a dictatorship." An AMP spokeswoman told Four Corners Mr Strong resigned in March 2014 after it notified him, "of compliance issues, including certain advice". She said his AMP authorisation was then "terminated" the following August. "AMP will review the claims made by Mr Strong to the Four Corners program," she said. "We encourage any of our advisers or employees — past or present — who have witnessed behaviours they believe don't put customers' interests first to come forward with their concerns. "They can do this formally or through our anonymous whistle blower channels. All concerns raised will be taken seriously. "Our advisers are able to advise on both AMP and non-AMP products. They have a legal obligation to only recommend a new product when it is in their client's best interests." [GN] AMP: To Vigorously Defend Claims in Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Killian Plastow, writing for ifa, reports that AMP has maintained it didn't fail in its obligations to disclose information regarding fees for no service and will defend against claims made in a shareholder class action that it had. In a statement, AMP announced it has lodged its defence to a shareholder class action led by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which argues the company "should have disclosed to the market information about the issues highlighted during AMP's appearance at the royal commission hearings in April 2018". "AMP confirms it will vigorously defend this and all similar proceedings," AMP said. "AMP denies the plaintiff's allegations that it had information that was required to be disclosed to the market during the relevant period (May 2012 to April 2018) regarding the practice of charging advice fees for no service related to the 90-day exception and ringfencing, and AMP's interactions with ASIC (including in respect of the Clayton Utz report)." The company said none of the information it had regarding any of the issues brought up by the royal commission were material to AMP's shareprice, noting the fees for no service affected less than 4,000 customers and accounted for only $600,000, its misleading statements to ASIC didn't mislead the regulator in any material way regarding fees for no service, and that ASIC was aware of the relationship between AMP and Clayton Utz. "Further, Clayton Utz did not make any changes to the report as a result of communications with AMP which Clayton Utz did not agree with, and Clayton Utz carefully verified the accuracy of the statements in the report," the company said. [GN] ANGRY CRAB: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Alarcon Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- SERVANDO ALARCON; GREGORY GARCIA; FREYA O'KEEFE; and MARY PINEDA individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ANGRY CRAB SHACK CORPORATION; ANGRY CRAB FRANCHISE LLC; ANGRY CRAB SHACK BBQ LLC; AC AHWATUKEE, LLC; AC EAST MESA, LLC; AC GOODYEAR, LLC; AC PEORIA, LLC; RONALD LOU AND JANE DOE LOU; DAN SEVILLA AND JANE DOE SEVILLA; ANDREW DIAMOND AND JANE DOE DIAMOND; DAVID ENG AND JANE DOE ENG; and JASON LOPEZ AND JANE DOE LOPEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02207-SMM (D. Ariz., July 12, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as full-time, non-exempt employees. Angry Crab Shack Corporation is an Arizona corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford P. Bendau, II, Esq. Christopher J. Bendau, Esq. BENDAU & BENDAU PLLC P.O. Box 97066 Phoenix, AZ 85060 Telephone: (480) 382-5176 Facsimile: (480) 304-3805 E-mail: cliffordbendau@bendaulaw.com chris@bendaulaw.com ANSELMO LINDBERG: Rongey Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ---------------------------------------------------------- William R. Rongey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Anselmo Lindberg & Associates LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-04613 (N.D. Ill., July 3, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Anselmo Lindberg & Associates LLC provides legal expertise in the areas of real estate, estate planning, default services and general litigation for businesses and individuals. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Scott Davidson, Esq. Mohammed Omar Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: jdavidson@sulaimanlaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Unauthorized Property Inspection Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a homeowner has filed a class action lawsuit against Bank of America, alleging she was assessed and forced to pay unauthorized inspection fees on a mortgaged property. Lead plaintiff Gloria Tirado filed a complaint June 28 in Cook County Circuit Court, saying the bank allegedly failed to notify her of the inspections or to contact her to determine whether the property was occupied, and continued to charge fees for inspection even after learning that her property was occupied. The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek actual damages, restitution, return of amounts wrongfully received, removal of outstanding charges for unauthorized inspection fees, interest, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs. She is represented by Arthur Czaja -- arthur@czajalawoffices.com -- of The Law Offices Of Arthur C. Czaja and Assoc. in Niles and Jeffrey Berman and Patrick Solberg -- psolberg@andersonwanca.com -- of Anderson + Wanca in Rolling Meadows. Cook County Circuit Court case number 18-CH-08116 [GN] BHP: Faces Class Action in Australia Over Samarco Dam Failure ------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that global miner BHP said on July 23 it has been served with a class action proceeding in the Federal Court of Australia regarding the 2015 Samarco dam failure in Brazil. BHP said it would defend the claim lodged in Victoria state. It did not specify who had filed the class action, which relates to a 2015 dam burst that killed 19 people. Samarco and its parent companies Vale SA and BHP signed a deal with Brazilian authorities in June to settle a 20 billion reais ($5.30 billion) lawsuit related to the failure. The miner also agreed to fund a total of $211 million in financial support for the Renova Foundation, created to help victims of the Samarco dam disaster in Brazil. BHP said it expected to record a charge of $650 million in its fiscal 2018 results on account of the failure. The charge was at the lower end of expectations according to analysts. The Daily Telegraph reports that 3000 shareholders have signed up to participate in a class action against miner BHP over the deadly Samarco dam disaster of 2015. The mining giant has confirmed it will fight the allegations. [GN] BIG PICTURE LOANS: Faces McCoy et al. RICO Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Picture Loans, LLC. The case is captioned as Victoria Renee McCoy; and Desiree Wright Lovins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Big Picture Loans, LLC; Matt Martorello; Ascension Technologies, LLC f/k/a Bellicose Capital, LLC; and Daniel Gravel, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-03217-MHC (N.D. Ga., July 3, 2018). The case is assigned to Judge Mark H. Cohen. The case alleges violation of the Racketeering (RICO) Act. Big Picture Loans is a company engaged in lending money and provides small cash loans with online application. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amy E. Tabor, Esq. Caddell & Chapman, P.C. 628 East 9th St. Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 - and - Charles Jackson Cole, Esq. McRae Bertschi & Cole, LLC 1350 Center Drive, Suite 200 Dunwoody, GA 30338 Telephone: (678) 999-1105 Facsimile: (404) 525-4347 E-mail: cjc@mcraebertschi.com - and - Craig Edward Bertschi, Esq. McRae Bertschi & Cole, LLC 1350 Center Drive. Suite 200 Dunwoody, GA 30338 Telephone: (678) 999-1102 E-mail: ceb@mcraebertschi.com - and - Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. Caddell & Chapman, P.C. 628 East 9th St. Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 E-mail: cbc@caddellchapman.com - and - John B. Scofield , Jr., Esq. Caddell & Chapman, P.C. 628 East 9th St. Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 - and - Michael A. Caddell, Esq. Caddell & Chapman, P.C. 1331 Lamar, Suite 1070 Houston, TX 77010-3027 Telephone: (713) 751-0400 Facsimile: (713) 751-0906 E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com BLUESTEM BRANDS: Williams Seeks Class Certification Under TCPA -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled WADDELL WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BLUESTEM BRANDS, INC., Case No. 8:17-cv-01971-JDW-AAS (M.D. Fla.), seeks certification of this class: All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to whom Bluestem Brands, Inc. placed a call, (2) directed to a number assigned to a cellular telephone service, but not assigned to a Bluestem Brands, Inc. accountholder, (3) in connection with its efforts to collect an account balance, (4) via LiveVox, Inc.'s Quick Connect platform, (5) from November 2, 2015 through the date of class certification. The lawsuit is brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Williams asserts that throughout the proposed class period, Bluestem utilized a vendor -- LiveVox, Inc. -- to place outbound calls for the purpose of collecting past-due balances. He alleges that neither he has or had any business relationship with Bluestem, nor did he give Bluestem express consent to robocall his cellular telephone. Mr. Williams also asks the Court to appoint him as the class representative and to appoint Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC as class counsel. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Greenwald, Esq. James L. Davidson, Esq. Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com - and - Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 322-3912 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com BOLD ENERGY: Olenik Appeals Securities Suit Ruling -------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in the case captioned Nicholas Olenik, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant Earthstone Energy, Plaintiff, v. Frank A. Lodzinski, Ray Singleton, Douglas E. Swanson, Brad Thielemann, Robert L. Zorich, Jay F. Joliat, Zachary G. Urban, Phillip D. Kramer, Encap Investments L.P., Bold Energy III LLC, Bold Energy Holdings LLC and Oak Valley Resources, LLC and Earthstone Energy, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2017-0414, (Del. Ch., June 2, 2017), filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On July 20, 2018, Vice Chancellor Joseph R. Slights of the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed a stockholder challenge to an all-stock business combination between Earthstone Energy, Inc. and Bold Energy III LLC. Plaintiff owns a stake in Earthstone Energy Inc., an oil and gas exploration firm. Earthstone will acquire all of the outstanding membership interests of Bold Energy III LLC, a portfolio company of EnCap Investments LP. Current Earthstone stockholders will own approximately 39% of the combined company and Bold members will own the remaining 61% on a fully diluted basis. Olenik claims said deal is one-sided. Chairman and CEO Frank A. Lodzinski is the controlling stockholder of Earthstone. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq. Spencer Oster, Esq. David F.E. Tejtel, Esq. FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC 240 East 79th Street, Suite A New York, NY 10075 Tel: (888) 529-1108 - and - Ned Weinberger, Esq. Thomas Curry, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1340 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 573-2540 - and - Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. David M. Sborz, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC 3801 Kennett Pike, Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Tel: (302)-504-4957 Fax: (302)-397-2681 Defendants are represented by: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esq. D. McKinley Measley, Esq. Lauren Neal Bennett, Esq. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP 1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Email: knachbar@mnat.com mmeasley@mnat.com lbennett@mnat.com - and - Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq. Robert L. Burns, Esq. Daniel E. Kaprow, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 651-7786, 651-7618 Fax: (302) 651-7701 Email: dicamillo@rlf.com burns@rlf.com - and - Rolin P. Bissell, Esq. James M. Yoch, Jr. YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP Rodney Square 1000 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 571-6560, 576-3584 Fax: (302) 576-3281, 576-3744 Email: rbissell@ycst.com jyoch@ycst.com BRIUS HEALTHCARE: Faces 15 Class-Action Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------ Will Houston, writing for Eurika Times-Standard, reports that two California law firms have filed 15 class-action lawsuits against Brius Healthcare Services nursing homes -- including two in Humboldt County - alleging the company purposefully understaffed their nursing homes to maximize profits, violating both staffing regulations and patient rights. The law firms claim Brius Healthcare Services, the nursing homes' administrative company Rockport Administrative Services, Brius Healthcare Services' CEO ShlomoRechnitz and "his multiple layers of affiliated companies" directed and implemented these violations in an effort to "pocket unearned profit at the expense of the provision of the legally mandated care to be provided to elders of the state." "To knowingly understaff these facilities in violation of promised resident rights so as to unlawfully maximize profit victimizes our important resource of elders and needs to end," Garcia Artigliere&Medby attorney Stephen Garcia,Esq. said in a statement this week. "These lawsuits are an effort on behalf of these vulnerable citizens to ensure that their needs are met and services, for which operators are paid incredibly large sums mostly by us through our Government, are actually provided." This reporter's attempts to contact Brius and Rockport representatives for comment were unsuccessful. Garcia's law firm and the TheArns Law Firm in San Francisco allege in their complaints gave patients false or misleading representations of the nursing homes' compliance with staffing requirements. Two of the lawsuits were filed against the Fortuna Rehabilitation and Wellness Center and the Granada Rehabilitation and Wellness Center in Eureka. The lawsuits call on the court to issue an injunction against the nursing homes for up to 10 years requiring them to maintain adequate staffing, to notify all future residents of the injunction, to award damages and attorneys fees.[GN] CALIFORNIA: Plaintiffs' Motion in Solitary Confinement Case OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kim Rohrbach, writing for San Francisco Bay View, reports that on July 3, a critical ruling issued in Ashker v. Brown (aka Ashker v. Governor, Docket No. 4:09-cv-09-5796 CW (N.D. Cal.)), the federal class-action lawsuit challenging indefinite solitary confinement in California. The ruling, issued by Presiding Judge Claudia Wilken, granted Plaintiffs' appeal on a motion challenging the ongoing conditions of extreme isolation endured by many class members. The motion was initially filed with the court on Oct. 13, 2017, along with several other motions brought to enforce Plaintiffs' settlement agreement with the CDCR[i]. Plaintiffs contended that, contrary to the terms of the settlement agreement, many class members effectively remain isolated in restrictive housing facilities. Oral argument on the motion was heard by Magistrate Judge Illman on Feb. 23, 2018, in a courtroom packed with human rights advocates and activists. Illman asked some good questions of both sides and appeared to grasp the issues raised by Plaintiffs' counsel. However, on March 29 he issued an order denying the motion, prompting Plaintiffs' legal team to move for a de novo determination (new decision) before Presiding Judge Claudia Wilken. The ruling, issued by Presiding Judge Claudia Wilken, granted Plaintiffs' appeal on a motion challenging the ongoing conditions of extreme isolation endured by many class members. The Ashker case specifically challenged the CDCR's practices and policies of indefinitely confining prisoners at Pelican Bay State Prison's SHU (so-called Security Housing Unit) on constitutional grounds. Through these practices and policies, Plaintiffs asserted, the CDCR had violated both the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process. Some 78 individuals, they alleged, had been incarcerated in Pelican Bay's SHU for decades on end. And, more than 500 had been there for at least 10 years. All of these people spent around 22½ hours or more each day cramped in closet-sized cells. Any yard time they received occurred within the narrow confines of an indoor concrete-walled pen or "dog run." Any visits with loved ones took place from either side of a glass partition breached only by a telephone line. This was merely on account of the fact that the CDCR had deemed them "associates" or members of prison gangs. In other words, no misconduct much less criminal activity was required of class members to keep them isolated on an indefinite basis. On Sept. 1, 2015, a settlement agreement was reached in the case. (The agreement was tentatively approved by the court on Oct. 14, 2015, and received the court's final approval on Jan. 26, 2015.) Those affected by the agreement include "all prisoners who have now, or will have in the future, been imprisoned in Pelican Bay's SHU for 10 or more years." Also affected is a subset of such prisoners, who were moved from Pelican Bay's SHU to a SHU at another prison before the case settled.[ii] Together, both groups of prisoners comprise the settlement class. Following settlement, the CDCR released over 1,400 and up to around 1,500 class members retained in its SHUs statewide into lower-security facilities. This was pursuant to paragraph 25[iii] of the settlement agreement. Yet, although paragraph 25 has been complied with on paper, Plaintiffs' motion and subsequent appeal raised the question, has compliance been substantively achieved? Plaintiffs' motion filed Oct. 13, 2017 As of Aug. 2017, according to CDCR data, 712 class members were housed in what are called "General Population Level IV 180-design" (maximum-security) facilities. Plaintiffs' attorneys however contended that many class members were getting even less out-of-cell time than they experienced while in SHU. In support of their contention, they pointed to the results of a survey they conducted in around March 2017. Fifty-five class members housed in various Level IV facilities completed the survey, tracking the amount of out-of-cell time they received during a one-month period. Sixteen of these 55 respondents reported getting an average of less than one hour of out-of-cell time per day. Another 11 reported getting an average of less than two hours per day. And, a total of nine respondents reported not leaving their cells at all on most days. That is, they spent anywhere from 16 to 25 days locked in their cells during the one-month tracking period, without access to the yard, face-to-face contact, showering facilities etc. In declarations filed with Plaintiffs' initial enforcement motion, eight class member-respondents elaborated on the conditions they endure in Level IV facilities. One such prisoner swore: "The conditions . . . are similar to SHU, and my experience is likewise similar. I have limited social interaction and intellectual stimulation. I rarely go outside. It is difficult to find productive uses for my time. "I have difficulty maintaining relationships with my family, especially since my ability to use the telephone is so infrequent and irregular. I suffer from insomnia. I suffer from anxiety that I feel is directly linked to the irregular programming: I am anxious because I do not know what will happen next." "The conditions . . . are similar to SHU, and my experience is likewise similar. I have limited social interaction and intellectual stimulation. I rarely go outside. It is difficult to find productive uses for my time." And, another prisoner testified: "The inconsistency of the programming . . . has left me anxious and frustrated. It is difficult to adapt and plan when I do not know what will happen the next day. "Sometimes, to cope with the lack of stability, I tell myself, 'The only program is no program,' so I do not prepare physically and mentally to leave my cell only to suffer frustration and disappointment when it is cancelled. But this means I am often not prepared for out-of-cell time when it is permitted." Feb. 23, 2018, hearing before Magistrate Judge Illman During oral argument on Feb. 23, attorney Jules Lobel[iv] spoke on behalf of the plaintiffs. Mr. Lobel emphasized in his opening remarks that, although the CDCR says people have been moved into the general population, this doesn't make it so: "General population" has to have an objective definition, he maintained. When the magistrate asked him whether certain restrictions, such as restrictions on yard time, come with Level IV confinement, Mr. Lobel replied yes. But, this cannot mean restrictions of the magnitude that a significant number of class members are experiencing, he continued. Although the CDCR says people have been moved into the general population, this doesn't make it so: "General population" has to have an objective definition, he maintained. The CDCR itself, he pointed out, previously avowed in court that people in the general population receive 10 hours of yard per week. But, nobody is getting 10 hours. Adriano Hrvatin, for the state, countered that class members are being treated like "any other [Level IV] prisoner," and they don't want to be treated like other prisoners "any more." Mr. Hrvartin further argued that no remedy was possible for the affected class members that wouldn't also involve the tens of thousands of people held in Level IV at large. Implicit in Mr. Hrvatin's arguments was the suggestion that, regardless of the CDCR's prior avowals, Level IV prisoners receive the same amount of out-of-cell time as SHU prisoners. This point was not lost on Magistrate Illman: Judge Illman quipped, could he expect a new class-action lawsuit concerning the conditions of Level IV confinement to be sent to him? Magistrate Judge Illman's March 29 order denying motion In deciding Plaintiffs' initial motion, Magistrate Judge Illman opined: "The Settlement Agreement which Plaintiffs signed provides for transfer of a specific subgroup of class members to a General Population Level IV 180-design facility within the CDCR system. It provides no details regarding the conditions of confinement for those class members. "This is because, as Defendants argue, this case does not concern general population [sic]. Rather, it concerns CDCR's agreement to change its segregated housing practices to comport with the related shift to a behavior-based model for managing prison gang affiliates." "It is undisputed that the class members at issue in this motion were each transferred to such a facility," Magistrate Judge Illman pronounced in denying the motion. Magistrate Judge Illman's facile assessment struck this writer as being in stunning disregard for, or insensible to, Plaintiffs' plea for substantive relief under the Eighth Amendment. It was equally heedless of paragraph 61 of the settlement agreement, which requires that the agreement be "construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning." (Of paragraph 61, more will be said in a moment.) While the Ashker case and settlement agreement do not concern the general population or conditions of confinement in general-population facilities, this is beside the point. Plaintiffs affirmatively claimed in their lawsuit that their indeterminate retention in restrictive conditions, including their isolation in cramped cells for 22½ –24 hours each day, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Moreover, the settlement agreement they entered into was intended to settle all of their claims.[v] Plaintiffs' motion for de novo determination Relevant to both Plaintiff's initial motion and their subsequent appeal from Magistrate Judge Illman's March 29 order is the court's observation made in an earlier ruling in the case last summer: "The parties' agreement here is governed by California law (Settlement Agreement 60), which requires that contractual terms 'be understood in their ordinary and popular sense, rather than according to their strict legal meaning . . . Moreover, the parties agreed that 'the language in all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning.' (Settlement Agreement 61.)." [vi] Plaintiffs repeatedly asserted in their briefings that many class members are not actually in what may be called general-population housing, within the ordinary or popular sense. Instead, they are in a form of restrictive housing. As Plaintiffs' legal team put it in their request for a de novo determination, "The defining distinction between general population and restrictive housing is time out of cell." Likewise, restrictive housing is commonly understood (by the American Correctional Association and the Department of Justice, e.g.) to be "an environment where prisoners spend more than 22 hours a day locked in their cell." The CDCR itself, they further remarked, recognizes that "'general population' and 'restrictive housing' are mutually exclusive terms." Plaintiffs repeatedly asserted in their briefings that many class members are not actually in what may be called general-population housing, within the ordinary or popular sense. Instead, they are in a form of restrictive housing. Thus, in denying Plaintiffs' "de novo" motion, Magistrate Judge Illman "incorrectly interpreted the operative contractual term --i.e. 'General Population Level IV 180-design facility, or other general population institution' -- to allow Defendants to engage in a semantic sleight-of-hand." By which some prisoners placed in nominal general-population facilities are treated "as if they were in segregation, or worse." Magistrate Judge Illman additionally misconstrued the remedy sought by the motion, Plaintiffs' attorneys said. "The motion does not attack Level IV prisons generally, and does not even cover all class members," they emphasized. Rather, it is focused "solely on the subset of class members entitled to GP [general population] transfer but who are being confined in restrictive housing conditions, or worse." Presiding Judge Wilken's order granting 'de novo' motion On July 3, Presiding Judge Claudia Wilken issued an order stating in part: "Having considered the papers, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion to the extent that Plaintiffs must receive more out-of-cell time than they received in the Pelican Bay SHU. They should receive out-of-cell time consistent with the CDCR's regulations and practices with respect to Level IV general population inmates, as well as its constitutional obligations. … "The Settlement Agreement was intended to remove Plaintiffs from detention in the SHU, where they were isolated in a cell for twenty-two and a half to twenty-four hours a day. Second Amended Complaint 3, 63. Plaintiffs may seek to enforce the Settlement Agreement under either paragraphs 52 or 53, which require Plaintiffs to show 'current and ongoing violations' of the Eighth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment on a systemic basis, or other substantial noncompliance with the terms of the Agreement. Settlement Agreement 52, 53 . . . "Defendants are hereby ordered to meet and confer with Plaintiffs' representatives and their counsel with the goal of presenting a proposed remedial plan for Court approval. The matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Illman to mediate the meet and confer. Absent agreement, the parties shall present their own respective proposed remedial plans." As to what a remedial plan may look like, that's a good question. To identify the subset of class members covered by Judge Wilken's order will be a challenge will be no easy task; it has been well over a year since class members were surveyed as to the amount of out-of-cell time they received. But, that's the least of the obstacles standing between the status quo and actual relief for affected class members. Kim Rohrbach, a volunteer with the Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity Coalition and a paralegal, can be reached at kmrohrbach@gmail.com. [i] The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is often referred to as CDCr, since the Department has overall long de-emphasized rehabilitation as part of its mission. [ii] Starting in 2012, some prisoners who'd been indefinitely held at Pelican Bay's SHU were transferred to other SHUs in connection with the CDCR's implementation of its Step Down program. Plaintiffs' attorneys requested and were granted leave to add these prisoners to the lawsuit as a supplemental class. (For further details, see in this writer's article, "SHU-shifting: An update on and overview of the Ashker v. Brown Class Action," published March 28, 2015, in the San Francisco BayView and available at http://sfbayview.com/2015/03/shu-shifting-an-update-on-and-overview-of-the-ashker-v-brown-class-action/). [iii] Paragraph 25 of the settlement agreement states, "If an inmate has not been found guilty of a SHU-eligible rule violation with a proven STG [Security Threat Group, aka gang] nexus within the last 24 months, he shall be released from the SHU and transferred to a General Population Level IV 180-design facility, or other general population institution consistent with his case factors." [iv] Jules Lobel is with the Center for Constitutional Rights. [v] This is affirmed at page 1 of the settlement agreement itself and is also stated in Judge Wilken's orders granting both preliminary and final approval of the agreement. [vi] Magistrate Judge Illman paid lip service only to this language in his March 29 order. [GN] CANADA: RCMP Faces Another Harassment, Bullying Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Giesbrecht, writing for Frontier Centre for Public Policy, reports that RCMP is facing another billion-dollar class action suit. Initiated by two former officers, it has the potential to reach back decades and involve tens of thousands of former officers, civilian employees and volunteers. The suit alleges harassment and bullying. As an example, one officer alleges that he was made to sleep in a horse trailer while working with the RCMP Musical Ride. At one time, a massive lawsuit against the RCMP would have been unthinkable. The RCMP has a long and honourable history of tough but fair law enforcement. The force made the West safe for settlement and chased American whiskey traders back over the border. RCMP officers I knew were tough people. They had to be, routinely dealing with dangerous situations such as highly volatile domestic incidents that can turn ugly on a dime. Dealing with angry drunks on a daily basis, officers suddenly find themselves in fast-moving, life-or-death situations where politeness and sensitivity are but secondary concerns. Staff sergeants would actually yell at people when the situation required. Conduct like that was not only accepted at the time but expected. Today it's considered harassment and bullying. Will a new sensitive and polite management style compromise their professionalism and effectiveness? Will more enlightened RCMP managers be capable of upholding the force's proud tradition? And will lawsuits next extend to the military? Will the quintessential drill sergeant's practice of putting their face a few inches from that of a new recruit to verbally blast them -- practically part of their job description -- be denounced as harassment and bullying? Are we really going to require RCMP officers and drill sergeants to abandon the brisk and direct speech and conduct that has always been considered an absolutely necessary part of the their jobs? Should we sacrifice effectiveness for sensitivity and politeness? That's not to say that flagrant abuses of power are acceptable – female RCMP officers have proven cases of sexual abuse within the ranks. Sexual abuse and other forms of true abuse are unacceptable. But those choosing policing or the military as a career should understand that it always will be a life with some rough edges. If they're not prepared for that life, such as the fellow sleeping unhappily in the horse trailer, they should consider a less demanding career. Just as concerning as the trend towards weaker standards of policing is the recent trend of huge class action suits aimed at taxpayers' wallets. A few people make claims to start the ball rolling, garnering media attention. With the smell of money, people pile on. Then, if the group is in favour with the federal government, comes an announcement. It won't be necessary for the claimants to prove their damages in court. The government will pay, no proof required, the money coming from the beleaguered taxpayer. A few examples: * For every student who attended a residential school, abused or not, the federal government will pay $10,000 per year for every year attended. Payment is to be made even to those who acknowledged the schools provided them an excellent education. Former students such as Tomson Highway, who declared that the years he spent at residential school were some of the best of his life, and Phil Fontaine, who acknowledged that the schools were beneficial to some, were eligible. Simply having been at a residential school was a ticket to a chunk of cash. Those who could prove they actually suffered some abuse received more. Our federal government practically encouraged people to exaggerate their claims. The Liberal government benefited in turn, receiving praise from special interest groups. * The '60s Scoop special interest groups copied this procedure almost exactly. The result was a payout of another $1 billion. The only objection voiced was that the $35,000 or so that each person would receive -- often for being rescued from an alcoholic home -- wasn't enough. Groups are now forming to squeeze even more money from the taxpayer. "I'm not being critical of claimants who actually prove damages in court. They're entitled to their compensation. I'm also not that critical of the people who receive the money for nothing: they likely can use the money. If I could qualify to receive cash simply by stating that the government somehow wronged me, I would be tempted to sign on," Mr. Giesbrecht says. "My criticism is of a federal government that plays fast and loose with the hard-earned money of overtaxed taxpayers. The government's behaviour is nothing less than a scandal." [GN] CAPTIVA MVP RESTAURANT: Faces Tsao Suit over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- I TAN TSAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPTIVA MVP RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, D/B/A AS PDQ, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01606-SDM-MAP (M.D. Fla., July 3, 2018) is an action against the Defendant for its failures to secure and safeguard the customers' credit and debit card numbers and other payment card data, and other personally identifiable information which the Defendant collected at the time the Plaintiff made purchases at the Defendant's restaurant, and for failing to provide timely, accurate, and adequate notice to the Plaintiff and other Class members that their payment card data and personal identifiable information had been stolen. Captiva MVP Restaurant Partners LLC d/b/a "People Dedicated to Quality", is a fast casual restaurant that specializes in chicken tenders and other lunch options. The Company has locations in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Yanchunis, Esq. RYAN J. McGEE MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com rmcgee@ForThePeople.com - and - Jean Sutton Martin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON M ARTIN PLLC 2018 Eastwood Road, Suite 225 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 292-6676 E-mail: jean@jsmlawoffice.com - and - James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Tele: 314-725-7700 Direct: 314-678-1064 Fax: 314-721-0905 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com - and - Francis J. Flynn, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FRANCIS J. FLYNN, JR. 6220 W. Third Street, Suite 115 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Telephone: 314-662-2836 E-mail: Casey@LawOfficeFlynn.com CBS MEDICAL: Davis Neurology Appeals Judgment to Eighth Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Davis Neurology PA filed an appeal from an order and a judgment both dated June 28, 2018, entered in its lawsuit styled Davis Neurology PA v. CBS Medical Inc., et al., Case No. 4:17-cv-00214-BRW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Little Rock. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges that the Defendants sent non-compliant facsimile advertisements to advertise their products and services to hundreds, if not thousands, of telephone facsimile machines in Arkansas and, presumably, other states in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The appellate case is captioned as Davis Neurology PA v. CBS Medical Inc., et al., Case No. 18-2606, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appendix is due on September 10, 2018; -- Brief of Appellant Davis Neurology PA is due on September 10, 2018; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant Davis Neurology PA, on behalf of itself and all other entities and persons similarly situated, is represented by: Joey Paul Leniski, Jr., Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: jleniski@branstetterlaw.com - and - Alexander Graham Streett, Esq. James Albert Streett, Esq. STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 W. Main Street P.O. Box 650 Russellville, AR 72801-0000 Telephone: (479) 968-2030 E-mail: Alex@SteettLaw.com James@SteettLaw.com Defendant-Appellee CBS Medical Inc. is represented by: Alexandria D. Bond, Esq. Molly K. McGinley, Esq. Joseph C. Wylie, Esq. K & L GATES, LLP 70 W. Madison Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602-0000 Telephone: (312) 372-1121 E-mail: lexi.bond@klgates.com molly.mcginley@klgates.com joseph.wylie@klgates.com - and - Kirkman T. Dougherty, Esq. Robert M. Honea, Esq. HARDIN, JESSON & TERRY, PLC 5000 Rogers Avenue P.O. Box 10127 Fort Smith, AR 72917-0127 Telephone: (479) 452-2200 E-mail: kdougherty@hardinlaw.com honea@hardinlaw.com CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Prizler Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew J. Prizler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Charter Communications, Inc., Charter Communications, LLC (dba Spectrum), Time Warner Cable Business, LLC, TWC Administration, LLC, AT&T, Inc., Time Warner, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01724, (S.D. Cal., July 27, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation owed, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action in accordance with California Labor Laws, the federal Labor Standards Act and the California Business and Professions Code. Prizler performed retail sales work as employee of Defendants' cable TV installation business. He did not receive payment of all wages, including overtime and minimum wages and meal period payments and claims to be denied complete and accurate payroll/wage statements and/or reports, says the complaint. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Righetti, Esq. John Glugoski, Esq. Michael Righetti, Esq. RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C. 456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94101 Telephone: (415) 983-0900 Facsimile: (415) 397-9005 Email: matt@righettilaw.com jglugoski@righettilaw.com mike@righettilaw.com CITIBANK: Home Loan Borrowers File Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal class action accuses Citibank of failing to pay home loan borrowers in California at least 2 percent interest on funds held in escrow for taxes and insurance. CLEARONE ADVANTAGE: Souders Hits Autodialed Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- Kristyna Souders, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Clearone Advantage, LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00549 (E.D. Cal., July 27, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Clearone Advantage is a debt settlement company who contacted Naiman in an attempt solicit their services using an "automatic telephone dialing system" thereby incurring a charge for incoming calls. [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 CLIMB WORKS: Faces Class Action Over E. Coli Outbreak ----------------------------------------------------- The Mountain Press reports that a pair of law firms have partnered to file suit against amusement company Climb Works LLC after an outbreak of stomach illnesses were reported by the customers of the zip line company in the past months. [GN] COGZIDEL CORP: Williams Hits Autodialed Telemarketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cogzidel Corporation and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04577 (N.D. Cal., July 27, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Cogzidel Corporation is an online marketing company, who contacted Naiman in an attempt conduct a survey using an "automatic telephone dialing system" thereby incurring a charge for incoming calls. [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 CONN'S INC: Motley Rice Files Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION IN RE CONN'S, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Civil Action No. 4: 14-cv-00548 (KPE) (Consolidated Action) SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES To: All Persons and Entities Who Purchased or Otherwise Acquired Conn's, Inc.'s ("Conn's") Publicly Traded Common Stock and/or Call Options, or Who Sold/Wrote Conn's Put Options, During the Period from April 3, 2013 through December 9, 2014, Inclusive (the "Class Period"), and Were Damaged Thereby (the "Class"). PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, in accordance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, that the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Court-appointed Class Representatives Laborers Pension Trust Fund -- Detroit and Vicinity, Connecticut Carpenters Pension Fund and Connecticut Carpenters Annuity Fund, St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association, and Universal Investment Gesellschaftm.b.H., on behalf of themselves and the Class, and Defendants Conn's, Theodore Wright, and Michael J. Poppe (collectively, "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the Action in the amount of $22,500,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") that, if approved by the Court, will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement"). A hearing will be held before the Honorable Keith P. Ellison of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in the United States Courthouse, 515 Rusk Street, Houston, TX 77002 at 2:00 p.m. on October 11, 2018 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things, determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of June 28, 2018; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund; and (iv) approve Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of expenses. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received the Notice and a Proof of Claim and Release form ("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website dedicated to this Action, www.ConnsSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: In re Conn's, Inc. Securities Litigation Claims Administrator c/oEpiq Global P.O. Box 4087 Portland, OR 97208-4087 Telephone: (855) 804-8547 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice/Claim Form or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class Counsel: Contacts: James M. Hughes, Esq. Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 Website: www.motleyrice.com Telephone: (800) 768-4026 Email: jhughes@motleyrice.com cmoriarty@motleyrice.com Deborah Clark-Weintraub, Esq. Beth Kaswan, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 230 Park Ave., 17th Floor New York, NY 10169 Website: www.scott-scott.com Telephone: (800) 404-7770 Email: DWEINTRAUB@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM BKASWAN@SCOTT-SCOTT.COM If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or online no later than November 10, 2018. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than September 20, 2018. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses must be filed with the Court and mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are filed and received no later than September 20, 2018. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims Administrator or Class Counsel. DATED: July 27, 2018 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS [GN] CONNECTICUT: Correction Dept. Sued Over Expensive Hep C Drugs ------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Stuart, writing for CT News Junkie, reports that an inmate being held in a Connecticut prison is suing the Correction Department because he wants prison officials to give him access to expensive medication that would cure his hepatitis C. Through attorney Ken Krayeske, the prisoner, Robert Barfield, filed a federal class action lawsuit against the state Department of Correction claiming his constitutional rights have been violated. The department is refusing to give him access to a drug treatment program that would cure him. Hepatitis C (HCV) is a blood-borne disease caused by a virus. The hepatitis C virus causes inflammation that damages liver cells and is the leading cause of liver disease. It's a disease that can be spread and its now curable thanks to expensive drugs that range from $54,000 to $95,000 per patient, per course of treatment. A typical course of treatment lasts 12 weeks. Drugmakers including Gilead Sciences Inc., AbbVie Inc. and Merck & Co. have been selling hepatitis C drugs since 2013 with higher cure rates than older drugs for the disease. "The failure to provide treatment also creates the potential for further spreading of the disease to the general public," Mr. Krayeske wrote. "These actions amount to deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs of CT DOC prisoners with hepatitis C." In 2016, the department reported that only four inmates had HCV, according to a survey by Yale University. The same survey found that Massachusetts reported 1,505 inmates with hepatitis C, 60 of whom were receiving treatment. Earlier this year, Massachusetts prison officials agreed to expand treatment for inmates with hepatitis C following the filing of a federal class-action lawsuit. The Massachusetts case is among the first settlements of several class-action lawsuits accusing prison systems in other states of denying inmates access to costly drugs. Other states with similar actions pending include Indiana, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Minnesota, and Tennessee. "We will review the complaint and respond appropriately in court," Jacqueline Severance, a spokeswoman for Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen said. "We would decline further comment." Like the other states, Connecticut seems to be struggling with finding a balance between a constitutional right and its ability to pay for these drugs. At one point, according to the lawsuit, one of the manufacturers of the new HCV treatment -- Gilead Sciences -- offered the Correction Department $300,000 grant to test all prisoners for HCV. But the money was never obtained following disagreements among state officials about who would handle the testing. Since Connecticut doesn't test for the virus when people enter prison, it's unknown how many inmates may have hepatitis C. But research suggests that it's more than four. National studies have found that the prevalence of HCV in prison is 16 to 41 percent higher in U.S. jail and prison populations than it is in the general population. According to Mr. Krayeske, the department conducted a study in 2015 of prisoners at New Haven Correctional and learned that 10-12 percent of the population had HCV. That means 93 of the 779 prisoners in the New Haven jail at the time were HCV positive. Dr. Johnny Wu was the medical director for Correctional Managed Health Care, which was operated by the University of Connecticut in partnership with the Correction Department, between June 2012 and March 2017. According to the lawsuit, Dr. Wu did not believe HCV was a problem and never sought to test all the inmates for the virus. In 2014, according to an article in BusinessInsider.com, Dr. Wu said there are 20 inmates being treated with the direct-acting antiviral drugs. "My total budget is about $89 million to deliver healthcare for 16,200 people. That's mental health, dental, medical, consults, surgeries. To have a couple of million dollars tied up for hep C is a big portion of my budget," Dr. Wu told the magazine. Wu is no longer with the medical team in charge of inmate care, but the "deliberate indifference" to Mr. Barfield's medical condition continues, according to Mr. Krayeske. He said Mr. Barfield, who is currently being housed at Corrigan Correctional Facility, will continue to suffer without access to the drugs. [GN] COWORX STAFFING: Underpays Call Center Reps, Robin Bell Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBIN BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COWORX STAFFING SERVICES LLC; and SYNCHRONOSS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-02833-EGS (E.D. Pa., July 6, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, penalties, fee and costs. Bell was employed by the Defendants as call center representative at the Synchronos Call Center in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, from October 2017 to January 2018. CoWorx Staffing Services LLC provides staffing solutions in the United States. CoWorx was founded in 1974 and is headquartered in Watchung, New Jersey. It has locations in Maryland, Texas, Georgia, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, Indiana, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Virginia, Maine, and North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBREAK & SANTILLO 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dreesher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com - and - Matthew L. Turner, Esq. Charles R. Ash IV, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com crash@sommerspc.com CRAFT BREW: Broomfield Moves to Certify Two Classes of Consumers ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled THEODORE BROOMFIELD, et al. v. CRAFT BREW ALLIANCE, INC., et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-01027-BLF (N.D. Cal.), move for an order certifying these Classes: (1) Six-Pack Class: All persons who purchased any six-pack bottles of the Kona Beers (defined below) in California at any time beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this action on February 28, 2017 until the present ("Class Period"); and (2) Twelve-Pack Class: All persons who purchased any twelve-pack bottles of the Kona Beers (defined below) in California at any time beginning four (4) years prior to the filing of this action on February 28, 2017 until the present ("Class Period"). The Plaintiffs also move the Court for an order designating them as Class representatives and appointing their counsel, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, and the Wand Law Firm, P.C., as Class Counsel. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to order the parties to meet and confer and present the Court, within 15 days of an order granting class certification, with a proposed notice to the certified Classes. The Court will commence a hearing on September 6, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (424) 256-2884 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 E-mail: bheikali@faruqilaw.com - and - Timothy J. Peter, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 600 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Telephone: (215) 277-5770 Facsimile: (215) 277-5771 E-mail: tpeter@faruqilaw.com - and - Aubry Wand, Esq. THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300 Culver City, CA 90230 Telephone: (310) 590-4503 Facsimile: (310) 590-4596 E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com D'AMBRA CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguilar Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY AGUILAR, and JOSE RAMIREZ ZAPATA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D'AMBRA CONSTRUCTION COPRPORATION; and ANTHONY D'AMBRA, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-01758 (N.D. Tex., July 6, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Aguilar was employed by the Defendants as personal safety representative. D'Ambra Construction Corporation was founded in 2000. The company's line of business includes construction of nonresidential buildings. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John H. Allen, III, Esq. Jennifer Nolte, Esq. ALLEN & NOLTE, PLLC 3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-2300 Facsimile: (214) 452-5637 E-mail: tallen@allennolte.com jnolte@allennolte.com DR. PEPPER: Drink Doesn't Contain Real Ginger, Childers Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JANET CHILDERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DR. PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP, INC.; DR PEPPER/SEVENUP, INC., Defendants, Case No. DC-18-08724 (D. Tex., July 5, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for their false and deceptive labeling, advertising, marketing, and selling of certain soft drinks as being "MADE FROM REAL GINGER." According to the complaint, the representation of the Defendants falsely leads consumers to reasonably believe that Dr. Pepper's soft drink is made using real ginger and that consumers who drink the soft drink will, as a result, receive the health benefits associated with consuming real ginger. In reality, however, Dr. Pepper's soft drink is not made from real ginger. Instead, Canada Dry Ginger Ale soft drinks are made from carbonated water, high fructose corn syrup, citric acid, preservatives, and "natural flavors," i.e., a flavor compound comprised predominately of flavor extracts not derived from ginger, and only a miniscule amount of a ginger flavor extract. As of July 9, 2018, Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. was acquired by Maple Parent Holdings Corp., in a reverse merger transaction. Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. manufactures and distributes non-alcoholic beverages in the United States, Mexico and the Caribbean, and Canada. Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. was incorporated in 2007 and is headquartered in Plano, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig D. Cherry, Esq. Brandon R. Oates, Esq. HALEY OLSON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 100 Ritchie Road, Suite 200 Waco, TX 76712 Telephone: (254) 776-3336 Facsimile: (254) 776-6823 Email: ccherry@haleyolson.com boates@haleyolson.com ECHELON CORP: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Fraud Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Echelon Corporation ("Echelon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:ELON) and its board of directors (the "Board"), on behalf of a class consisting of all public stockholders of Echelon who have been harmed by Echelon in connection with alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"). The class action stems from a proposed transaction announced on June 29, 2018 (the "Proposed Transaction"), pursuant to which Echelon will be acquired by Adesto Technologies Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Circuit Acquisition Corporation (together, "Adesto"). The Complaint alleges that on July 16, 2018, Defendants filed a preliminary proxy statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") in connection with the Proposed Transaction. The Complaint further alleges that the Proxy Statement omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please; Contact: Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. Gainey McKenna &Egleston Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com gegleston@gme-law.com.[GN] ELI LILLY: Bentele et al. RICO Suit Underway in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled ALETHA BENTELE, JAMES BOSNER SCOTT CHRISTENSEN, GAY DEPUTEE, SCOTT DERCKS, DONALD DOUTHIT, F. DONALD FELLOW, DIANNA GILMORE, GERALD GIRARD, MICHELLE GWIN, RUTH HART, OFFICER DAVID HERNANDEZ, EMMA JENSEN, EDWARD JOHNSON, RICHARD KNAUSS, ANGELA KRITSELIS, SUSAN LANDIS, JOHN LOSCHEN, ROBERT LOWMAN, SEAN MAC AN AIRCHINNIGH, JEANNE MACNITT, LAWRENCE MANDEL, ANNE OLINGER, JULIANA PATTON, MARILYN PERSON, BRIAN PHAIR, PATRICIA QUINT, ROBYN RUSHING, MARIE SAFFRAN, MARK SCHLOEMER, HOWARD SCHURR, TREMAYNE SIRMONS, EDWARD STANFORD, MICHAEL STARR, BRET STEWART, MOLLY THOMPSON, JON UGLAND, HECTOR J. VALDES, SR. KARYN WOFFORD, the Plaintiffs, v. ELI LILLY AND COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-00168, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton) on July 10, 2018. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:18-cv-11479-BRM-LHG to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Brian R. Martinotti. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that Eli Lilly artificially inflates and manipulates the benchmark price of Humalog, an insulin drug. The Defendant's scheme caused and continues to cause consumers to overpay for the insulin they need. The case alleges violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Eli Lilly and Company is a global pharmaceutical company headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, with offices in 18 countries. Its products are sold in approximately 125 countries.[BN] Eli Lilly is represented by: Shankar Duraiswamy, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One Citycenter 850 Tenth St., Nw Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662 6000 E-mail: sduraiswamy@cov.com ELIOT MANAGEMENT: Underpays Sales Representatives, Anemanna Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MATHEW ANEMANNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELIOT MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:18-cv-01624 (M.D. Fla., July 6, 2018), alleges that the Defendant has denied overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Anemanna was employed by the Defendant as a sales representative from February 14, 2018 to June 1, 2018. Eliot Management Group, LLC provides electronic payment processing services to merchants in the United States. The company was founded in 1997 and is based in Fort Worth, Texas. It has a network of offices in the United States. Eliot Management Group, LLC operates as a subsidiary of First American Payment Systems, L.P. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Owens, Esq. Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC 16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100 Lutz, FL 33558 Telephone: (727) 254-5255 Facsimile: (727) 483-7942 E-mail: greg@fgbolaw.com wolfgang@fgbolaw.com EPIC SYSTEMS: Kane Russell Attorney Discusses Arbitration Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Seth A. Sloan, Esq. -- ssloan@krcl.com -- of Kane Russell Coleman Logan PC, in an article for Lexology, wrote that in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis the United States Supreme Court reviewed three circuit court cases involving employer-employee arbitration agreements.[1] The central issue in each case was whether employees and employers should be allowed to agree that any dispute between them will be resolved through arbitration, or whether employees should always be allowed to bring class actions no matter what they agreed to with their employers. In each case the employee and employer had entered into an agreement providing for individualized arbitration proceedings to resolve employment disputes between the parties. However, the employees brought class actions against the employers and argued that courts were not compelled to order individual arbitration proceedings, as stated in the agreements, because the agreements violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The employees sought to have class action lawsuits classified as a "concerted activity" protected by §7 of the NLRA. That section guarantees employees "the right to self–organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectivity…, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection".[2] The Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to enforce private agreements to arbitrate. However, the Act's savings' clause allows courts to refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement when grounds exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. The employees' argued that the Act's savings' clause applied in this situation, because the NLRA rendered the class and collection action waiver illegal, which is a ground that exists in law for revocation. In delivering the Court's opinion, Justice Gorsuch noted that the NLRA focused on the right to organize unions and bargain collectively, but it did not mention class or collective action procedures. He explained that the savings' clause did not provide a basis for refusing to enforce arbitration agreements that waive collection action procedures, and the NLRA did not manifest an intent to displace the Federal Arbitration Act and to outlaw class action waivers. The Court held that the law was clear, and the Federal Arbitration Act required courts to enforce arbitration agreements -- including the terms of an agreement that provides for individualized arbitration proceeding. The Lewis holding further expands the scope of terms parties may include in an arbitration agreement, and confirms that these agreements will be enforced according to the terms contained in the agreement. [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Former Soldier Leads Class Action in Australia ------------------------------------------------------------ Jane Lee, writing for ABC, reports that the man leading a legal challenge against Facebook in Australia says he hopes the case will encourage people to be more careful with what they share on social media networks. Edward Poljak, a printer and self-described astronomy researcher, was recently notified that his data may have been breached in its Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The former soldier told The Law Report he had put strict privacy settings on his profile out of respect for the privacy of his friends, some of whom worked in law enforcement and were former members of the military. He was concerned the data breach could put their jobs or safety at risk. "I was shocked, and a little bit angry because it was like someone had stolen our data . . . we didn't know what the implications could be until it started hitting the news," Mr Poljak said. He later learned his data may have been leaked because one of his friends had taken a personality quiz on Facebook, called This Is Your Digital Life. "It's time to assess how we do use these online social media platforms and be very careful of what we post and share," he said. Facebook has apologised for allowing political consultancy firm Cambridge Analytica to access the personal data of about 87 million of its users worldwide through the quiz. People who took the quiz handed over not only their data but also information from the profiles of their friends on the social network. Cambridge Analytica then bought this data from the app developers behind the quiz. The firm is currently being investigated in the United States over allegations it used the data to influence the last presidential election. There are reportedly a number of lawsuits against Facebook and Cambridge Analytica over the scandal. Australia's Privacy Commissioner is investigating Facebook to see whether it broke local privacy laws. Mr Poljak is the lead plaintiff in a representative complaint against Facebook to the commissioner on behalf of the 311,127 Australian users who may have had their data leaked in the scandal. It's the first time in Australia that a such a complaint has been lodged with that office. Mr Poljak said businesses should be held accountable for their actions. "[It will be worth it] if it brings awareness to everybody and opens up doors for people to be careful on social media, that our data is not safe," he said. A spokeswoman for Facebook declined an interview with The Law Report. She also declined to respond to questions on the current lawsuits against Facebook and on its approach to tougher privacy reforms worldwide. But she said in an emailed statement: "We are fully co-operating with the investigation currently underway by the Australian Privacy Commissioner and will review any additional evidence that is made available when the UK Office of the Information Commissioner releases their report." According to IMF Bentham, the law firm funding the legal challenge, the group complaint asks Acting Privacy Commissioner Angelene Falk to determine that Facebook interfered with the users' privacy, that the company should pay compensation to the affected Australian users and that it makes moves to prevent future data breaches. The complaint also asks for Facebook to apologise to its affected Australian users. Case could be a 'game-changer' for privacy law If successful, the Privacy Commissioner could order that Facebook pay a certain amount of money to the users covered by the complaint, which can then be enforced in a formal class action in the Federal Court. The law firm declined to say how many people have joined the class action to date. Mr Poljak said he still used Facebook, but had culled his friends list to close friends and family, and no longer revealed details of his location online. "I actually wanted to stop using it altogether and close it all off but it harms my social [life] and my status with my family and my friends to keep in contact with them so . . . what do I do?" He was not expecting a great deal of compensation from the legal challenge, but said he would donate anything he received from it to charity. Norton Rose Fulbright special counsel Jim Lennon, who specialises in data breaches and cyber security, said the case was a "game-changer" for privacy law, at a time when large data breaches were increasingly common. While Facebook would vigorously defend itself against the legal challenge, Mr Lennon said that if the users won, he expected more lawsuits to be launched over data breaches in future. "It's bad for business in a sense that all of a sudden privacy breaches... [are] going to sound in very distinctly public and financial consequences, at least more often," Mr Lennon said. "But what will be good for the community is that corporate Australia and the Commonwealth government agencies also covered by the Privacy Act, I think, will now take privacy even more seriously than they have. "And many are doing the right thing. But I think now people will not regard privacy as a nice to have in respect of compliance. "They will resource it properly and really understand that this is a human right of their customer base . . . and protect the information properly." [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Kaskela Law Files Securities Class Action Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Kaskela Law LLC disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Facebook, Inc. (NASDAQ:FB) ("Facebook" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between April 26, 2018 and July 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). IMPORTANT DEADLINE: Investors who purchased Facebook's securities during the Class Period may, no later than September 25, 2018, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class. On July 25, 2018, Facebook announced its financial and operating results for the second quarter of 2018, including revenue and user numbers that fell short of market expectations. During a subsequent conference call, Facebook's Chief Financial Officer reported that the Company "expect[s] currency to be a slight headwind in the second half versus the tailwinds we have experienced over the last several quarters," and that the Company "plan[s] to grow and promote certain engaging experiences like Stories that currently have lower levels of monetization." Following these disclosures, shares of Facebook's stock declined $41.24 per share, or 19%, to close at $176.26 on July 26, 2018. The shareholder class action complaint alleges that Facebook and certain other defendants made a series of false and misleading statements during the Class Period and failed to disclose material adverse facts to investors about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Among other things, the defendants failed to disclose that: (i) the number of daily and monthly active Facebook users was declining; and (ii) due to unfavorable currency conditions and plans to promote and grow features of Facebook's social media platform with historically lower levels of monetization, such as Stories, Facebook anticipated its revenue growth to slow and its operating margins to fall. The complaint further alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, investors purchased Facebook's securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and suffered significant investment losses following the defendants' disclosures. Facebook investors who have suffered investment losses in excess of $100,000 are encouraged to contact Kaskela Law LLC and/or submit their information online at http://kaskelalaw.com/case/facebook/. D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 201 King of Prussia Road Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com [GN] FACEBOOK INC: Sept. 25 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline -------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until September 25, 2018 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Facebook, Inc. (NasdaqGS:FB), if they purchased the Company's shares between April 26, 2018 and July 25, 2018, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. What You May Do If you purchased shares of Facebook and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nasdaqgs-fb/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by September 25, 2018. About the Lawsuit Facebook and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On July 25, 2018, the Company disclosed, after market, its 2Q2018 results including both revenue and active user counts below market expectations. Further, the Company anticipated slow revenue growth and falling margins and that it "expect[s] currency to be a slight headwind in the second half versus the tailwinds we have experienced over the last several quarters" and its "plan to grow and promote certain engaging experiences like Stories that currently have lower levels of monetization." On this news, the price of Facebook's shares plummeted 18.96%. Lewis Kahn,Esq. Managing Partner Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC 1100 Poydras St., Suite 3200 New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: 1-877-515-1850 Email: lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com [GN] FACEBOOK: Pierce Bainbridge Probing Potential Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht LLP, a top-tier business litigation firm, is investigating a potential class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Facebook, Inc. (NASDAQ: FB) from October 1, 2017 through July 26, 2018. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Facebook investors under the federal securities laws. For more information on this investigation, and if you have purchased Facebook shares during the time period set forth above; David L. Hecht,Esq. Email: dhecht@piercebainbridge.com [GN] FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Are FHFA & the GSEs Government Actors? ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. government has told Judge Margaret M. Sweeney more than once in litigation underway in the the U.S. Court of Federal Claims challenging the perpetual sweep of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's profits that the GSEs and their regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, are not agencies of the United States for Tucker Act purposes and are Federal actors for purposes of constitutional claims. Earlier this month, in its Omnibus Motion to Dismiss litigation brought by Fairholme Funds., Inc., Washington Federal, Owl Creek, Appaloosa, and other shareholders, the government said every Federal courts that has specifically addressed whether FHFA as the Enterprises' conservator is a Federal actor for purposes of constitutional claims have unanimously held that it is not a Federal actor. See https://goo.gl/EU4ikX at 22. That statement is no longer true. On Aug, 2, 2018, the Honorable John J. McConnell, Jr., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, ruled that Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and FHFA are government actors for purposes of constitutional claims, and that FHFA has waived its sovereign immunity in Sisti v. FHFA, Case Nos. 17-042-JJM-LDA and 17-005-JJM-LDA (Dist. R.I.). A copy of the decision is available at https://goo.gl/FYRUcV at no charge. The government wants Judge Sweeney to believe that when FHFA as conservator executed the Third Amendment on the Enterprises behalf, it did not act as the United States but rather stood in the Enterprises' private shoes. Litigating shareholders can now point Judge Sweeney to a non-binding but persuasive ruling saying that's not true anymore and she has jurisdiction over FHFA. FLAGSHIP CREDIT: Nelson Personal Injury Suit Removed to D.S.C. -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Gerjuan Nelson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Flagship Credit Acceptance, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2018-CP-40-03351, was removed from Richland County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on July 27, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-02074. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David Andrew Maxfield, Esq. DAVID MAXFIELD ATTORNEY LLC PO Box 11865 Columbia, SC 29211 Tel: (803) 509-6800 Fax: (855) 299-1656 Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com Flagship Credit Acceptance is represented by: Emily Irene Bridges, Esq. Michael Kevin McCarrell, Esq. Steven Edward Farrar, Esq. SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD LLP 2 West Washington Street, Suite 1100 Greenville, SC 29601 Tel: (864) 751-7618, 751-7652, 751-7600 Fax: (864) 751-7800 Email: emily.bridges@smithmoorelaw.com kevin.mccarrell@smithmoorelaw.com steve.farrar@smithmoorelaw.com FOUR CORNERS: Faces Class Action Over Withheld Tips --------------------------------------------------- Ashok Selvam, writing for Chicago Eater, reports that Four Corners, the owners of several Chicago bars -- including Benchmark, Brickhouse Tavern, and WestEnd -- have been hit with a class-action lawsuit by workers with an attorney alleging the company has withheld more than $30 million in tips from servers and bartenders from 2011 to 2018. The lawsuit names 17 Four Corners' establishments and could affect as many as 800 employees. The lawsuit details alleged practices where Four Corners would withhold tips as means to avoid paying taxes. While the lawsuit has been expanded to include other employees, the primary plaintiff was a bartender at Benchmark in Old Town. He alleged that he wasn't paid the amount he was entitled. Bar employees log their tips nightly before leaving. That $30 million figure isn't in the lawsuit and is from the plaintiff's attorney who's encouraging more employees to join his lawsuit. A hearing is scheduled for November 16 in Cook County circuit court. Attorneys asked for a jury trial in the 107-page suit filed on July 19. The company called the claims "without merit and based on a misunderstanding" in a widely distributed statement. Four Corners, after 17 years, recently dropped the "tavern group" portion of its name as it prepares for a national expansion, They've explored new strategies in recent years including collaborating with Brendan Sodikoff's Hogsalt Hospitality, the owners of Au Cheval. Matt Menna, a Four Corners co-founder and principal at Sterling Bay, was also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Sterling Bay is one of the city's biggest developers and unveiled its $1 billion proposal for Lincoln Yards. That's the project to develop the former Finkl Steel plant and the area along Elston Avenue around Lincoln Park and Bucktown. Sterling Bay's fingerprints are all over the city including in the West Loop and Fulton Market -- a trendy area for restaurants in Chicago. [GN] FULTON COUNT, GA: To Spend Big Bucks to Defend Tax Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Channel 2 Action News has discovered Fulton County will spend big bucks on lawyers to defend itself from a class-action lawsuit alleging tax assessors illegally overvalued thousands of properties. Channel 2's Mike Petchenik first reported on the allegations in May, after now-former board of assessors member R.J. Morris brought them up during a board meeting. "The state constitution says you are supposed to tax people fairly. They were unfairly taxed, we just need to give them their money back," Mr. Morris said He estimates that over a two-year period, the county collected upward of $36 million in excess taxes from more than 18,000 homeowners across the county through a practice called "sales chasing." Mr. Morris said his research showed appraisers assessed homes at their sales prices, but left values of surrounding properties untouched. "These homeowners were robbed," he said. After Mr. Petchenik's report first aired, an Atlanta attorney, Mitchell Graham, filed a class-action suit against the county seeking to recoup the money. Mr. Graham has subpoenaed Mr. Morris as a witness. Mr. Morris said he learned the county will not pay for an attorney to represent him during a deposition. The attorney, Carmen Alexander, told Morris in a June 29 email that she had been retained by Fulton County to represent him. Reached on July 18 by Channel 2 Action News' investigative partners at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and AJC.com, she would not confirm that she was no longer representing Mr. Morris, and referred questions to Fulton County. "The board had decided the budget was too tight this year, and even though they had already hired an attorney, they called up that attorney and told her she was no longer hired," he said. Mr. Morris alleges it's retaliation for raising an issue about Commission Chairman Robb Pitts' re-nomination of Brandi Hunter to the assessors board. The board has tabled the nomination for now. "I did my job and found out the board members in the previous years had not done their jobs. They had hurt taxpayers," he said. "They don't want to reward me. They want to punish me for doing this." Mr. Pitts told Channel 2 Action News it was his understanding that the county attorney's office decided Morris was not acting in his official capacity when he blew the whistle on the alleged sales chasing. Jessica Corbitt, a Fulton County spokesperson, told our investigative partners at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and AJC.com that the county had initiated the process of setting up an attorney, but ultimately did not provide Mr. Morris counsel because his participation in the litigation was "unrelated to his duties as a former member of the Board of Assessors." "As such, the department is not required to provide legal representation on his behalf," Ms. Corbitt told our investigative partners at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and AJC.com. "I don't know if I should be mad at him or think that dementia is starting to set in with him because you can look on the agenda and see it was an official action by an official board member," Morris said. Acting on a tip, Mr. Petchenik filed an open records request with the county and learned the board of commissioners has agreed to hire former Georgia Supreme Court Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears and her law firm as outside counsel to defend the lawsuit. An agreement Mr. Petchenik obtained says the county will pay Sears and her partners $400 an hour to litigate the case. "I think it's something the county attorneys could handle," said Mr. Morris. "The case is not that complex." Mr. Pitts told Channel 2 Action News he supported hiring the outside attorneys. "We have a small staff of county attorneys and this is one that's going to require, I believe, in my opinion, some real knowledge and expertise in this area," he said. "We want the best possible legal representation, and if outside counsel is necessary, I completely support that." [GN] FYRE MEDIA: Music Festival Creator Faces New Fraud Charges ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that two days after reaching a $27 million settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the 26-year-old creator of last year's failed "once-in-a-lifetime" Fyre music festival in the Bahamas pleaded guilty to new fraud charges that could land him in prison for over a decade. GEOFFREY PALMER: Sued for Witholding Tenants' Security Deposits --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kahn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that an L.A. Superior Court class action accuses billionaire housing mogul Geoffrey Palmer and his captive management companies for his 10,000+ residential apartments of "uniformly withholding tenants' security deposits without basis, relying on a host of bogus, illegal charges to justify this withholding." GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC: Gumm et al. Seek to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned TIMOTHY GUMM, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. ERIC SELLERS, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-00041-MTT-CHW (M.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying a class consisting of: "all persons who are or will in the future be assigned to the Special Management Unit (SMU) at Georgia Diagnostic & Classification Prison." A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://is.gd/LF3nFK at no charge. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: C. Allen Garrett Jr., Esq. James F. Bogan III, Esq. Tamara Serwer Caldas, Esq. Chris W. Haaf, Esq. KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 815 6500 Facsimile: (404) 816 6555 E-mail: agarrett@kilpatricktownsend.com - and - Ryan Primerano, Esq. Sarah Geraghty, Esq. Aaron Littman, Esq. Ryan Primerano, Esq. SOUTHERN CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS 83 Poplar Street, NW Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 688 1202 Facsimile: (404) 688 9440 E-mail: sgeraghty@schr.org GEORGIA: Firefighters Seek to Reverse Racial Bias Case Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Kayla Goggin, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that attorneys representing five black Georgia firefighters who claim they suffered racial discrimination and a hostile work environment asked the 11th Circuit on July 26 to reverse a district court ruling dismissing their case. The firefighters, who were all employed by the Thomasville, Georgia Fire Department, allege that they were denied opportunities for training, promotions, merit increases and raises that white firefighters who had less training, experience and seniority received. The firefighters also claim that the department was generally hostile toward the black firefighters on staff. Two firefighters allege that they overheard white firefighters on two separate occasions use "the ‘N' word" while speaking to the fire captain. According to attorneys for the five firemen, the alleged discrimination became significantly worse after they filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Firefighter Curtis Bradshaw, for instance, claims that in August 2013, he found a rope tied in a noose hanging from the bed in his fire station bedroom. The firefighters claim that after filing their initial charges of discrimination with the EEOC, the department retaliated by reassigning them to new positions which allegedly amounted to demotions and reduced their pay. In a September 2016 decision, Senior U.S. District Judge Hugh Lawson ruled that the firefighters failed to present "direct evidence" of discrimination. Judge Lawson described the incident involving the noose as "an isolated incident" and ruled that the allegedly derogatory remarks made by fire department staff members do not amount to more than "racial insensitivity." "Discourteousness and rudeness do not equate to racial harassment, nor does a lack of racial sensitivity alone amount to actionable harassment," the ruling states. On July 26, attorneys representing the city of Thomasville and the Thomasville Fire Department asked a three-judge panel to affirm the district court's decision. The oral arguments largely focused on the department's alleged retaliation against two of the firefighters, Derek Colson and Curtis Bradshaw, who were removed from their roles as Fire Inspectors in 2011 and reassigned after a performance evaluation revealed that they failed to complete inspections of local businesses and did not keep accurate records. "In June and July of 2011, Messrs. Colson and Bradshaw underwent evaluations. Both were informed that their work was insufficient. They were provided with benchmarks to improve in order to receive their full merit increases," attorney Tom Richardson argued on behalf of the city and the fire department. "The [fire] chief gave a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for their transfer," Mr. Richardson said. But attorneys representing the firefighters argued that race was indeed a determining factor in the decision to transfer Messrs. Colson and Bradshaw. "After they were called in, in June 2011, Colson and Bradshaw were replaced by a single white man with early onset dementia who could not drive," attorney LaTonya Wiley said. "The fact that they were replaced by one white man–how does that indicate racial discrimination?" Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Edward Carnes asked. "It negates the argument that their performance was deficient. How can you have someone who is mentally impaired doing that?" Ms. Wiley said. Mr. Richardson claimed that there was no evidence when the man replaced Messrs. Colson and Bradshaw that he was incapable of driving. Ms. Wiley and attorney Brenda Youmas also pointed to the timing of the 2011 evaluation and the subsequent transfers, which they argued may have been prompted by the firefighters' decision to file EEOC complaints. "They never had a problem until after they filed their complaints. None of these issues became issues until after the chief met with them, until after the EEOC charges were filed," Ms. Youmas argued. Ms. Wiley and Ms. Youmas appeared optimistic about the outcome of the July 26 proceedings. "We were pleased that the court had a great command of the facts. They went straight to the heart of the issue," Ms. Wiley told Courthouse News. The panel did not indicate when they will render a decision in the case. HASHFLARE: Class Action Mulled Over Bitcoin Mining Contracts ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Devoe, writing for Blockonomi, reports that just two days after suddenly making demands for all customers identity documents, the company known as Hashflare has released an email hours ago titled "[IMPORTANT] End of Mining Service of SHA-256 Contracts". According to the email, all current SHA-256 bitcoin mining contracts would be terminated on July 20. Many on Twitter and Reddit are calling this an exit scam. According to the email that just went out, the company has been unable to make any bitcoin payments to its contract holders for the last 28 consecutive days due to the amount earned being allegedly less than the daily maintenance fee the company charges. This, they claim, what is causing all contracts to be terminated prematurely. The email states that the company is within its rights to do this as the action is "in accordance with clause 5.5 of our Terms of Service, which are required to be accepted when creating a purchase and are the basis of concluding the contract." Clause 5.5 of the terms of service reads: The Mining process continues until said mining is profitable. This means the Mining process will stop if the Maintenance and Electricity Fees will become larger than the Payout. If mining remains unprofitable for 21 consecutive days the Service is permanently terminated. The terms seem to be unaltered, as an identical copy can be found on archive.org stretching back to at least last year. Fire and Brimstone The community reaction has so far been overwhelmingly negative. Some users who joined the service just recently and stand to suffer the most loses have claimed that they are trying to perform a chargeback with their banks. Others are stating that they considering filing law suits against the Estonia-based company, but it's too soon to tell whether or not anyone will proceed with legal action. Another subset of users are questioning the legitmacy of Hashflare's claim that mining is no longer profitable. Users are posting screen shots of mining calculator sites like Coinwarz.com which suggests that currently mining is profitable, especially considering the uptick in price that bitcoin has seen. But profitability is apparently not enough, as the terms seem to be that mining hasn't to be profitable enough to pay for their own maintenance fees. From Bad to Worse The announcement comes several months after Hashflare suddenly changed all pre-existing bitcoin mining contracts from being "lifetime" to one-year. That sudden change in policy which the company again justified via its contractual terms caused support for the company to plummet. That change seems moot, however, as all bitcoin mining contracts still faced cancellation in much the same way that we saw today. Another point to consider is that just two days prior to this, the company suddenly started requiring all users to submit ID data to identify themselves. Users who failed to do so were told they could potentially lose access to their accounts if they failed to comply. The timing of this sudden requirement seems coincidental, and some users are suggested this was done as a protective measure against impending lawsuits. Redditor /u/urgodfather had a few things to say for those considering legal action. "There are plenty of users thinking class action lawsuit. If you decide to go this route, keep in mind that you will be exposed. Hashflare is going to air it all out. They aren't going to keep your privacy in mind at all." Closing the Book on Hashflare With this announcement, it is our guess that the community has likely lost all trust in Hashflare. The companies main competitor, Genesis Mining, appears to still be paying out and has not made any statement so far on Hashflare's actions. Previously when Hashflare changed their contracts from life time to one-year, Genesis Mining released a statement saying they would never take advantage of legal jargon to act against their customers best interests. For those who currently have a balance on Hashflare, it appears that the previous withdrawal minimums of 0.02 BTC have been removed. However, the site is currently imposing a 0.01 BTC maximum daily withdrawal, which is around $75 at July 20 prices. For users that previously had lifetime contracts, they will only be losing about a months worth of potential mining income as that change occurred 11-months ago. But for those that joined just recently, they stand to lose as much as a year of mining profits. It's also quite likely that cloud mining itself will take a hit and fewer users will be willing to invest in it as a result of the collapse of Hashflare. [GN] IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Settles Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. ("ImmunoCellular" or the "Company") (NYSE American: IMUC), a biotechnology company developing immunotherapies for the treatment of cancer based on its Stem-to-T-Cell research program, on July 19 disclosed that it has reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action suit, filed on May 1, 2017 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Arthur Kaye IRA FCC as Custodian DTD 6-8-00 v. ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-03250, against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors, and others. The tentative agreement, which is subject to final documentation and Court approval, provides in part for a settlement payment of $1.15 million in exchange for mutual releases and the dismissal of all claims against the Company and its officers and directors in connection with the securities class action suit. The $1.15 million settlement payment will be fully funded by the Company's insurance carrier. Anthony J. Gringeri, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of ImmunoCellular, said, "We are pleased to have reached a mutually acceptable resolution of this matter under payment terms that will be fully covered by our insurance carrier. If approved, this settlement will allow us to focus on our research to advance our Stem-to-T-Cell program for the treatment of cancer and our exploration of strategic alternatives without the distraction of on-going class action litigation." About ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. Based in Los Angeles, ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. http://www.imuc.comis developing immune-based therapies for the treatment of cancer. ImmunoCellular is focused on advancing its Stem-to-T-Cell research program, which engineers hematopoietic stem cells to generate cytotoxic T cells. Additional assets, for which the Company is seeking partners, include clinical-stage programs -- ICT-107, ICT-121 and ICT-140 -- which are patient-specific, dendritic cell-based immunotherapies targeting solid tumors. [GN] INVESTA SERVICES: BC Grand Sues over Real Property Tax Assessments ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Investa Services of GA, LLC. The case is captioned as B.C. GRAND, LLC, and a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, Plaintiff v. INVESTA SERVICES OF GA, LLC; FIG LLC; and FIG ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2018CV307207 (Ga. Super., Fulton Cty., June 28, 2018). The complaint alleges that Investa, on behalf of FIG, purchased tax liens from the Fulton County Tax Commissioner while the tax assessments associated with those liens are on appeal, and then used the power of the Sheriff to enforce the payment of the overly-high tax -- along with interest and penalty fees based on that high and incorrect assessment. When the appeals were successful, the overpaid tax payment was returned to the property owner, but the overpaid interest and penalty fees -- which were based on a principal far greater than what was actually owed -- are not. Business owners, such as the Plaintiff and hundreds more, have been subject to this farce, and the Defendants continue the practice to this day. Investa Services of GA, LLC is a Georgia Limited Liability Company with a principal place of business in 2020 Howell Mill Road, Suite C-513, Atlanta, Georgia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mario B. Williams, Esq. NEXUS DERECHOS HUMANOS ATTORNEYS, INC. 44 Broad Street, NW, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 254-0442 Facsimile: (703) 935-2453 E-mail: mwilliams@ndhlawyers.com - and - Julie Oinonen, Esq. WILLIAMS OINONEN LLC 44 Broad Street, NW, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 654-0288 Facsimile: (404) 592-6225 E-mail: julie@goodgeorgialawyer.com JUNIPER PHARMA: Rosenblatt Challenges Sale to Catalent Pharma -------------------------------------------------------------- Jordan Rosenblatt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Juniper Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Cristina Csimma, James A. Geraghty, Jennifer Good, Mary Ann Gray, Ann Merrifield, Richard Messina, Nikin Patel, Alicia Secor, Catalent Pharma Solutions, Inc. and Catalent Boston, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01108 (D. Del., July 27, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of Juniper by Catalent Pharma Solutions, rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger. The plaintiff further seeks costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Under the terms of the merger agreement, Catalent Boston, Inc. will purchase all outstanding shares of Juniper for $11.50 in cash per share of Juniper's common stock. The complaint asserts that Juniper's proxy statement omitted the Company's financial projections, as well as the analyses performed by its financial advisor, Rothschild Inc., particularly, Juniper's financial projections, data and inputs underlying the financial valuation analyses that support the fairness opinion provided by Rothschild and the background process leading to the merger. Juniper is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located at 33 Arch Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110. It is a diversified healthcare company into pharmaceutical development and manufacturing. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-531 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 Email: rm@maniskas.com KIA MOTORS: Appeals Court Reinstates $6.3MM Class Action Award -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Journal, reports that in a case that's been going on since 2001, a New Jersey appeals court has reinstated a $6.3 million class action award against Kia Motors America and ordered that fees be awarded to the firm that represented the more than 8,000 plaintiffs in the case. The litigation concerns the braking system of the Kia Sephia, discontinued in 2001. A three-judge Appellate Division panel in a published decision on July 18 in Little v. Kia Motors America reversed a Union County trial judge's 2008 order overturning the jury's verdict and the award of $681,850 in counsel fees and costs, and decertifying the class. Judge Ellen Koblitz, joined by Judges Thomas Manahan and Karen Suter, said a trial court will have to reach a new determination on counsel fees, as well as prejudgment interest. "We hope to get this case cleared," said the plaintiffs' attorney, Michael Donovan of the Donovan Litigation Group in Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania. "The opinion is thorough and is consistent with current law." The case has had a torturous history, repeatedly moving from the trial courts to the Appellate Division. The plaintiffs charged that the Kia Sephia's braking system didn't adequately dissipate heat, causing pads and rotors to wear down at 10,000-mile intervals. In Kia's own tests, the heat of the braking system was measured at 950 degrees, the plaintiffs alleged. Kia's warranty didn't cover brake components. The plaintiffs were those who purchased the Sephia between 1997 and 2000—about 8,450 in number. Each stands to receive about $750 from the jury award, representing the estimated cost of repairing the brakes. A jury in 2008 found that the automobile manufacturer breached its express and implied warranty to purchasers of the cars and violated the terms of the 1975 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, which governs warranties on consumer products and allows prevailing plaintiffs to recover reasonable costs of suit, including attorney fees. However, the jury held that Kia did not violate New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, and that there were no diminished values to the cars due to the faulty brakes. The Union County verdict followed a $5.6 million verdict in a suit against Kia in Pennsylvania in 2005. A 47-state settlement that same year provided only $60,000 for the class and exempted Florida, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. According to the court, following the Union County 2008 verdict, a judge, finding that individual issues predominated the case, issued a judgment notwithstanding the verdict later that year, decertified the class, and ordered a new trial on the repair damages. A motion to recertify the class was granted, and the jury's finding of no diminution in value was reversed, in 2011, but the Appellate Division overturned that ruling the next year. A special master appointed on remand in 2013 found that only a fraction of the plaintiffs proved damages. The special master recommended damages of about $46,000. Then, in 2015, plaintiff lawyers sought more than $6 million in fees and $481,850 in costs, though only $200,000 in fees were awarded, plus the costs sought. The case again returned to the Appellate Division, which on July 18 reached back to 2008 and reversed the granting of judgment notwithstanding the verdict. "The trial judge's concern that the jury award would provide a windfall to class members who did not actually spend $750 in additional repair costs was inconsistent with principles of contract damages, and resulted in an unjust windfall to defendant, which produced no evidence to defeat [the] estimated damages," Judge Koblitz wrote for the panel. Mr. Donovan said he now expects the attorney fee figure he seeks to be higher. "It will have to be recalculated, in addition to prejudgment interest," Donovan said. Kia retained Roberto Rivera-Soto, a former New Jersey Supreme Court justice now with the Cherry Hill office of Ballard Spahr. He was not available for comment on the decision. [GN] LIFE INSURANCE: Class of Policy Purchasers Certified in "Walker" ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. James V. Selna grants the motion for class certification filed by the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Joyce Walker, et al. v. Life Insurance Co. Of the Southwest, et al., Case No. 2:10-cv-09198-JVS-JDE (C.D. Cal.). The Court adopts this class definition: All persons who purchased a Provider Policy or Paragon Policy from Life Insurance Company of the Southwest that was issued between September 24, 2006 and April 27, 2014, who resided in California at the time the Policy was issued, and who received an illustration on or before the date of policy application. The Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint alleging that LSW's practices in connection with the marketing and sale of two of its life insurance policies, SecurePlus Provider and SecurePlus Paragon, constitute unlawful and unfair business practices under the California Unfair Competition Law based on various violations of California's Illustration Statute. LIFESAFER INC: Spencer Sues over Ignition Interlock Devices ----------------------------------------------------------- Vanessa C. Spencer, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. No. 1 A LifeSafer of Arizona, LLC, and No. 1 A LifeSafer, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-02225-BSB (D. Ariz., July 16, 2018), alleges that Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. section 1667a and 12 C.F.R. section 1013.4 for their failure to provide Plaintiff or members of proposed class requisite segregated disclosures concerning their leases of Defendants' ignition interlock devices. According to the complaint, LifeSafer considers itself "[a] National Leader in Ignition Interlock Technology," boasting that its "Ignition interlocks are one of the most widely used devices in the US." LifeSafer's "ignition interlock is a device which prevents a vehicle from starting if the driver has been drinking alcohol. Like a breathalyzer, an ignition interlock measures the alcohol in a person's system. If that amount exceeds a pre-programmed level, then the interlock temporarily locks the vehicle's ignition. LifeSafer offers its ignition interlock devices at over 900 locations nationwide. LifeSafer leases its ignition interlock devices to drivers throughout the country through use of "consumer leases" as defined under the CLA, 15 U.S.C. section 1667(1). LifeSafer is the ignition interlock provider Arizona drivers turn to first supply the most advanced technology at the most reasonable prices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse S. Johnson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826 5477 Facsimile: (561) 961 5684 E-mail: jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com LOCK HAVEN: AG Shapiro Seeks Ruling in Title IX Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Justin Stoltzfus, writing for PennRecord, reports that Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro is seeking a ruling in a Title IX lawsuit filed against Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania in which the plaintiffs requested class certification, claiming, on the university's behalf, that the plaintiffs have not proven that their rights have been violated. The complaint and summary judgment motion were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On March 19, counsel for several plaintiffs argued that the case based on the alleged failure of Lock Haven to provide equal opportunities for female athletes should become a class action. Citing "program wide discrimination," the plaintiffs allege that female students have sometimes been "deterred or prevented from participating in or obtaining the benefits of intercollegiate athletics at LHU." In addition, the plaintiffs' counsel said in the lawsuit that. "LHU's roster management plans have not succeeded." The plaintiffs said class certification should be granted "because LHU has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class." In response to the class certification request, Mr. Shapiro denied the discrimination allegations in a June 1 motion for summary judgment. "LHU maintains that it is fully compliant with Title IX," the motion said. "Additionally, each request...contains vague objectives and terms of bases for comparisons that cannot be easily defined and would invite perpetual disagreement between the parties." The defense also cited provisions that require monetary allocations be made to avoid affecting the Title IX rights of male students. "LHU should be given deference to determine what if any changes are appropriate to the athletic programs," the defense said. [GN] LOGMEIN INC: Wortman Sues over Auto-Renewal Policy -------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA WORTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LOGMEIN, INC., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-11475-GAO (D. Mass., July 16, 2018), seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, as well as equitable relief caused by Defendant's alleged automatic subscription of LMI's software. LMI is a company that offers annual subscriptions to its online products. According to the complaint, at the end of the one year subscription period, the subscription automatically renews at a significantly higher rate, without any notification to the customer. Had Plaintiff known the truth about LMI's billing practices, Plaintiff would have never purchased a subscription to LMI's software. LogMeIn, Inc. is a provider of software as a service and cloud-based remote connectivity services for collaboration, IT management and customer engagement, founded in 2003 and based in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noor Kazmi, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NOOR KAZMI 55 Chapel Street, Suite 301 Newton, MA 02458 Telephone: (617)843 3940 E-mail: noor@noorkazmilaw.com - and - Alisa A. Martin, Esq. AMARTIN LAW PC 600 W Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 308 6880 E-mail: alisa@amartinlaw.com - and - Lindsay C. David, Esq. BRENNAN & DAVID LAW GROUP 2888 Loker Avenue E, Suite 302 Carlsbad, CA 92010 Telephone: (760) 730 9408 E-mail: lcdavid@brennandavid.com MAJOR MODEL: Fails to Pay Minimum & Overtime, Raske Says -------------------------------------------------------- LOUISA RASKE, Individually and as Class Representative, Plaintiff, v. MAJOR MODEL MANAGEMENT INC., the Defendant, Case No. 653534/2018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 16, 2018), alleges that Defendant failed to pay models in full for work performed at the direction of Defendants -- including, for example, by authorizing the use of their models' images without their knowledge or consent and without compensating them for the use -- and by refusing to abide by wage and hour laws -- including, for example, by not paying for attendance at mandatory meetings, not paying minimum wages, not paying overtime, paying wages after a delay of many months, as well as improperly deducting unauthorized and unsubstantiated amounts from the models' paychecks -- Defendants unfairly and unlawfully reaped millions of dollars in profits on the backs of the models, who had little to no bargaining power and were forced to take whatever compensation Defendants saw fit. According to the complaint, the Defendants -- some of the largest and most powerful modeling agencies in the City and the world -- have systematically taken advantage of the models they claim to represent by unlawfully diverting millions of dollars in value from the models to themselves. For years, Defendants mischaracterized the models they employed as "independent contractors" rather than employees. In doing so, they denied the models the wages they were due for work performed at Defendants' direction. Defendants also avoided state wage and hour laws including payment of a minimum wage, timely payment of all wages due, and recordkeeping requirements. Even when the models were paid, they were not paid in full; Defendants routinely deducted unauthorized and largely unsubstantiated expenses from their models' paychecks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher D. Kercher, Esq. Adam Wolfson, Esq. Kimberly Carson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010-1601 Telephone: (212) 849 7000 MATERIAL TRANSPORT: Search and Rose Sue over Minimum & OT Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SEARCH and ROBERT ROSE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MATERIAL TRANSPORT, LLC, a domestic corporation, and KIMBERLY M. CHERRY, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01941-RBH (D.S.C., July 16, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and other current and former drivers for the Company at one-and-one-half times their regular rates of pay for time worked in excess of 40 hours each work week under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Material Transport is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking company running freight hauling business from Conway, South Carolina.[BN] Attorneys for Frank Search and Robert Rose: Michal Kalwajtys, Esq. DOUGALL & COLLINS 1700 Woodcreek Farms Road Elgin, SC 29045 Telephone: (803) 865 8858 Facsimile: (803) 865 8944 E-mail: mkalwajtys@dougallfirm.com - and - Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq. Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (877) 561 0000 Facsimile: (855) 582 5297 E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com jtb@jtblawgroup.com MDL 2084: Court Denies Bid to Certify Direct Purchaser Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit Re: Androgel Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:09-md-02084-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas W. Thrash entered an order denying Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Court said, "First, although the Plaintiffs assert that many of their proposed class members would have negative claims, they fail to provide any evidence to support that assertion. The Plaintiffs argue that 'antitrust litigation is expensive, often requiring millions of dollars in costs,' and they point to the costs of retaining experts in this case, which have now exceeded $4.6 million. They then include the following table to suggest that if a class member's claim is below $1 million or $4.6 million, their claim is therefore negative. The Plaintiffs provide no answer or argument as to why $1 million should be the standard by which a claim is determined as being economically worthwhile or not. And on the other, the $4.6 million standard based on the cost of experts is a red herring." The Court explained that the numerosity rule does not envision the alternative of individual suits; it considers only the alternative of joinder. As joined parties, no individual plaintiff will bear the costs of those experts completely on their own. According to the Court, the class plaintiffs would very likely sign joint litigation agreements and hire joint experts, just as the other Plaintiffs in this case have done for years. "It is not clear that there would be a need for that to change merely because absent Plaintiffs would be joined as individual parties instead of moving forward as a class," the court said. Further, the court continued, "[t]he reality of contingent representation significantly undercuts [the Plaintiffs'] argument regarding litigation costs. In other words, the fact that all class members, even those with such so-called 'small' claims, would likely be represented on a contingent basis undermines [the Plaintiffs'] position" that litigating via joinder would result in a negative claim. The Plaintiffs, particularly those with small claims, could therefore avoid the costs of litigating altogether, or at the very least could proportionally shoulder the burden amongst themselves. And even if there were still some small number of claims that would be uneconomical to bring, in light of the other factors at play, the Court still finds that a class action would be inappropriate. The Court also held that a joint action could not possibly harm the relationship between smaller wholesalers and the suppliers any more than a class action. In a joint action, especially one with so many large plaintiffs, the smaller plaintiffs would have little more involvement than they would under a class action. And although a class action would shield smaller Plaintiffs from discovery, it is not as if it would shield their identity. The Defendants would still know they were opposing them in litigation. Altogether, the Court finds that joinder would not be impracticable in this case. Given that Rule 23 allows Courts to certify class actions "only if" the Plaintiffs can demonstrate that joinder of all the parties would be impracticable, the Court need not analyze the parties' other arguments regarding adequacy. MERCK & CO: Smith's Bid to Certify Nixed Pending Aug. 17 Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Michael A. Shipp entered an order in the lawsuit styled KELLI SMITH, KANDICE BROSS, RACHEL MOUNTIS, and KATE WHITMER, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated female employees v. MERCK & CO., INC., MERCK SHARP & DOHME, CORP., and INTERVET, INC., Case No. 3:13-cv-02970-MAS-LHG (D.N.J.), holding that these motions are administratively terminated, pending the hearing: (a) Plaintiffs' Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification and Final Certification of an Equal Pay Act Collective Action; (b) Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Declarations Filed in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification; (c) Defendants' Motion to Strike the Report of Dr. David Friedland; (d) Defendants' Motion to Strike the Report of Dr. Alexander Vekker; and (e) Plaintiffs' Motion to Correct Exhibit. The Court will hold a one-day hearing on August 17, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. If either party or expert has a conflict with the date and time set by the Court, counsel shall confer and submit e-filed joint correspondence regarding their availability and provide a minimum of two alternative joint proposed dates and times. MICRO FOCUS: Schmitt Securities Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned David Schmitt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Micro Focus International PLC, Christopher Hsu, Stephen Murdoch, Mike Phillips, Kevin Loosemore, Nils Brauckmann, Karen Slatford, Richard Atkins, Amanda Brown, Silke Scheiber, Darren Roos, Giselle Manon and John Schultz, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-03066 (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2018), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on July 27, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-06763. Schmitt, as owner of Micro Focus American Depository Shares, seeks to recover damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933. Micro Focus is an infrastructure software company which develops, sells, and supports software products and solutions to federal, airlines, and healthcare industry internationally. The Company is incorporated in the United Kingdom. Micro Focus American Depository Shares trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker "MFGP." The Company had suffered ongoing sales execution issues, particularly in North America, as well as significant employee attrition. On March 22, 2018, the price of Micro Focus ADS closed at $12.99 per ADS, representing a decline of more than 54% from its closing price. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com Micro Focus International PLC, Mike Phillips and Stephen Murdoch are represented by: Austin L. Klar, Esq. Christopher William Keegan, Esq. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 439-4787, 439-1882 Fax: (415) 439-1500 Email: austin.klar@kirkland.com chris.keegan@kirkland.com Christopher Hsu is represented by: John David Pernick, Esq. BERGESON, LLP 2033 Gateway Place Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95110 Tel: (408) 291-6200 Fax: (408) 297-6000 Email: jpernick@be-law.com MONSANTO CO: Faces 4-R Farms Suit over Herbicide Products --------------------------------------------------------- 4-R FARMS INC. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, and BASF CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-04067 (D. Kan., July 12, 2018) alleges that the Defendants misrepresented to the general public that the Defendants' auxin herbicide dicamba under the brand names Xtendimax and Engenia are safe. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff grew soybeans and corn on approximately 1,350 acres of farmland near Corning, Kansas. In June and July 2017, the Plaintiff observed significant dicamba injuries on Plaintiff's crops, including, but not limited to, cupping, curling, and discoloration of exposed plants, as well as some plant death. The damage was observed on approximately 220 acres of soybeans. The Plaintiff grew soybean crops susceptible to and not genetically modified to be resistant to dicamba. As a result of the crop damage caused by dicamba, the Plaintiff sustained a loss of yield in 2017. Injury to the Plaintiff's non-resistant crops is a direct result of the Defendants' development, marketing and sale of a dicamba-based crop system featuring genetically modified seed specifically developed and commercialized for the purpose of use with in-crop dicamba herbicide. Monsanto Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides agricultural products for farmers worldwide. The company was formerly known as Monsanto Ag Company and changed its name to Monsanto Company in March 2000. Monsanto Company was founded in 2000 and is based in St. Louis, Missouri. As of June 7, 2018, Monsanto Company operates as a subsidiary of Bayer Aktiengesellschaft. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Lee Cross, Jr., Esq. CROSS LAW FIRM, LLC 8000 Foster St. Overland Park, KS 66204 Telephone: (816) 454-5297 Facsimile: (913) 904-1650 E-mail: lcross@gmolaw.com - and - James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C. 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 Facsimile: (212) 344-5461 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com MONSANTO CO: Ray Suit Seeks Damages Over Roundup Exposure --------------------------------------------------------- Richard Ira Ray, individually and as administrator of the Estate of Daniel Edward Ray, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-01242 (E.D. Mo., July 27, 2018), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert fees, disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate and such other relief resulting from negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. According to the complaint, Daniel Edward Ray was exposed to Roundup while working as a contractor/home-builder. As a direct and proximate result of his exposure, Ray developed non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma specifically Mantle cell lymphoma, which was diagnosed for the first time in July 2012 and he eventually died on April 23, 2016. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 300 North Tucker, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Tel. (314) 241-8111 Fax. (314) 241-5554 Email: eholland@allfela.com - and - Jessica L. Richman, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Tel. (516) 723-4627 Fax (516) 723-4727 Email: jrichman@yourlawyer.com MONSANTO CO: Schade Suit Says Herbicide Exposure Caused Lymphoma ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brian E. Schade, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company and John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01250 (E.D. Mo., July 27, 2018), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert fees, disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate and such other relief resulting from negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. The complaint relates that Schade was exposed to glyphosate while working for 5 years on a 600 acre farm and for a farmers' co-op from 1994-1998, mixing and spraying Roundup for the purpose of farming operations. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Schade developed Mantle Cell Lymphoma, a subtype of non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma which was diagnosed for the first time on or around May 22, 2013 in a pathology report of Port Huron Hospital. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 300 North Tucker, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Tel. (314) 241-8111 Fax. (314) 241-5554 Email: eholland@allfela.com - and - Jessica L. Richman, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Tel. (516) 723-4627 Fax (516) 723-4727 Email: jrichman@yourlawyer.com MONSANTO CO: Smith Blames Roundup Exposure as Cause for Lymphoma ---------------------------------------------------------------- Larry A. Smith and Judy Smith, Plaintiff, v. Monsanto Company and John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01250 (E.D. Mo., July 27, 2018), seeks compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expert fees, disbursements and attorneys' fees incurred in prosecuting this action, disgorgement of profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate and such other relief resulting from negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the herbicide Roundup (R), containing the active ingredient glyphosate. Smith was exposed to glyphosate while mixing and spraying Roundup for the purpose of landscaping application to the 15-acre area of land which at all relevant times he owned and resided on. As a direct and proximate result of being exposed to Roundup, Schade developed Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia and Small Lymphocytic Lymphoma, a subtype of non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Eric D. Holland, Esq. HOLLAND LAW FIRM 300 North Tucker, Suite 801 St. Louis, MO 63101 Tel. (314) 241-8111 Fax. (314) 241-5554 Email: eholland@allfela.com - and - Jessica L. Richman, Esq. PARKER WAICHMAN LLP 6 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 Tel. (516) 723-4627 Fax (516) 723-4727 Email: jrichman@yourlawyer.com NERIUM INTERNATIONAL: Faces Fraud Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Bohm Wildish & Matsen LLP on July 18 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Nerium International, LLC ("Nerium") for fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation in Riverside, California. The lawsuit was filed on July 13, 2018 on behalf of tens of thousands of current and former Nerium Brand Partners. According to the lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, Nerium made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the cost of Brand Partner Launch Kits. The lawsuit alleges that Nerium falsely represented that Brand Partner Launch Kits are sold "at Company cost," but that Nerium sold Brand Partner Launch Kits for a significant profit. Nerium's Chief Executive Officer Jeff Olson is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit. The Complaint alleges that Jeff Olson received a significant secret "kick-back" from the sale of each Brand Partner Launch Kit. The lawsuit seeks compensation, penalties, damages, and attorneys' fees. The suit could include thousands of current and former Nerium Brand Partners if a class action is approved by the court. If you purchased a Brand Partner Launch Kit in California at any time since January 1, 2010, we encourage you to contact James Bohm, Klaus Heinze, or Christopher Green, of Bohm Wildish & Matsen, LLP, at 714-384-6500, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also reach us through the firm's website at http://www.bohmwildish.com/,submitting an information request at https://www.bohmwildish.com/contact, or emailing us at info@bohmwildish.com. This class action lawsuit has already been filed. The complaint is available at the link here. The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. Bohm Wildish & Matsen, LLP -- http://www.bohmwildish.com-- is a boutique law firm comprised of attorneys with top legal credentials and big firm experience, while valuing the significance of our client relationships. In addition to representing institutions and other plaintiffs in class action litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as asset protection and trust litigation. [GN] NEW YORK: US/Nurses Suit Settlement Provisionally Approved ---------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William F. Kuntz provisionally approved, subject to the Court's consideration of objections and final approval, the Settlement Agreement between the parties of the lawsuit captioned UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, and NEW YORK STATE NURSES ASSN. and ANNE BOVE, Plaintiff-Intervenors v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Case No. CV-18-4100 (WFK)(ST) (E.D.N.Y.). The Court provisionally certified a Settlement Class, as defined in the Settlement Agreement and consisting of those persons who worked in registered nurse or midwife occupational titles who: (a) were employed by the City of New York (the "City") and/or NYC Health & Hospital ("NYC H&H") on October 4, 2016, and enrolled in either the NYCERS Tier 4 55/25 retirement plan under NYSA Retirement and Social Security Law 604-c, or the NYCERS Tier 4 57/5 retirement plan under NYS Retirement and Social Security Law 604-d, who could, or did, attain twenty-five (25) years of qualifying service in registered nurse or midwife occupational titles before reaching the age of fifty-five (55) for persons in the 55/25 plan, or, the age of fifty-seven (57) for persons in the 57/5 plan; or (b) retired from City and/or NYC H&H employment during the period beginning January 1, 2006, and concluding October 4, 2016, and during their City and/or NYC H&H employment were enrolled in the NYCERS Tier 4 55/25 retirement plan or the NYCERS Tier 4 57/5 retirement plan, and who attained twenty-five years (25) of qualifying service in registered nurse or midwife occupational titles before reaching the age of fifty-five (55) for persons in the 55/25 plan, or, the age of fifty-seven (57) for persons in the 57/5 plan. Anne Bove is provisionally appointed as the representative of the Settlement Class. The forms of Notice of Class Certification, Settlement and Fairness Hearing, Instructions for Filing an Objection Prior to the Fairness Hering, and Objection Form, as well as the cover letter submitted in connection with Proposed Intervenors' motion are approved. A Fairness Hearing for the consideration of objections and final certification of the Settlement Class and final approval of the Settlement Agreement is scheduled for November 14, 2018, at 10:00 a.m. NEXTGEN HEALTHCARE: Settles Securities Class Action for $19MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Evan Sweeney, writing for Fierce Healthcare, reports that the parent company of EHR vendor NextGen Healthcare has agreed to pay $19 million to settle a class-action complaint that senior executives defrauded investors by misrepresenting the company's financial projections. The settlement ends five years of litigation and suspends a request to the Supreme Court to review the case. In a suit initially filed in November 2013 in a Central California District Court, shareholders accused Quality Systems Inc. and three company executives of misrepresenting the company's current and projected financial performance, promising earnings growth of 20% to 25% in 2013 despite evidence that revenues and bookings had begun to decline. Shareholders, led by the City of Miami Firefighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust and the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, also accused Quality Systems CEO Steven Plochocki of insider trading after he sold off nearly $4 million of shares following dramatic share price increases, allegedly driven by the company's misrepresentations. Mr. Plochocki retired in June 2015 after seven years as the company's CEO. The two other executives named in the litigation were Paul Holt, the former chief financial officer, now the CFO at NantHealth, and Sheldon Razin, Quality Systems' founder and chairman of the board. Mr. Razin left the company in 2015. As part of the settlement (PDF), Quality Systems and the executives named do not "admit to any liability, fault, or wrongdoing of any kind." Quality Systems operates primarily as NextGen Healthcare, which offers a suite of EHR solutions targeted primarily to physician practices. Beyond its core EHR offering, NextGen also provides billing software, population health platforms and workflow management tools. In the last fiscal year ending March 31, 2018, NextGen recorded $531 million in revenue and $289.5 million in gross profit. The company recorded a net income of $2.4 million, down from $18.2 million the year prior. In January, Quality Systems filed a petition (PDF) with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the high court to weigh in on when a defendant must admit that non-forward looking statements are false or misleading in order to be protected under federal safe harbor provisions. A NextGen Healthcare spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [GN] NISSAN MOTORS: Must Face Class Action Over Defective Sentra CVTs ---------------------------------------------------------------- David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a Nissan Sentra CVT class-action lawsuit has survived a dismissal bid by Nissan, although the automaker did succeed in getting some claims tossed out. The class-action lawsuit alleges 2013-2017 Nissan Sentras have continuously variable transmissions (CVTs) that are "defective in design, materials, and/or workmanship." According to the plaintiffs, the cars experience all kinds of transmission problems that make driving dangerous. Allegations include "sudden, unexpected shaking and violent jerking (commonly referred to as 'juddering' or 'shuddering') when drivers attempt to accelerate." Drivers also claim the cars hesitate when trying to accelerate, increasing the risk of injuries and deaths. The plaintiffs further allege the transmissions eventually fail, something Nissan has known about for years. Within a year of selling the first allegedly defective vehicle, Nissan sent a technical service bulletin to dealers about engine control and transmission control modules. However, the lawsuit alleges customers kept complaining about the CVTs after dealers made repairs. Each plaintiff described their own problems with the transmissions, with one customer claiming "almost immediately after her purchase," the "vehicle began to judder and would fail to properly accelerate." Another plaintiff "noticed symptoms of the defect, including frequent juddering, a whining noise, and delayed acceleration." Another Sentra owner "noticed transmission failures, including that the vehicle stalled at stoplights, vibrated and jerked under acceleration, had severe lag, would not go more than 20 mph without shaking and exhibited severe juddering at higher speeds." Yet another plaintiff claims several years after buying the Sentra, "the RPMs were fluttering on the highway," and "[t]he vehicle shook when at a stop and hesitated when accelerating from a stop." In addition, one of the plaintiffs say the transmission completely failed. Nissan filed a motion to dismiss the entire lawsuit by alleging the allegations of transmission problems don't hold up according to the law. While the plaintiffs claim the CVTs are covered by the express warranty, Nissan says the plaintiffs don't name a specific transmission defect. The automaker also argues if any defect is identified, it's a design defect that isn't covered by the warranty. But the judge ruled the lawsuit says the CVTs "are defective in design, materials, and/or workmanship." According to the judge, the plaintiffs have identified a number of symptoms that may be attributable to material or workmanship defects. But the fact the lawsuit alleges a transmission defect is present in all models does not necessarily mean that the defect must be in the design. "Here, Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to support a plausible claim that the transmissions "differ from the product the manufacturer intended to sell" in ways that could be attributable to a materials or workmanship defect," Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. said. Concerning implied warranty claims, Nissan argues four plaintiffs cannot state a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability because their cars were "minimally fit for the ordinary purpose of providing basic transportation, and . . . satisfy a minimum level of quality, even if they fail to perform exactly as the buyer expected." However, the judge ruled all the plaintiffs experienced transmission problems that implicate both quality and safety and the unreliable acceleration alone poses a risk for any driver on the road. "These allegations are more than sufficient to survive at the pleading stage." The judge went on to deny Nissan's motion to dismiss a breach of warranty claim for one plaintiff, but granted the motion concerning two other plaintiffs. The judge also denied Nissan's motion to dismiss claims about the Magnuson-Moss Act. Due to claims from multiple plaintiffs in multiple states, the judge had numerous rulings to issue. In the end, the judge granted Nissan's motion to dismiss all plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief and implied warranty claims for two plaintiffs, all without leave to amend. The judge also dismissed plaintiffs' claims for unjust enrichment, but with leave to amend. Nissan's motion to dismiss is denied as to all remaining claims. The Nissan Sentra CVT class-action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California - Falk, et al., v. Nissan North America, Inc. CarComplaints.com has owner-reported transmission complaints about Nissan Sentras for model years 2013 / 2014 / 2015 / 2016 [GN] NORDSTROM INC: Alex Ponce's Wage-and-Hour Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesus G. Bernal terminated a purported class action lawsuit filed by Nordstrom employee. Alex Ponce sued the Company for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. The case was originally filed in San Bernardino Superior Court, case number CIVDS1812475. Nordstrom removed the case to federal district court on July 6, 2018. The case was then captioned, ALEX PONCE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORDSTROM, INC.; and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 5:18-cv-01444 (C.D. Cal., July 6, 2018). Mr. Ponce was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt employee at their distribution centers in the State of California. On July 13, Nordstrom filed in federal district court a Motion to Compel Arbitration. That Motion is set for hearing August 27, 2018, at 9:00 a.m. On the same day, Ponce filed a Notice of Dismissal. On July 26, Judge Bernal entered an order saying the case is dismissed without prejudice. Nordstrom, Inc., a fashion retailer, provides apparel, shoes, cosmetics, and accessories for women, men, young adults, and children in the United States and Canada. Nordstrom, Inc. was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Seattle, Washington. [BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sarah E. Ross, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107 Telephone: 310-553-0308 Facsimile: 310-553-5583 E-mail: sross@littler.com - and - Jawid Habib, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101.3577 Telephone: 619.232.0441 Facsimile: 619.232.4302 E-mail: jhabib@littler.com NOVARTIS PHARMA: Turlock Hits Hypertension Meds Price-rigging ------------------------------------------------------------- Turlock Irrigation District, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novartis AG, Novartis Corporation, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Endo International PLC and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-06776 (S.D. N.Y., July 27, 2018) seeks to recover damages, interest, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees resulting from anticompetitive foreclosure of hypertension medication comprising the active ingredients amlodipine (Exforge) and Valsartan in violation of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff seeks overcharge damages arising out of Novartis's unlawful agreement with Par not to compete in the market for Exforge and corresponding AB-rated generic drug products. Turlock Irrigation District is a consumer-owned, self-funded, non-profit irrigation district organized under the laws of the State of California. It provides health benefits, including prescription drug benefits, to eligible employees. The pharmaceuticals unit of Novartis Corporation and Novartis AG, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation develops, manufactures, sells and markets Novartis drugs in the U.S. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business at 1400 Atwater Drive, Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355. Endo assumed all of Par Pharmaceutical's liabilities upon acquiring it. Par Pharmaceutical develops, manufactures and markets generic versions of brand name drugs. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Jon R. Stickman, Esq. Ashley M. Bond, Esq. Amy McDonnell, Esq. DUNCAN & ALLEN 1730 Rhode Island Ave, NW, Ste. 700 Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 289-8400 Fax: (202) 289-8450 Email: jrs@duncanallen.com amb@duncanallen.com aem@duncanallen.com - and - Robert G. Eisler, Esq. Deborah A. Elman, Esq. Chad B. Holtzman, Esq. Allison J. McCowan, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Tel: (646) 722-8500 Fax: (646) 722-8501 Email: reisler@gelaw.com delman@gelaw.com choltzman@gelaw.com amccowan@gelaw.com - and - Jason S. Hartley, Esq. Jason M. Lindner, Esq. 550 West C St., Ste. 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 400-5822 Fax: (619) 400-5832 Email: hartley@hartleyllp.com lindner@hartleyllp.com NY FAST GENERAL: Rodriguez Seeks Overtime Premium ------------------------------------------------- WADY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK FAST GENERAL CONTRACTING CORP. (D/B/A NEW YORK FAST CARTING CORP.), OSCAR VELASQUEZ, and LUIS VELASQUEZ, the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-04072-PKC-PK (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2018), seeks to recover overtime premium pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and for violations of the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, Defendants own, operate, or control a trucking company, located at 93-02 183 Street, Jamaica, NY 11423 under the name "New York Fast Carting Corp." The Plaintiff was employed as a truck driver at the trucking company located at 93-02 183 Street, Jamaica, NY 11423. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff Rodriguez appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay Plaintiff Rodriguez wages on a timely basis.[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: 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@employmentcompliancc.com O'GARA COACH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Kevin Amini Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN AMINI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. O'GARA COACH COMPANY LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-01188 (C.D. Cal., July 6, 2018), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. According to the compliant, the Plaintiff received a text message from the Defendants on his cellular telephone containing spam advertisements and promotional offers without his prior express written consent. The case is assigned to Judge James V Selna and referred to Autumn D Spaeth. O'Gara Coach Co., LLC retails automobiles. The Company offers new and used cars, vans, trucks, sport utility vehicles, parts, and accessories, as well as financing, maintenance, and repair services. O'Gara Coach operates in the State of California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 OHIO STATE: Rep. Jim Jordan Named as Defendant in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Bob Moser, writing for Rolling Stone, reports that in the two weeks since former Ohio State wrestlers began to make public allegations about being repeatedly molested and assaulted by team doctor Richard Strauss, Congressman Jim Jordan -- who spent eight years as an assistant wrestling coach at the school -- has repeatedly claimed any suggestion that he was previously aware of the abuse is "fake news." As Mr. Moser wrote on July 16, the former wrestlers, who say Mr. Jordan knew they were being abused and took no action to stop it, have been slandered repeatedly by the congressman and his reflexive right-wing defenders -- including accusations that the former wrestlers are part of either a "deep state" conspiracy or paid for by the Democratic Party to take down the powerful founder of the House Freedom Caucus. President Trump and several members of Congress, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, have leapt to Jordan's defense, claiming he's just not the kind of guy who would sit idly by while his wrestlers were preyed upon. On July 17, Mr. Jordan's public-relations crisis became a legal nightmare. Attorneys filed a massive class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Ohio against Ohio State University on behalf of an as-yet-unnamed former OSU wrestler. The law firm Sauder Schelkopf is seeking to represent all the students and athletes "treated" by Strauss in his two decades at the school, from the late ‘70s to the late ‘90s – a number they estimate will amount to "at least 1,500." Mr. Jordan, the jut-jawed Republican and anti-gay crusader in the House, is singled out in the suit: He's one of only three former school officials named, including Strauss, though the action is aimed at all the coaches, administrators and others in positions of responsibility at OSU who, it claims, stood by while students and student-athletes were repeatedly "sexually abused, harassed, and molested," and "forced" to seek treatment from a well-known predator even after they complained. (Strauss was the sole team doctor for the wrestlers; the men say they either had to choose to let injuries go untreated, as the lawsuit says some did, or subject themselves to yet another assault.) The lead plaintiff, "John Doe," says he was groped, assaulted and molested at least 20 times. The other wrestlers have told reporters how Strauss allegedly used any excuse to make them expose themselves and grope them, and the lawsuit adds some sickening details: "On one occasion, Plaintiff suffered a rib injury while wrestling and made an appointment to see Dr. Strauss for treatment. Dr. Strauss instructed Plaintiff to drop his pants so he could examine Plaintiff's scrotum for a hernia. Plaintiff was young and believed that Dr. Strauss' actions were medically necessary, but felt violated and helpless." The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that Dr. Strauss also took photographs of the men he was forcing to disrobe unnecessarily. It describes how he "regularly touched students' genitals and breast areas, often at the same time, regularly measured students' scrotums, all for the purpose of his own sexual arousal and gratification, and for no legitimate medical purpose and for no other reason than to satisfy his own sexual desires." You can read the lawsuit here in its entirety. So far, as more former wrestlers, including UFC champion Mark Coleman, have stepped out and told their stories, Mr. Jordan has wielded his mastery of right-wing media to try and inoculate himself against this career-threatening scandal. The congressman managed to contain the fallout from an eerily similar revelation last November, when one of his longtime Washington aides and protégées, Ohio state Rep. Wesley Goodman, was publicly unmasked as one of the capitol city's most notorious sexual predators, stalking and abusing at least 30 young conservative men he promised to "mentor." This was huge news in Ohio, but was buried nationally beneath the daily drumbeat of Trump atrocities. The Goodman scandal alone could have been enough to force Jordan out of Congress. In April, Elizabeth Esty, a Democratic representative from Connecticut, had to resign because she kept a former chief of staff on her payroll for three months after another former aide accused him of harassment. The well-documented accusations against Goodman are much, much broader. He reportedly harassed or assaulted at least 30 young men. Mr. Jordan adamantly denied that he had any knowledge of Goodman's notorious reputation -- just as he's now claiming, against the word of his ex-wrestlers, that he had no clue that Strauss (who committed suicide in 2005) was groping the athletes. In recent public comments on the allegations, Mr. Jordan appeared to be banking on his former wrestlers' silence and shame. But if he believed he could humiliate them back into submission, he was sorely mistaken. At least nine have spoken out so far. Dozens more will almost certainly be telling their stories in criminal and civil court along with Strauss' hundreds of other alleged victims from 13 Ohio State teams. (A separate lawsuit was filed by four former wrestlers on July 16; this one didn't call out Mr. Jordan by name, but he will almost certainly become involved if the case goes forward.) Back home, where Mr. Jordan's political future will be determined, local media are determined not to let him slide. "No more denials. Jim Jordan must acknowledge what he knew," the Cleveland Plain Dealer editorialized. Mr. Jordan has made it clear, though, that the truth will have to be pried out of him. (He says he is cooperating with independent investigators hired by Ohio State, though what he tells them may never become public.) If either or both of these lawsuits lands him in court, it will be. [GN] PACIFIC WINE: Bejarano Seeks Unpaid Wages for Truck Drivers ----------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR BEJARANO, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC WINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 60, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC713758 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 13, 2018), alleges that Defendants failed to provide all required meal breaks, failed to pay all wages owed semi-monthly, and failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements pursuant to the California Labor Code. According to the complaint, Defendant is a trucking company that works with importers, wholesalers, independent wineries, retailers, and businesses in the food and hospitality industry throughout the State of California. According to Defendant's website, the company handles over two million cases of product each year, with a fleet of over 60 trucks, and warehouses in both San Francisco and Irwindale, as well as a cross dock hub in Bakersfield. The Plaintiff is informed and believes that there were between 80 and 100 employees at the warehouse in Irwindale, and that more than half were truck drivers like himself. The Plaintiff is informed and believes that about 30 drivers work in San Francisco and about 10 drivers work in Bakersfield. On or about April 24, 2015, Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a truck driver at the warehouse located in Irwindale. Upon starting his employment with PWD, Plaintiff worked 60 hour weeks, averaging between 12 and 13 hours a day. He earned about $15 per hour. On or around June or July 2015, Plaintiff was assigned routes to Bakersfield. From then until about April 2017, the Plaintiff worked about 16 to 17 hours a day, for four consecutive days a week. The Defendant violated Labor Code section 204, requiring semimonthly payments of all wages owed. The Plaintiffs did not receive payment of all wages, including meal break premiums, within any time permissible under California Labor Code.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sereena Singh, Esq. Dat Tommy Phan, Esq. Hennig Ruiz & Singh 3600 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1908 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213)310 PE CONTROL: US Energy Alleges Violation of N.Y. State Lien Law -------------------------------------------------------------- US ACQUISITION LLC d/b/a US Energy Group v. P E CONTROL SERVICES, LTD.; HENICK-LANE INC.; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; JON AND JANE DOE, Defendants, Case No. 606083/2018 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., June 7, 2018) alleges that the Defendants violated the New York State Lien Law. According to the complaint, on July 12, 2016, the Plaintiff, as a sub-subcontractor, and Defendant PE, as a subcontractor, entered into a contract whereby the Plaintiff was to perform certain boiler control programming and adjustments for the Defendant PE with respect to two projects, the Cardinal Egan Pavilion and the Cardinal O' Connor Pavilion, both located at the real property known as and by the street address 5655 Arlington Avenue, Bronx, Bronx County, New York. The Property is also known under its tax lot designation as Block 5947, Lot 120 located in the County of Bronx, State of New York. The Plaintiff performed services for the Defendant PE on the Project from January 27, 2017, through and including June 16, 2017. The Plaintiff and the Defendant PE entered into three purchase orders for work performed by the Plaintiff on the Project. The Plaintiff completed the work evidenced by the purchase orders on the Project in a workmanlike manner and PE never asserted that any of the work was defective or incomplete. Pursuant to its work on the Project, the Plaintiff sent invoices to the Defendant PE on or about January 27, 2017 and July 24, 2017. PE never objected to the Plaintiff's invoices. However, PE has never made any payments on any of the invoices rendered by the Plaintiff on the Project. The owner of the Project has paid PE in full for the work performed by the Plaintiff. Despite due demand, PE has failed and refused to pay the Plaintiff the remaining funds owed under the Project. As a result, on February 16, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Mechanic's Lien with the Bronx County Clerk. On or about March 26, 2018, PE obtained from the Defendant Henick-Lane and the Defendant Liberty Mutual a bond discharging the lien. The Plaintiff alleges that: -- The Defendants have received payments from the Project manager, or owner, on account of their agreements with the owner in amounts equal to or in excess of the amounts owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiff; -- The funds the Defendants received from the Project manager, or owner constitute trust funds pursuant to Article 3-A of the New York State Lien Law for the benefit of and to be applied to the payment of the Plaintiff who have furnished work in connection with the Project as a subcontractor to the Defendants; -- The Defendants had knowledge of the existence of the Plaintiff's claims for monies due from the Defendants under the purchase orders; and -- The Defendants diverted some or all the funds for non-trust purposes rather than for the payment to the Plaintiffs. The complaint contends that PE and Henick-Lane are liable to US Energy and all similarly situated unpaid subcontractors or material suppliers in an amount to be determined at trial, together with attorney's fees and exemplary and punitive damages. P E Control Services, Ltd. is a New York corporation with address at Westchester County, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Ansell, Esq. General Counsel of US ACQUISITION LLC d/b/a US Energy Group 270 Park Avenue New Hyde Park, NY 11040 Tel: (516) 812-6963 PEERLESS CREDIT: Margereum Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ------------------------------------------------------------ WILLIAM MARGEREUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEERLESS CREDIT SERVICES, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 18-2837 (E.D. Pa., July 5, 2018) seeks to stop the Defendants' unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. Peerless Credit Services, Inc. provides debt recovery and accounts receivable management services. It is a full-service debt recovery and financial services company for commercial, retail and healthcare businesses. The Company was founded in 1982. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Antranig Garibian, Esq. GARIBAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 1800 JFK Boulevard, Suite 300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 326-9179 E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com PNC BANK: Fergerstrom et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned WAYNE FERGERSTROM, SHENANDOAH KAIAMA, and WINDY KAIAMA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PNC BANK, N.A., a national banking association; et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-00526-DKW-RLP (D. Haw.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting certification of these class and subclasses: The Class: "all aconsumers within the meaning of H.R.S. Chapter 480 who owned real property in Hawaii and who were subjected to a notice of foreclosure sale under H.R.S. section 667-5 prepared by Derek Wong or the law firm of Routh Crabtree & Olson by or on behalf of Defendant PNC (or NCB before right its merger with PNC) claiming for PNC or NCB the rights of a mortgage with a power of sale and as to whose property Defendant PNC or NCB thereby caused the sale or transfer of the property on or after September 9. 2009"; Subclass A consisting of: "all members of the class whose non-judicial auction sale was not held on both the date and location specified in the original published notice (i.e. either or both the date and/or location were changed), without one or more of the following conditions being satisfied (a) publication of the notice of the changed date or location in three successive weeks; (b) publication of a notice stating the new date and time for the sale at least 29 days after the first publication of such notice"; Subclass B consisting of: "all members of the Class whose Notice of Sale was published or posted for less time before the proposed of auction date than required for such publishing or posting by HRS Chapter 667, Part 1"; and Subclass C consisting of: "members of the Class whose Notice of Sale contained no "description" of the property within the meaning of HRS Section 667-7(a)(1) or only a "metes and bounds" or square footage description of the land". A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://is.gd/nrum8W at no charge. Attorneys for Plaintiffs: James J. Bickerton, Esq. Bridget Morgan, Esq. BICKERTON DANG LLLP Topa Finacial Center, Fort Street Tower 745 Fort Street, Suite 801 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: (808) 599 3811 Facsimile: (808) 694 3090 E-mail: bickerton@bsds.com morgan@bsds.com - and - John F. Perkin, Esq. PERKIN & FARIA 841 Bishop Street, Suite 1000 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: (808) 523 2300 - and - Van-Alan H. Shima, Esq. AFFINITY LAW GROUP 1188 Bishop Street, Suite 3408 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: (808) 545 4600 PPG PLAN ADMINISTRATOR: Bellon et al. Sue over Welfare Benefits --------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLES W. BELLON; ROBERT E. EAKIN; JUDY GAY BURKE; LOUISE NICHOLS; WILTON G. WALLACE; BERNADOT F. VEILLON; BARBARA BROWN; and ROBERT E. WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE PPG EMPLOYEE LIFE AND OTHER BENEFITS PLAN; PPG INDUSTRIES, INC.; and PPG PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, Defendants, Case No. 5:18-cv-114 (N.D. W.Va., July 12, 2018) seeks to restore and recover contractually vested retiree life insurance coverage and associated benefits under the PPG Employee Life and Other Benefits Plan, including its predecessor plans. According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were retired former salaried employees of the Defendants, and the surviving spouses and beneficiaries of the retired former employees who had worked in the Defendants' commodity chemicals business and who were, at retirement, eligible for and began receiving healthcare and life insurance as participants of the PPG Plan. On January 28, 2013, PPG Industries, Inc. merged its commodity chemicals business to form Axiall Corporation. As part of the merger, the Defendants unilaterally removed the Plaintiffs from the Plan in violation of the Plan terms, and transferred to Axiall the obligation to provide the Plaintiffs with retiree healthcare and life insurance coverage under the Plan. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act when the Defendants unilaterally remove the Plaintiffs as plan participants on January 28, 2013 and transferring then to Axiall's Plan. PPG Industries, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, doing business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Adams, Esq. HINERMAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC P.O. Box 2465 Weirton, WV 26062 Telephone: (304) 723-7201 Facsimile: (304) 723-7203 E-mail: maa@hinermanlaw.com - and - John Stember, Esq. Maureen Davidson-Welling, Esq. STEMBER COHN & DAVIDSON-WELLING, LLC The Hartley Rose Building 425 First Avenue, 7th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 338-1445 Facsimile: (412) 338-1446 E-mail: jstember@stembercohn.com mdw@stembercohn.com -and- James T. Carney, Esq. 845 Northridge Drive Pittsburgh, PA 15216 Telephone: (412) 561-0533 E-mail: jtcarney10@comcast.net PRECISION FOCUS: Underpays Security Personnel, Jordan Craft Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JORDAN CRAFT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRECISION FOCUS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. DC-18-08758 (Tex. Dist. Ct., 298th Judicial, Dallas County, July 5, 2018) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Craft was employed by the Defendant as a security personnel. Precision Focus, LLC is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of the state of Texas with its principal place of business located at 1800 Valley View Lane, Suite 300, Dallas, Texas 75234. The Company provides security services to various venues. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Scott, Esq. Javier Perez, Esq. Carson D. Bridges, Esq. SCOTT PEREZ LLP 900 Jackson Street, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 965-9675 Facsimile: (214) 965-9680 E-mail: matt.scott@scottperezlaw.com javier.perez@scottperezlaw.com carson.bridges@scottperezlaw.com PRO LABEL: Thomas Melzer Alleges Time-Shaving --------------------------------------------- THOMAS MELZER on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PRO LABEL, INC., 2915 North Progress Drive Appleton, Wisconsin 54911, the Defendant, Case No. 1:18-cv-01080 (E.D. Wisc., July 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid agreed upon wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and/or any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws. According to the complaint, Defendant operated (and continues to operate) an unlawful compensation system that deprived and failed to compensate all current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees for all hours worked and work performed each workweek, including at an overtime rate of pay, by shaving time from employees' timesheets by impermissibly rounding recorded hours of work for its own benefit (and to the detriment of employees), and failing to compensate employees when compensable work commenced and ceased.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott S. Luzi, Esq. James A. Walcheske, Esq. Scott S. Luzi, Esq. David M. Potteiger, Esq. Matthew J. Tobin, Esq. WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC 15850 W. Bluemound Rd., Suite 304 Brookfield, WI 53005 Telephone: (262) 780 1953 Facsimile: (262) 565 6469 E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com mtobin@walcheskeluzi.com QUORUM HEALTH: Zwick Partners et al. Seek to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled ZWICK PARTNERS, LP and APARNA RAO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUORUM HEALTH CORPORATION, COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., WAYNE T. SMITH, W. LARRY CASH, THOMAS D. MILLER, and MICHAEL J. CULOTTA, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02475 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order certifying their case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and appointing Zwick Partners, LP as Class Representative, and Pomerantz LLP as Class Counsel. A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://is.gd/F2mIEi at no charge. Lead Counsel and Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff: Michael J. Wernke, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Michael J. Wernke, Esq. Marc C. Gorrie, Esq. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661 1100 Facsimile: (212) 661 8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com mjwernke@pomlaw.com mgorrie@pomlaw.com pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com Liaison Counsel: Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq. Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq. BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES 40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200 P.O. Box 150734 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 248 2828 Facsimile: (866) 816 4116 E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com Attorneys for Aparna Rao: Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392 0090 Facsimile: (770) 392 0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com R.J. DELIVERY: Underpays Movers & Helpers, Campos Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- GARY HIDALGO CAMPOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R.J. DELIVERY SERVICES, INC., and JOSEPH CAIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-04001 (E.D.N.Y., July 12, 2018) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Campos was employed by the Defendants as mover/helper. R.J. Delivery Services, Inc. is a domestic business corporation with its principal office located at Two Baker Lane, Levittown, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey Stark, Esq. COREY STARK PLLC 110 East 59th Street, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 324-3705 RCD INC: Hermenegildo Seeks to Certify FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled KEVIN HERMENEGILDO, Individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. RC&D, INC. and JAMES HENEBURY, Individually and in his capacity as CEO and Vice President of RC&D, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-00103-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action of: "all individuals employed as Laborers (or other comparable positions) who were employed by Defendants and were subject to the following common practices and/or policies of Defendants at any time from three (3) years before the filing of the Complaint to the present: a) Who worked on prevailing rate jobs for Defendants in Massachusetts and/or Rhode Island; and b) who were paid IRS Form W-2 compensation; and c) who's fringe benefit deductions were higher than the employees actual cost; and d) who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek; and e) were not paid at least one and one-half times of their prevailing rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek"; 2. authorizing Plaintiffs' counsel to a) mail and/or email the Notice of Pendency of Lawsuit and the Plaintiff Consent to Sue Form to all putative class members, b) post the Notice and Consent forms on Plaintiffs' Counsel's firm's website and/or a website created specifically for the purpose of putting prospective class members on notice of this action and providing the option to execute opt-in consent forms electronically on-line; and, c) send follow up post cards and/or emails to any class members who have not responded within 30 days after the mailing and/or emailing of the initial notice; 3. directing Defendants to post the Notice and Consent forms in conspicuous locations in all its worksites within 30 days including, at a minimum, the lunch room bulletin board or bulletin board where job notices are posted, if any, and in the same areas in which it is required to post FLSA notices; and 4. directing Defendant to provide Plaintiffs' counsel with the names and last known addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers of all putative class members within 30 days, and also provide the dates of birth and last four digits of the social security number of any potential class member whose notice is returned by the post office within 30 days of a request by Plaintiffs' counsel, so that Plaintiffs’ counsel may provide effective notice to the putative class members. A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://is.gd/S4TEn4 at no charge. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Geoffrey M. Aptt, Esq. DARROWEVERETT LLP One Turks Head Place, Suite 1200 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 453 1200 Facsimile: (401) 453 1201 E-mail: gaptt@darroweverett.com ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Too Files Securities Suit Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ah Kit Too, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rockwell Medical, Inc., Robert L. Chioini and Thomas E. Klema, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-04253 (E.D. N.Y., July 27, 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. Rockwell operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical company targeting end-stage renal and chronic kidney diseases in the United States and internationally. Its lead branded drug is Triferic, an iron maintenance therapy that replaces the iron lost by patients during hemodialysis treatment, a dialysis treatment. Rockwelk allegedly failed to disclose that Medicare and Medicaid Services will not pursue its proposal for separate reimbursement for Triferic, that the estimated reserves in the Q1 2018 10-Q are misstated and that there was a material weakness in Rockwell's internal controls over financial reporting. On this news, shares of Rockwell fell $0.85 per share, or over 16%, over two consecutive trading days to close at $4.41 per share on June 28, 2018, damaging investors including the Plaintiff. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq. Laurence J. Hasson, Esq. Daniel Sadeh, Esq. BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-1414 Facsimile: (212) 779-3218 Email: bernstein@bernlieb.com lhasson@bernlieb.com dsadeh@bernlieb.com ROYAL WINNIPEG: National Student Class Action Certified ------------------------------------------------------- A national class action against the Royal Winnipeg Ballet and Bruce Monk was certified on June 27, 2018. Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation represents the Plaintiffs. The class action alleges that Bruce Monk, while a teacher and photographer at the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, took naked, semi-naked, and sexualized photographs of Royal Winnipeg Ballet students, some of which he published, sold, and disseminated on-line. It is alleged that Monk did this without the consent of the class members. None of the allegations have been proven in court, and the Defendants deny liability. The class action is brought on behalf of all persons who attended the Royal Winnipeg Ballet School (the "School") from 1984 to 2015 and who, while enrolled at the School, were photographed by Bruce Monk in a private setting. These class members are defined as the "Student Class." The Student Class includes a "Privacy Subclass" comprised of all members of the Student Class whose intimate photographs taken by Bruce Monk were posted on the internet, sold, published or otherwise displayed in a public setting. A "Family Law Class" was also certified, which includes all dependants of members of the Student Class, as defined by s.61 of the Family Law Act, RSO 1990, c. F.3. This may include spouses, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters. The class action further alleges that Monk breached his fiduciary duty to the students, and committed breaches of confidence and trust. It alleges that Monk intruded upon the seclusion of the students, invaded their privacy, and committed the tort of public disclosure of private facts. The class action seeks damages against Monk for the harm he caused by taking these photographs of students. It also seeks damages against Monk for the further harm he caused when he posted the images online, making them widely available to view and, in some cases, selling them online. The class action is also brought against Monk's employer, the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, on the basis of its vicarious liability for the tortious conduct of its teacher, for its own systemic negligence in failing to properly supervise Monk's conduct, and for turning a blind eye to Monk's improper conduct. Individuals who think that they may be class members are encouraged to contact Waddell Phillips Barristers. Additional information about the action, including further details about how class members are impacted by the certification decision, or how they may exclude themselves from the action, and a confidential inquiry form are available at http://waddellphillips.ca/class-actions/royal-winnipeg-ballet-class-action/. [GN] SALESUMO LLC: Pino Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Premiums ----------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Pino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Andrew C. Jacob and Kristin Austin, husband and wife, Brian D. Lesk and SaleSumo, LLC, a Wyoming Limited Liability Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-02364, (D. Ariz., July 27, 2018), seeks unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Defendants own/operate SaleSumo, a company that sells new, reconditioned, and certified tools and home improvement items. Pino worked in Defendants' warehouse unloading trucks and pallets of products to sell, assisting customers, and loading customers' cars with purchased items. He worked 47 hours per week, arrived and began working 10 minutes before his scheduled start time, stayed between fifteen and twenty minutes after the end of each shift and worked through his 30 minutes lunch break most of the time, says the complaint. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq. Kaitlyn A. Redfield-Ortiz, Esq. Stanley Lubin, Esq. LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C. 349 North Fourth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505 Telephone: (602) 234-0008 Facsimile: (602) 626-3586 Email: nick@lubinandenoch.com SECURUS TECH: Romero et al. Renew Bid to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit captioned JUAN ROMERO, FRANK TISCARENO, and KENNETH ELLIOT, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01283-JM-MDD (S.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order granting their renewed motion for class certification. The Plaintiffs further ask the Court to certify that individual Plaintiffs Juan Romero, Frank Tiscareno, and Kenneth Elliot, are representatives of the plaintiff class(es) and their counsel of record, The Law Office of Robert L. Teel, The Law Office of Ronald A. Marron, APLC and Foley & Lardner, LLP, are certified as counsel for the plaintiff class(es). A copy of the Notice of Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://is.gd/OKjbwn at no charge. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Mark Waxman, Esq. Nicholas J. Fox, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 3579 Valley Centre Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 847 6700 Facsimile: (858) 792 6773 E-mail: mwaxman@foley.com nfox@foley.com - and - Robert L. Teel, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. TEEL 1425 Broadway, Mail Code: 20-6690 Seattle, WA 98122 Telephone: (866) 833 5529 Facsimile: (855) 609 6911 E-mail: lawoffice@rlteel.com - and - Eileen R. Ridley, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 California Street, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94104-1520 Telephone: (415) 434-4484 Facsimile: (415) 434-4507 E-mail: eridley@foley.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696 9006 Facsimile: (619) 564 6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com SERVICE CORP: Trinidad Seeks Overtime Compensation under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- REYNALDO TRINIDAD, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SERVICE CORP. d/b/a THE BLACK LODGE and MAMAN & MIMI; and HAMIMI JACQUES OUARI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-06399 (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the collective class work or have worked at the restaurants controlled and operated by Ouari. The Defendants have engaged in their unlawful conduct pursuant to a corporate policy of minimizing labor costs and denying employees compensation. Defendants' unlawful conduct has been intentional, willful and in bad faith, and has caused significant damage to Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 225 Broadway, 3rd Floor New York, NY 100017 Telephone: (212) 323 6980 E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com SEWARD PARK: Averts Homeowners' Suit Over Parking Spaces -------------------------------------------------------- Rich Bockmann, writing for The Real Deal, reports that lawyers who demanded half a million dollars in legal fees from co-op owners at Seward Park on the Lower East Side were looking to carry out "highway robbery without the six-gun," a Manhattan judge said. Attorneys from Greenberg Traurig asked Supreme Court Judge Arthur Engoron to force four Seward Park co-op owners to fork over $464,000 in legal fees, the New York Post reported. The homeowners sued the management over parking spaces, and Greenberg attorneys representing the building won a preliminary motion to dismiss the case. But Judge Engoron noted that the "staggering sum" was enough to buy a one-bedroom apartment in an Upper East Side doorman building or a four-bedroom home in Nassau County. "By requesting astronomical fees, attorneys are in danger of killing the goose that laid the golden egg," Judge Engoron wrote in his ruling, in which he clipped the fees by nearly 40 percent to $175,000. A spokesperson for Greenberg Traurig said the company "respectfully disagree[s] with the characterization of our firm's fees in this matter on which our client prevailed." Tom Stebbins, executive director of the nonprofit Lawsuit Reform Alliance of New York advocacy organization, agreed with Judge Engoron's view that attorney fees have gotten out of control. "We continually hear stories of law firms over-billing by hundreds of thousands of dollars and class action lawyers that pocket the majority of large settlements, leaving little or nothing for the plaintiffs," he told the Post. In an unrelated matter, the Seward Park board voted against selling the property's development rights to the Ascend group for $54 million. [GN] SI PROPERTIES: Nash Alleges Unsafe & Unsanitary Housing ------------------------------------------------------- SHONT AE NASH, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, and IREN FLOWERS, the Plaintiffs, v. SARGON ISAAC, individually and d/b/a "SI Properties" ) and/or "Simla Properties," and BIG TREE HOMES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2018CH08864 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cty., July 16, 2018), seeks to put a stop to Sargon Isaac's racism, and compel him to provide to his tenants the equitable, safe, and sanitary housing required by the law. According to the complaint, Sargon Isaac is a slumlord with an empire of crumbling properties across Chicago and Evanston. He rents damaged houses and apartments which are barely habitable, if at all. Most, if not all, of his properties have infestations, mold problems, water damage, and/or sewage leaks. He doesn't fix those problems, though -- instead, he simply demands rent. And if his tenants withhold rent based on the conditions in the apartment, or complain repeatedly about those conditions, Sargon evicts them. He's filed dozens of evictions in the last 18 months, representing himself in most of them. But Sargon is more than a slumlord. Sargon doesn't return security deposits, doesn't pay security deposit interest, and on move-out charges tenants to fix problems which existed when they moved in. But he will repair the problems in the units of his white tenants. He will work with his white tenants if they fall behind on rent. But if the tenant is a person of color, Sargon harasses them, refusing to make repairs and charging hundreds of dollars for the few repairs he does make.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sheryl Ring, Esq. Christopher Riehlmann, Esq. OPEN COMMUNITIES LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 990 Grove Street, Suite 500 Evanston, IL 60201 Telephone: (847) 501 5760 E-mail: sheryl@open-communities.org SILVERSTAR DELIVERY: Wasilewski Seeks to Certify Employees Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled MITCHELL WASILEWSKI, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown, the Plaintiff, v. SILVERSTAR DELIVERY LTD, an Illinois for-profit company, GOLD STANDARD TRANSPORTATION, INC., an Illinois for-profit company, and AMAZON.COM, LLC, a Delaware for-profit company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:18-cv-12167-AJT-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for 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); permit a 60-day period for additional plaintiffs to join this litigation; order 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; require the proposed notice to be posted in Defendants' workplaces (away from view of customers but in a common place for its employees to view); and grant the other relief described therein." A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://is.gd/CSEcfy at no charge. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Bryan Yaldou, Esq. 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 SKYLINE FINANCIAL: Abdus-Salaam Seeks to Certify FLSA Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled BARDARIAN ABDUS-SALAAM, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SKYLINE FINANCIAL CORP., the Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-01136-M (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of: "all current and former Loan Officers Defendant has employed in the last three years"; 2. directing Defendant to provide Plaintiff with the names, last known address, dates of employment, work location, telephone number, and e-mail address for all those similarly situated employees in an electronic format (e.g., Excel) within 10 days after the Court's Order; and 3. directing issuance of Plaintiff's proposed Notice to all such similarly situated employees. A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://is.gd/8OSK8b at no charge. Attorneys for Plaintiff: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749 1400 Facsimile: (214) 749 1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com - and - Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC www.rmlegalgroup.com 8201 Mission Road, Suite 250 Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 766 5585 Facsimile: (816) 875 5069 E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com SOCAL GAS: Judge Orders Key Witness to Testify in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Scauzillo, writing for Daily News, reports that after nearly three years since the largest gas blowout in U.S. history, residents of Porter Ranch still worry whether their health will be compromised five, 10 or 20 years down the road after breathing in not just methane gas, but an array of toxic, often cancer-causing chemicals spewed from an underground gas storage facility in and around their suburban neighborhood. A key part of their quest is finding out what caused their nosebleeds, headaches, nausea and a few cases of cancer. One answer may lie in the amount of benzene, formaldehyde, arsenic and hydrogen sulfide that accompanied a four-month, uncontrolled natural gas leak from Oct. 23, 2015 until Feb. 2016. But so far, that information has been hard to come by. Until Wednesday, July 25, when a key witness was expected to testify at a morning hearing on the chemicals released during the natural gas leak. Break in case A break came during a class-action lawsuit representing about 9,000 residents when attorneys questioned the principal engineer of the chemical and environmental section of the engineering analysis center for SoCalGas about benzene and other air toxics, testing protocols and air monitoring. The testimony -- a potential gold mine for the plaintiffs — suddenly dried up when a phalanx of Gas Co. attorneys used multiple strategies to muzzle their employee, thereby preventing May Lew from further testifying. After months of legal maneuvering, Judge Lisa Hart Cole on July 23 ruled against the Gas Co., ordering the witness to testify on July 25 in a Los Angeles Superior Court courtroom. The exact time and place was still unknown. The ruling sets up a showdown between the gas company and the residents of Porter Ranch. Her testimony alone could provide evidence of toxic chemical releases, possibly linked to illnesses and negligence. The entire case may hang on Lew's testimony, which would determine the amount of damages granted residents in the event of a favorable judgment. "It is a billion dollar answer," said Rex Parris, lead attorney for the 9,000 plaintiffs, who is also the mayor of Lancaster, a city with a strong environmental mantra. In a case that could reach up to 30,000 claimants, Parris said he's asking for between $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion. "It depends on whether they settle or go to trial." Why is Lew's testimony important? There are two reasons why Lew's testimony may be the most important part of the nearly year-long case. First, she's the principal engineer in charge of monitoring what elements are contained in the natural gas that gets pumped into the wells. By listing her responsibilities, it solidified her importance to the case, he said. "There is not a more important witness," he said. "Her name appears on 1,700 emails." The Gas Co. declined to answer questions about the importance of Lew or her role within the company. Court documents show Gas Co. attorneys, including Collie James IV of Morgan Lewis, objected 342 times within Lew's 4.5-hour deposition, something Paris called "an abuse of discovery." Court records show the Gas Co. attorneys tried to put a time limit on the engineer's future testimony, said she was too tired to continue and then withdrew her name entirely. In a last-ditch effort, they said she could re-take the witness stand only if the plaintiff's main attorney, Parris, would be barred from participating. "The refusal to offer a witness prevents cross-examination on the most critical issue for proving health problems -- the toxic chemicals in the gas at Aliso Canyon," he wrote in a brief from June 5. Gas Co. attorneys also tried to keep Parris out of the courtroom by accusing him of badgering the witness in an abusive manner, "mocking her for her inability to remember documents," court records show. Parris denied the accusations, saying in an interview that the lawyers for the Gas Co. never mentioned this claim until after they tried keeping Lew from the witness stand. "I was very nice to this witness," he said. In her ruling, Judge Hart reprimanded the Gas Co., saying the lawyers for the defense must "refrain from coaching the witness or making nuisance objections." She also denied their request to bar Parris, setting up what many believe will be a fiery but informative exchange that could take days. "This is the person they designated, the person most qualified to testify on the components of the gas," he said. "And now, the court says she testifies. He is going to tell me on the 25th what they tested for and why they stopped and why aren't they testing for it now?" Second, she's testified about monitoring for impurities, such as benzene, a very toxic, carcinogenic substance found in gasoline, at first saying there were only "trace" amounts of benzene, then saying the levels ranged from 1 part per million to nine parts per million. Since the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) set the exposure limit at 1 part per billion (with a "b"), the exposure mentioned by Lew would be 9,000 times higher than what the state deemed safe. The state arrived at that reference level in 2014 in order to "protect infants, children and other sensitive subpopulations," according to the OEHHA website. During the blowout that left 100,000 metric tons of methane in the air and sent many to the emergency room, Parris said benzene leaked into the air at a rate of 249 parts per million. Long-term effects of benzene can cause cancer by curtailing the amount of red blood cells and bone marrow, which can lead to leukemia. The residents have asked independent doctors to take their blood and evaluate their health. The amount and time of exposure, as well as the individual's health, are critical factors, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In acute exposure, people may vomit, feel dizzy or experience a rapid heart beat. The Gas Co. released a statement, saying the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the OEHHA and the Los Angeles County Department of Health took samples during the leak and months after and found no "long-term risk to public health or safety from the gas leak. "Furthermore, OEHHA concluded 'nearly all measured benzene emissions from concentrations in the Porter Ranch community during the leak are similar to background levels generally found in the Los Angeles area," continued the response. Was testing done often enough? Lew initially testified the Gas Co. did not test for benzene or other toxics, such as formaldehyde, according to court records, later saying they did but stopped. One of the line of questions on will be about the components of the gas leak? "Aren't they obligated to test for what's leaking into the neighborhood? Their solution to this problem is turning a blind eye to it," Mr. Parris said. [GN] SOUTH KOREA: Top Court Delays Ruling in Human Rights Case --------------------------------------------------------- Kang Hyun-kyung, writing for The Korea Times, reports that the Constitutional Court is poised to conclude another milestone conscientious objection case, weeks after a historic June 28 ruling where it overturned South Korea's long-standing stance to alternative military service. The top court will wrap up a class-action complaint filed in 2011 by 433 conscience objectors who claimed that they were human rights victims but that they were unable to get adequate compensation from the government because of the absence of legislation. Those who filed the complaint urged the top court to take necessary measures, so the government could compensate them and expunge their criminal records. The court is likely to conclude the case before September when a major reshuffle is expected to take place. Court President Lee Jin-sung and four other Constitutional Court judges are to be replaced in September as their tenure ends. "At the moment, it's the longest pending case in the Constitutional Court," said Oh Du-jin, a lawyer who represents the 433 conscientious objectors. He cautiously revealed optimism, saying hope is in the air. "It remains to be seen how the court will conclude on the case. Having seen how the court has responded to prior cases regarding conscience objection to military service, however, I'm optimistic about the results. I wouldn't rule out the possibility the court may rule in favor of my clients." The 433 people, who filed the class-action petition, were convicted in different time periods after refusing to follow the enlistment notice to serve in the military and were then imprisoned. They claim that they refused military service because of their religious beliefs but were willing to take alternative service outside the military. Due to the absence of alternative service back then, their voices were not heard and they were given jail terms. They call their imprisonment "arbitrary detention" by the Korean government. The pending case has drawn the keen attention from the public following the top court's historic ruling on conscientious objection to military on June 28. Oh, who has represented conscientious objectors since 2008 when he served as a legal trainee after passing the state bar exam, said the Constitutional Court's June 28 ruling is meaningful because it ended decades of brutal persecution of conscientious objectors. "Since the 1950s, some 20,000 conscientious objectors have been persecuted as their freedom of religion, thoughts and conscience was not recognized," he said. "Some families see grandfather, father and son imprisoned in different time periods for their refusal to serve in the military for their religious belief." Many conscientious objectors are Jehovah's Witnesses. The 433 people, who were convicted and then imprisoned before the June 28 ruling, individually took the case to the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2011. There are some 50 others who followed this course. They asked the U.N. body to review if the government's punitive measures were appropriate. After reviewing the case for years, the committee ruled in 2014 in favor of the South Korean petitioners, urging the South Korean government to expunge their criminal records and give them adequate compensation. The committee identified the Koreans as conscience objectors and punishing them for their refusal to comply with military service, despite their willingness to take alternative service outside the military, was a violation of their basic human rights. However, the committee's decision was not binding. Along with the European Commission for Democracy through Law's milestone ruling against Armenia in 2011 regarding its treatment of conscientious objectors, the U.N. committee's decision has had a significant impact on South Korean judges. Inside the court, there are several groups where judges have regular meetings to discuss issues related to legal issues, including conscientious objection. The International Human Rights Law Study Group is one of them. Judges there were greatly affected by the European commission's decision on the Armenian case and rulings in favor of conscientious objectors followed. In 2015, 85 conscientious objectors received not guilty verdicts in district and higher courts, although the rulings were overturned at the Supreme Court as South Korea didn't allow alternative military service back then. The Constitutional Court's June 28 ruling came against this backdrop. Oh took the top court's delaying tactic regarding the 433 conscientious objectors-led class-action complaint as a positive signal for his clients. "Technically speaking, it's not a hard case," he said. "But for some reason, the court kept trying to buy time and made it the longest pending case. If they're going to throw it away and rule against the 433 people, I think the court members would have concluded the case much earlier." Oh stated the Constitutional Court appears to view the ruling on the case as an opportunity to lift its international profile as a frontier in human rights. The lawyer linked the pending class-action complaint to the top court's ambition to set up a regional judiciary institution for human rights -- Asia's equivalent of the European Commission for Democracy through Law. "Asia is the only continent that has no regional human rights commission. Europe has it, the Americas have it and even in Africa, there's a regional human rights commission, although each of them is named differently," said Oh. The Constitutional Court reportedly has been pushing for the establishment of the regional judiciary institution in Korea since Lee Kang-kook took the helm between 2007 and 2013. In September 2014, then Court President Park Han-cheol officially proposed the idea during his key note speech to a World Conference on Constitutional Justice meeting in Seoul. He said the time was ripe for constitutional courts in Asia to initiate a debate for the establishment of a human rights commission in Asia. "We, Asians, have watched and experienced traumatic wars and their brutal consequences on human rights and the pain is still ongoing," Park said. "(If the regional judiciary institution is set up), it will help prevent the repetition of such traumatic human rights violations." South Korea needs credentials in its human rights record to make their voice heard. Oh said the court's recent ruling on conscientious objection to military service would help build Korea's credentials. "There's no doubt if the court rules in favor of conscientious objectors' plea for necessary legislative steps, this will also help the court have a greater say in its push for the human rights commission agenda," he said. A rocky road is ahead of the Constitutional Court's push for the regional human rights commission. Most notably, Japan, one of the two key players in Asia along with China, and a war criminal responsible for numerous wartime human rights violations, is unlikely to be enthusiastic about the establishment of the human rights commission. [GN] SPECIALIZED LOAN: Quinn's Bid to Certify Class Under Advisement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on July 31, 2018, in the case entitled Thomas Quinn, et al. v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02021 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo. The minute entry states that: -- Plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of time to file reply for summary judgment is granted; -- Plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended response to statement of facts is granted; -- Plaintiff's motion for leave to file certain exhibits under seal is granted; and -- Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is taken under advisement, with briefing schedule to be set after disposition of summary judgment motions. STARBUCKS CORP: Must Pay Workers for Off-Clock Work, Court Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Cahill, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in a decision that could trickle down to other giant retailers operating in the Golden State, the California Supreme Court said on July 26 that Starbucks should be paying workers for menial tasks like closing and locking up stores. A class of hourly workers sued Starbucks in Los Angeles County in 2012, saying it regularly requires employees to clock out before actually finishing their shifts. Lead plaintiff Douglas Troester guesses he was stiffed four to 10 minutes' pay each shift and that Starbucks owes him $102 over a 17-month stretch. He argued that on a daily basis he had to set his store's security alarm, lock doors and make sure employees found their rides safely -- all after officially clocking out. The seven-justice panel roasted the Seattle company on July 26, unanimously agreeing those minutes "add up" for minimum and low-wage workers. "This is enough to pay a utility bill, buy a week of groceries or cover a month of bus fares," wrote Justice Goodwin H. Liu for the panel. The Ninth Circuit directed the state's high court to weigh in on whether a longstanding federal law allowing businesses to excuse small amounts of time from paychecks falls in line with California's stringent employment framework. At issue for the San Francisco-based high court was the federal "de minimis doctrine," which was enacted in 1961 and doesn't require payment for bits of off-the-clock work. In court Starbucks said the doctrine, which is supposed to be used sparingly and not arbitrarily, should apply to Troester and its thousands of California employees. But the justices said California employment law doesn't explicitly mention the federal law and that Starbucks can't cite "statutory or regulatory history" to prove the Legislature meant to adopt de minimis. In a statement, Starbucks indicated its displeasure with the justices' answer to the Ninth Circuit. "We are disappointed with the court's decision. We will await further disposition of the case before the Ninth Circuit as the appeal process continues." The July 26 answer appears to be a major win for hourly workers in California, but the state justices were careful to add that de minimis could apply in other state employment cases "given the wide range of scenarios in which this issue arises." Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar tempered the unanimous ruling in his concurring opinion, saying there is wiggle room for businesses and that they shouldn't be expected to "measure every last morsel of employees' time." "But what we must avoid in addressing these concerns -- and in construing the body of law the majority opinion interprets today -- is building a rickety skyscraper on a muddy swamp by relying on an administrability rationale too precarious to offer much meaningful analytical structure to a rule of reason," Justice Cuellar wrote. The class action appeal must still be decided by the Ninth Circuit. SUMMIT CASING: Rains Labor Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Jayson Rains, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Summit Casing Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 18-cv-00609, (N.D. Tex., July 27, 2018), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Summit Casing Services, LLC manufactures and markets downhole tools used in oil and gas drilling and exploration where Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an inspector from 2014 to 2016, inspecting and testing the drilling equipment Defendant manufactures. The complaint says Summit paid Rains an hourly rate but did not pay him overtime for his hours in excess of forty per week. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885-8844 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 Email: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com - and - John Neuman, Esq. SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 5612 Chaucer Drive Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (281) 885-8630 Facsimile: (281) 885-8813 Email: jneuman@smnlawfirm.com SUNWORKS UNITED: Naiman Sues over Unwanted Telephone Calls ---------------------------------------------------------- SIDNEY NAIMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUNWORKS UNITED, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-04272 (N.D. Cal., July 16, 2018), seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and related regulations, specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. According to the complaint, the Defendant used an "automatic telephone dialing system" as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(a)(1) to place its call to Plaintiff seeking to solicit its services. Defendant contacted or attempted to contact Plaintiff from telephone number (707) 414-8648 confirmed to be Defendant's number. Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A). The Defendant's calls were placed to telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiff incurs a charge for incoming calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1). During all relevant times, Defendant did not possess Plaintiff's "prior express consent" to receive calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on his cellular telephone pursuant to 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A).[BN] Attorneys for Plaintiff: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Tom E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com SYNERGIES3 TEC: Jones Seeks to Certify Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled STEPHEN JONES, the Plaintiff, v. SYNERGIES3 TEC SERVICES, LLC, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:18-cv-01161-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. conditionally certifying the case as a collective action and authorizing Plaintiff to send notice under section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act to: "all current and former satellite television installation technicians employed in Missouri, Illinois and Nebraska (collectively "the Technicians") at any time during the last three years"; and 2. directing Defendants to provide Plaintiff with a computer- readable data file containing the name, last known address and dates of employment for each such Technician, to conspicuously post notice of this case in the company's break rooms, and to disseminate notice with paychecks and/or pay stubs. A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://is.gd/YQE4Pt at no charge. Attorneys for Plaintiff: Mark Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com - and - Eli Karsh, Esq. LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH South Bemiston Ave., Suite 1200 Clayton, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 862 3333 Facsimile: (314) 863 0605 E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com - and - Richard T. Grossman, Esq. GROSSMAN LAW FIRM 230 S. Bemiston Ave., Suite 1200 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 261 7323 E-mail: Rick@grossmanlawfirm.com THORN GROUP: Aug. 9 Hearing Set to Resolve Outstanding Issues ------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Bencic, writing for Appliance Retailer, reports that process could take years. The Federal Court of Australia will hold an interlocutory hearing on 9 August 2018 to resolve outstanding issues between Thorn Australia and law firm, Maurice Blackburn in respect to Thorn's class action for misleading consumers. The matter was also tentatively fixed for hearing for two weeks commencing on 17 June 2019. In a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), Thorn Group said, "While Thorn Australia will continue to defend the claim in the ordinary course of the class action process, that process could take a significant length of time, perhaps years, to run its course, is a management distraction and exposes the group to significant legal and advisory fees. "As with all major litigation, the company is unable to make any statements or predictions as to the outcomes that may eventuate." Maurice Blackburn launched a class action in the Federal Court of Australia on 29 March 2017 seeking compensation for over 200,000 consumers who entered into 'Rent Try $1 Buy' leases with Radio Rentals between 28 March 2011 and 29 March 2017. At the time, the law firm said that if the class action was successful at trial or a settlement with Radio Rentals was reached, eligible group members would be paid compensation. The matter involves Radio Rentals stores owned and operated by the Thorn Group in states other than South Australia. The South Australian Radio Rentals brand is not associated in any way. In South Australia, Thorn Group stores trade as Rentlo Reinvented. [GN] TICKETMASTER: Offers Freebies, Discounts as Part of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- Doreen Christensen, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that if you bought tickets on Ticketmaster.com between 1999 and 2013, you may be eligible for free concert tickets and discounts. Ticketmaster has settled a class action lawsuit and is offering the freebies and discounts as part of the settlement Eligible members of the class get one ticket voucher for each Ticketmaster.com purchase made during the class period, up to a maximum of 17 ticket vouchers, during the 14-year period. A $5 discount if UPS delivery was used, up to 17, and a $2.50 discount code per transaction, up to 17, for each Ticketmaster.com purchase during the class period. Codes can be redeemed through June 18, 2020. Check for eligibility: Log in to your Ticketmaster account to view your vouchers. If you are a class member, Ticket Vouchers will be found in your account. Who is eligible: Consumers who bought tickets on Ticketmaster.com between October 21, 1999,and February 27, 2013. Email ticketfeelitigation@gcginc.com to see if you're eligible. Redeeming codes: Make note of your voucher codes and visit the eligible event at settlement.livenation.com/#events to redeem them. What's this about: Schlesinger v. Ticketmaster class action lawsuit was filed in 2003 alleging that Ticketmaster failed to fully disclose to consumers all aspects of its UPS and order processing fees. For more information go to Settlement.livenation.com [GN] TOPPS TOWING: Sosa Seeks Payment of Minimum & OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------ KEVIN SOSA, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. TOPPS TOWING, INC., A Florida Profit Corporation; and DANIEL BOURGET, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 8:18-cv-01719-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., July 16, 2018), seeks to recover minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Defendants operate as a towing services and road side assistance company. The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per week as part of his regular job duties. Despite working more than 40 hours per week, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff proper overtime compensation at a rate of one and one-half times hos regular rate of pay for the hours that he worked over 40 in each work week.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chanelle J. Ventura, Esq. Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318 0268 Facsimile: (954) 327 3039 E-mail: cventura@forthepeople.com afrisch@forthepeople.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Cardenas & Kirton Suit over Defective HVAC -------------------------------------------------------------- JAVIER CARDENAS and KURT KIRTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and SOUTHEAST TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:18-cv-22798-FAM (S.D. Fla., July 12, 2018) is an action against the Defendants' fraudulent activities, unfair trade practices, violation of the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Practices Organizations Act, and conspiracy to conceal a known defect in millions of 2012–2017 Toyota Camrys sold in the United States. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the 2012–2017 Toyota Camrys contain a defective Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning System that fails to properly remove all humidity and water and emits foul, noxious, and toxic odors into the vehicles' passenger compartments when the Defective HVAC System is in use. The defect has caused the 2012–2017 Toyota Camrys to emit foul, noxious, and toxic odors into the vehicles and exposing vehicle occupants to a health and safety hazard. Toyota Motor Corporation designs, manufactures, assembles, and sells passenger vehicles, minivans and commercial vehicles, and related parts and accessories. The company was founded in 1933 and is headquartered in Toyota, Japan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Prieto, Esq. John Gravante, III, Esq. Matthew Weinshall, Esq. Alissa Del Riego, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. One S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com jgravante@podhurst.com mweinshall@podhurst.com adelriego@podhurst.com - and - Peter A. Muhic, Esq. Tyler S. Graden, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 - and - Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. Jeffrey A. Konciusn, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 TRUSTEDID INC: Williams Suit Transferred to S. Carolina Dist. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Theresa Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TrustedID, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2018-CP-40-03346 (S.C. Comm. Pleas), was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on July 27, 2018, under Case No. 18-cv-02077. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Andrew Maxfield, Esq. DAVID MAXFIELD ATTORNEY LLC PO Box 11865 Columbia, SC 29211 Tel: (803) 509-6800 Fax: (855) 299-1656 Email: dave@consumerlawsc.com TrustedID, Inc. is represented by: Rita Bolt Barker, Esq. WYCHE PA 44 E Camperdown Way PO Box 728 Greenville, SC 29601 Tel: (864) 242-8235 Email: rbarker@wyche.com UNITED STATES: 24 Montana Counties Joint PILT Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Perry Backus and Thomas Plank, writing for Helena Independent Record, report that Broadwater, Jefferson and Meagher counties are three of at least 24 counties in Montana that joined in a class action lawsuit seeking to recover back payments from the federal government's Payment in Lieu of Taxes program. The suit seeks to recover monies over a three-year period when the program wasn't fully funded by Congress. According to estimates compiled by the Montana Association of Counties, the under payments for 2015, 2016 and 2017 amount to $1.2 million in Montana. Authorized in 1976, the PILT program's payments are meant to help counties with federal lands within their borders offset property tax losses. This isn't the first time the federal government has underfunded PILT to local governments. The original language in the statute allowed for payments to be discretionary and subject to the annual congressional appropriations process. That changed in 2008 when Congress amended the PILT statute by mandating full funding through 2014. Due to insufficient appropriations for 2015-17, payments to the nearly 2,000 counties eligible for PILT were again underfunded due to insufficient appropriations. In 2017, Kane County, Utah, filed a lawsuit seeking to recover both its own underpayments and those of all other PILT recipients throughout that time period. Last December, a court ruled in favor of Kane County for the first two years and made a similar ruling on the 2017 underpayment in March. The court also certified the lawsuit as a class action. It ordered that an official notice be sent to each underpaid PILT recipient. So far, counties in 48 states have signed on to the class action, according to a website of the law firm handling the suit. The deadline for joining the class action is Sept. 14. Eric Bryson, executive director of the Montana Association of Counties, said the class action lawsuit came as bit of a surprise in June. "I don't think anyone of us knew that was there until we received notification from the law firm," Mr. Bryson said. "I don't know of any other county who knew this class action existed before then." The class action lawsuit is being handled by the Smith, Currie and Hancock firm that has offices across the country. For a list of counties nationwide that have opted to join so far, go to https://www.smithcurrie.com/pilt-counties/ The list of Montana counties on the site on July 17 did not include Ravalli County, which has joined the lawsuit, so it may not be complete. So far, it includes: Beaverhead County, Carbon County, Cascade County, Chouteau County, Fergus County, Gallatin County, Garfield County, Glacier County, Granite County, Hill County, Judith Basin County, Musselshell County, Park County, Powder River County, Ravalli County, Richland County, Rosebud County, Silver Bow County, Valley County and Yellowstone County. [GN] UNITED STATES: Immigrant Reunifications Must Be Transparent ----------------------------------------------------------- Bianca Bruno and Nathan Solis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a federal judge on July 24 praised the government's efforts to meet a court-ordered deadline to reunify families separated at the southwest border but sternly reminded government attorneys "this must be a transparent process." U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw "commended" the federal government for reunifying 1,012 families who were separated along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of President Donald Trump's zero tolerance policy on unauthorized immigration. The deadline for all 2,551 children over age five to be reunited with their parents was July 26. But Judge Sabraw did not mince words when addressing the government's failure to provide detailed lists to the American Civil Liberties Union -- which is representing the separated families in a class action out of the Southern District of California -- on how many parents have been deported without their kids, released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody or who signed waivers to be deported without their children. He called the separations the "deeply troubling reality of this case." "This should be a transparent process," Judge Sabraw said. "Some of this information is unpleasant. Large numbers of families were being separated without the forethought for reunification … it appears there is a large number of parents unaccounted for or removed without their child." Justice Department attorney Sarah Fabian could not provide the judge information on how many of the 463 parents not in the country -- after being deported or voluntarily departing -- had left the U.S. without their kids. Judge Sabraw pointed out the figure for parents no longer in the country "could be very significant" since it likely includes parents deported without their children before zero tolerance was formally implemented and there was infrastructure in place to keep track of parents and children. The number of parents who waived reunification with their children went down slightly -- down to 127 on July 24 from 130 parents reported in government figures on July 23. Fabian said this was because "some may have changed their mind" about releasing their kids to another relative and wished to be reunited with their children. Ms. Fabian said of the 900 parents with final orders of removal, about 20 had already been deported, but that she "would have to confirm" the figure. Hundreds of parents were still unaccounted for on July 24, either having been deported or voluntarily left the country or released by ICE custody and authorities could not get in contact with them to be reunited with their children. "What would be the explanation for not knowing where the parents are?" Judge Sabraw asked Ms. Fabian. Ms. Fabian said the parents could have been transferred into state custody and Health and Human Services officials were not updated. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt raised concerns about how the judge will rule on a motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent the government from immediately deporting families once they're reunited. The ACLU wants families to have seven days to decide how they want to proceed with asylum claims, including whether parents with removal orders might leave their children behind in the U.S. to pursue their own immigration cases. "Talking to people on the ground, things are really a mess on the ground," Mr. Gelernt said, noting the ACLU planned to submit affidavits from attorneys who had been working at family detention centers. Mr. Gelernt said the government is expected to house 700 family class members at a facility in south Texas and that there's "no way in a couple of days we can provide meaningful consultation" on legal rights to those families. Justice Department attorney Scott Stewart said the government "would take issue with the suggestion things are a mess on the ground, we strongly contest that characterization." Judge Sabraw was set to address the temporary restraining order at a status conference on July 27. Meanwhile, eight asylum seekers are suing a private prison group, the city of Adelanto and the federal government in a civil rights lawsuit over the conditions they experienced while in federal custody. Josue Mateo Lemus Campus, from El Salvador, and Alexander Antonio Burgos Mejia, from Honduras, were both detained in a private prison, operated by the GEO Group in San Bernardino County where they were pepper sprayed and beaten by guards for staging a hunger strike to protest the lack of medical care and edible food. The two men were joined by immigration advocates and faith-based leaders at a news conference on July 24. Their civil rights lawsuit seeks to bring an end to the mistreatment of asylum seekers, according to the complaint. They are represented by Los Angeles-based attorney Rachel Steinback. UNITED STATES: Misses Deadline to Reunify Immigrant Families ------------------------------------------------------------ Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the federal government did not meet a court-ordered deadline on July 26 to reunite all families with children over age five that were separated at the southwest border under President Donald Trump's "zero tolerance" immigration policy. U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of California ordered federal immigration officials to reunite all families separated at the U.S.-Mexico border by July 26. Children over five separated from their parents at the border number 2,551. By July 26, the government reported to Judge Sabraw it had reunited 1,442 of the kids with their parents in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. Another 378 children were "discharged in other appropriate circumstances," including being reunited with their parents outside custody or being taken in by a sponsor. The government claims the parents of 711 kids are either ineligible to be reunited or were "not available for discharge at this time." That figure includes 431 kids whose parents are "outside the U.S.," meaning they were either deported or voluntarily departed without their children. The Department of Homeland Security never did separate 20 of the 2,551 children from their parents, according to the government's status update. The July 26 deadline was the second in a class action brought by asylum-seeking families who were separated from their kids after crossing into the U.S. The government missed an earlier deadline to reunite families with children under age five as well. In response to the missed deadline, Judge Sabraw ordered DNA tests to streamline the process of reuniting the younger children with their parents as quickly as possible. In status conferences held in Judge Sabraw's downtown San Diego courtroom in the week leading up to the July 26 deadline, it became clear the government would be unlikely to reunite families in which the parents had been deported, had left the country voluntarily or had been released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. At a status conference July 24, Justice Department attorney Sarah Fabian could not provide details on how many parents had been deported without their kids or released from ICE custody. Judge Sabraw pointed out in court on July 24 the figure for parents no longer in the country "could be very significant" since it likely represents families separated and parents who were deported before zero tolerance was formally adopted. In a teleconference call on July 26, ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project attorney Lee Gelernt said his legal team still had not received a list from the government of families who had been reunited and where they were located. The ACLU represents the separated families in the class action lawsuit. Mr. Gelernt expressed dismay with the government's claim that it is "proud" of the work it's doing to reunite families. "This is not a natural disaster, it is a disaster they created," he said. Mr. Gelernt said the ACLU would likely ask for remedies to reunify families quicker and for the government to be required to produce information faster, rather than seeking monetary penalties or sanctions for missing the July 26 deadline. The ACLU also raised red flags about the government's list of 120 children -- as of the July 26 status update -- whose parents allegedly signed waivers agreeing to be deported without being reunified with their families. On July 25, the ACLU filed over 100 pages of affidavits taken from attorneys working with families at detention centers that claim the government coerced parents into signing the waivers even when they did want to be reunited with their children before facing deportation. Judge Sabraw issued a stay on pending deportations after the ACLU raised concerns about reports the government was immediately booting families out of the country upon reunification. The ACLU has asked for a temporary restraining order to give families a week to explore their legal options before facing removal proceedings. Without the temporary restraining order, Mr. Gelernt said on July 26 reunited families with orders for removal will be immediately subject to deportation. Judge Sabraw was set to address the request for the temporary restraining order at a hearing scheduled for July 27. UNITED STATES: Ravalli County Joints PILT Payments Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Perry Backus, writing for Ravalli Republic, reports that Ravalli County is one of at least 24 counties in Montana that has joined in a class action lawsuit seeking to recover back payments from the federal government's Payment in Lieu of Taxes program. The suit seeks to recover monies over a three-year period when the program wasn't fully funded by Congress. According to estimates compiled by the Montana Association of Counties, the under payments for 2015, 2016 and 2017 amount to $1.2 million in Montana. Ravalli County's share would be $89,571. Authorized in 1976, the PILT program's payments are meant to help counties with federal lands within their borders offset property tax losses. "For us, it's a significant amount of money," Ravalli County Commissioner Greg Chilcott said. "The suit is going to go forward whether Ravalli County is on it or not. The bottom line for our county (was) it seemed like the right thing to do." This isn't the first time the federal government has underfunded PILT to local governments. The original language in the statute allowed for payments to be discretionary and subject to the annual congressional appropriations process. That changed in 2008 when Congress amended the PILT statute by mandating full funding through 2014. Due to insufficient appropriations for 2015-17, payments to the nearly 2,000 counties eligible for PILT were again underfunded due to insufficient appropriations. In 2017, Kane County, Utah, filed a lawsuit seeking to recover both its own underpayments and those of all other PILT recipients throughout that time period. Last December, a court ruled in favor of Kane County for the first two years and made a similar ruling on the 2017 underpayment in March. The court also certified the lawsuit as a class action. It ordered that an official notice be sent to each underpaid PILT recipient. So far, counties in 48 states have signed on to the class action, according to a website of the law firm handling the suit. The deadline for joining the class action is Sept. 14. Mr. Chilcott said it was not a simple decision to file a lawsuit against the federal government. "It was a hard thing for me," he said. "Congress gets to write rules…those federal lands do deflate our tax base. PILT helps offset those taxes that are lost to local governments. Some people think it is welfare, but I don't. I see it as a true entitlement in the traditional definition. We're entitled to the tax monies we lose by those lands being in federal ownership." Eric Bryson, executive director of the Montana Association of Counties, said the class action lawsuit came as bit of a surprise in June. "I don't think anyone of us knew that was there until we received notification from the law firm," Mr. Bryson said. "I don't know of any other county who knew this class action existed before then." The class action lawsuit is being handled by the Smith, Currie and Hancock firm that has offices across the country. For a list of counties nationwide that have opted to join so far, go to https://www.smithcurrie.com/pilt-counties/ The list of Montana counties on the site did not include Ravalli County on July 17, so may not be complete. So far, it includes: Beaverhead County, Broadwater County, Carbon County, Cascade County, Chouteau County, Fergus County, Gallatin County, Garfield County, Glacier County, Granite County, Hill County, Jefferson County, Judith Basin County, Meagher County, Musselshell County, Park County, Powder River County, Richland County, Rosebud County, Silver Bow County, Valley County and Yellowstone County. [GN] UNIVERSAL TRANSPORTATION: Sprague Moves to Certify FLSA Class ------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT SPRAGUE, On behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. UNIVERSAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS LLC (d/b/a "UTS") and QUALITY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES LLC, Case No. 1:18-cv-00165-MRB (S.D. Ohio), moves for entry of an order: (1) conditionally certifying the proposed collective Fair Labor Standards Act class as defined herein; (2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and e-mail) to: All individuals employed by Defendants as Drivers within the past three years from the Complaint filing date (the "FLSA Class" or "Putative Class Members"); and (3) requiring the Defendants to, within 14 days of this Court's order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by providing a list in electronic and importable format, of the names, addresses, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for the Defendants in Ohio at any time within the past three years. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Jason C. Cox, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com jcox@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Peter Winebrake, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com UTAH HIGH SCHOOL: Class Action Mulled Over Title IX Disparity ------------------------------------------------------------- Cam Smith, writing for USA TODAY, reports that in 2017, a group of seven high school girls in Utah petitioned to start a tackle football league particularly for girls. A year later, they're still fighting for a league of their own, but now they're asking for a more serious legal battle. As reported by the Deseret News, Brent Gordon, the father of one of the plaintiffs and a backer of the proposed girls football league, said the refusal of three cited school districts and the Utah High School Activities Association to address the Title IX disparity the group highlighted demands further action. Mr. Gordon's proposal? Certify the existing lawsuit as a class action claim, which would force the districts to address it. Mr. Gordon is the father of former youth football phenom Sam Gordon, a girl who starred in boys leagues and won national acclaim. Sam Gordon is one of the plaintiffs in the current case. Per the elder Gordon's research, Canyons, Jordan and Granite school district all fall short of equal opportunity between male and female students. Among the three districts, Gordon cited 700 more opportunities for male student athletes. That would seem to indicate a clear violation of Title IX, though the case isn't so open and shut. Per the Deseret News, the districts have to determine if there is enough interest at each of the 22 schools represented to field full football teams. "Each district takes this lawsuit very seriously," Assistant Attorney General Rachel Terry, who is representing the three districts, told the News. "They're taking this lawsuit as an opportunity to see if they're meeting the interests and needs of their students. But what Granite might offer is very different than other districts. "We can't offer every sport that every student wants to participate in." That doesn't necessarily mean they can't offer tackle football for girls, which is why the case lives on . . . for now. [GN] VECTREN CORP: Faces Michael Kuebler Suit over CenterPoint Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL KUEBLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VECTREN CORPORATION; CARL L. CHAPMAN; DERRICK BURKS; JAMES H. DEGRAFFENREIDT, JR.; JOHN D. ENGELBRECHT; ANTON H. GEORGE; ROBERT G. JONES; PATRICK K. MULLEN; R. DANIEL SADLIER; MICHAEL L. SMITH; TERESA J. TANNER; and JEAN L. WOJTOWICZ, Defendants, Case No. 3:18-cv-113 (S.D. Ind., July 5, 2018) is a class action against Vectren and the members of Vectren's board of directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act in connection with the proposed acquisition of Vectren by CenterPoint Energy, Inc. The complaint alleges that on April 21, 2018, Vectren's Board caused Vectren to enter into an agreement and plan of merger with the CenterPoint, pursuant to which, Vectren shareholders will receive $72 in cash for each share of common stock they own. On, June 18, 2018, the Vectren's Board authorized the filing of a materially incomplete and misleading proxy statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in violation of the Exchange Act. The Proposed Transaction is expected to close no later than the first quarter of 2019, with the shareholder vote occurring before then. The Plaintiff asserts claims against the Defendants for violations of the Exchange Act and seeks to enjoin the Defendants from holding the shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction and taking any steps to consummate the Proposed Transaction unless and until the material information is disclosed to Vectren shareholders, or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Defendants' violations of the Exchange Act. Vectren provides energy delivery services to residential, commercial, and industrial and other contract customers. The company supplies natural gas services to approximately 1,022,000 customers in Indiana and Ohio; and electric services to approximately 145,200 customers in Indiana. Vectren was incorporated in 1999 and is headquartered in Evansville, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason A. Shartzer, Esq. SHARTZER LAW FIRM, LLC 156 E. Market Street, 10th Floor, Suite 1000 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 969-7600 Facsimile: (317) 969-7650 E-mail: jshartzer@shartzerlaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4405 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Facsimile: (212) 202-7880 E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com VERMONT DOC: Russell Seeks to Certify Muslim Inmates Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JUSTIN RUSSELL, the Plaintiff, v. ANDREW PALLITO, CYNTHIA MASON, RICHARD BILODEAU, and LISA MENARD, the Defendants, Case No. 7136-08-07-2018 (D. Vt.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order granting his renewed motion to certify class action, and reopen discovery as to class action issues, on behalf of: "all Muslim inmates within the custody of DOC who were offered the prepackaged kosher meals, from when DOC first began serving those meals in late 2014, to the present, who consider the content of those meals to be in conflict with their sincerely held religious dietary beliefs." Pallito is the Commissioner of the Vermont State Department of Corrections. A copy of the Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://is.gd/ZrKK78 at no charge. Attorneys for Plaintiff: David Bond, Esq. STROUSE & BOND, PLLC 2 Church St., Ste 3A Burlington, VT 05401 Telephone: (802) 540 0434 E-mail: david@strouse-bond.com WAL-MART STORES: Quiles et al. Seek to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled SUNDEL QUILES, VICTORIA J. MARTIN, JAMES M. SHEA, ANGELA COX, and GEORGE J. BRAY JR. Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly, the Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. d/b/a WAL-MART, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-09479-SDW-LDW (D.N.J.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order to certify a class. As reported by Class Action Reporter, Quiles et al. filed the lawsuit December 27, 2016, alleging that the Defendants failed to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://is.gd/Xg0W43 at no charge. Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members: Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. Rebecca Predovan, Esq. HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545 1199 Facsimile: (212) 532 3801 WASHINGTON, DC: Lawsuits Over Unjust Teacher Dismissals Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Perry Stein, writing for The Washington Post, reports that for nine years, Jeff Canady lived in a cash-strapped limbo. The D.C. Public Schools teacher was fired in 2009 after 18 years in city classrooms, the school system deeming him ineffective. Mr. Canady, 53, contested his dismissal, arguing that he was wrongly fired and that the city was punishing him for being a union activist and for publicly criticizing the school system. For nearly a decade, Mr. Canady, jobless and penniless, waited for a decision in his case -- until now. Earlier in July, an arbitrator ruled in favor of the fired teacher, a decision that could entitle him to hundreds of thousands of dollars in back pay and the opportunity to be a District teacher again. The school system can appeal the ruling, which was made by an arbitrator from the American Arbitration Association, a nonprofit organization that settles disputes outside of court. "I've been a hostage for nine years," Mr. Canady said. "And the District wants to keep it that way." School system spokesman Shayne Wells said DCPS "just received the arbitrator's decision and is in the process of reviewing it." Elizabeth Davis, president of the Washington Teachers' Union, said Canady isn't the only one fighting to get his job back. Other educators who were fired years ago and allege unjust dismissals are waiting for their cases to be settled with the school system. Mr. Canady was one of nearly 1,000 educators fired during the 3 1/2 year tenure of Michelle Rhee -- the controversial former D.C. schools chancellor who clashed with the union and instituted a teacher evaluation system that dictated teachers' job security and bonuses. About 200 of those teachers lost their jobs because of poor performance, 266 were laid off amid a 2009 budget squeeze and the rest failed to complete new-employee probation or did not have licensing required under the federal No Child Left Behind law. The union, which had assailed Rhee's evaluation system, filed a series of grievances in a bid to salvage the lost jobs. In 2016, a teacher won a case against the school system after claiming he was wrongly fired in 2011 for a low score on Rhee's evaluation system, known as IMPACT. The educator won on procedural grounds and the arbitrator's decision did not address IMPACT, but the union still hailed it as a victory in its battle over the teacher evaluation system. "We are certain that there are still a number of cases pending, unresolved, which were first filed during Michelle Rhee's tenure as chancellor," Ms. Davis said in an email. Mr. Canady was a third-grade teacher earning about $80,000 a year when he was fired in 2009 from Emery Elementary, a school in the Eckington neighborhood that later closed. The school system, according to the arbitrator's decision, said Canady scored low on an evaluation system that preceded IMPACT. But Mr. Canady and the teachers union argued that his third-graders performed well and that he had previously posted strong scores on his evaluations. They said they suspected his low score was linked to his public criticism of the school system and not to his performance in the classroom. They also argued that the city did not follow proper protocol when evaluating him. In defending its action, the school system claimed that the union had included Mr. Canady's case as part of a larger class action complaint and had waited years to proceed with his case individually. By that point, the school system said it no longer had documents or email exchanges in the case. Ms. Davis said she could not discuss specifics of the class action filing because parts of it are ongoing. The arbitrator said the school system was responsible for many of the delays in the case. The ruling also said D.C. schools improperly evaluated Canady and showed "anti-union animus toward him." Mr. Canady said in an interview that he was confident he would prevail and that he had a moral imperative to keep fighting. He said that he had ambitions to be a top official in the school system and that his firing stymied career opportunities. He imagines that by now, his salary would be substantially higher than $80,000 had he not lost his job. "I've been fighting for justice for people for years," Mr. Canady said. "Surely if I am going to fight for others, I am going to fight for myself." Mr. Canady remained in the District and continues to attend political and community meetings but has not held a steady job. With no income, he has moved around the city frequently and said his firing has extracted a physical and emotional toll and "devastated relationships." Even if the arbitrator's decision holds, he said he is unsure if he will return to the classroom. He said he still disagrees with how the District operates its schools. "I love teaching where they are actually trying to help people," he said. "And I'll do it at the appropriate time and in the appropriate situation." [GN] XPLORE TECH: Scarantino Seeks to Block Sale to Zebra Tech --------------------------------------------------------- Richard Scarantino, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Xplore Technologies Corp., Andrea Goren, Robert N. Mcfarland, Kent Misemer, Donald F. Neville, Thomas B. Pickens III, Zebra Technologies Corporation and Wolfdancer Acquisition Corp., Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-01109, (D. Del., June 27, 2018), seeks to enjoin defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the acquisition of Xplore Technologies Corp. by Zebra Technologies Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Wolfdancer Acquisition Corp., rescinding it and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages in the event defendants consummate the merger. The complaint also seeks costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for attorneys' and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, Wolfdancer Acquisition Corp. will acquire all of Xplore's outstanding common stock for $6.00 in cash for each share of Xplore common stock. Xplore is engaged in the development, integration, and marketing of rugged mobile personal computer and hand held devices. The complaint asserts that the proxy statement omitted the Company's financial projections and the analyses performed by its financial advisor, Duff & Phelps, LLC, in connection with the transaction, including all line items used to calculate the company’s projections of unlevered free cash flows, or the line item projections used to calculate those unlevered free cash flows. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-531 Facsimile: (302) 654-7530 Email: bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 Email: rm@maniskas.com ZOCO PRODUCTIONS: Dr. Oz Settles False Advertising Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- According to Manatt's Jeffrey S. Edelstein, Esq. -- jedelstein@manatt.com -- as reported in the July 5, 2018, issue of Advertising Law, the media defendants in a consumer class action, including television personality Dr. Mehmet Oz, reached a $5.25 million deal in the latest legal action involving false advertising claims made for green coffee bean dietary supplements promising weight loss. A trio of plaintiffs filed the case in February 2016, alleging that Dr. Oz, ZoCo Productions LLC, Entertainment Media Ventures, Inc., and Harpo Productions Inc. promoted products such as Labrada Garcinia Cambogia Dual Action Fat Buster and Labrada Green Coffee Bean Extract Fat Loss Optimizer as a "magic weight-loss cure" and "revolutionary fat buster" on the Dr. Oz talk show, when in fact no scientific evidence existed to back up the claims. Without admitting any liability, the media defendants reached a deal following extensive negotiations and three mediation sessions. The settlement agreement provides for a $5.25 million fund to pay the following in full and in this order: any necessary taxes and tax expenses, all costs associated with settlement administration, class counsel fees and expenses (not to exceed 33 percent of the total fund), class representative incentive awards (two for $5,000 and one $7,500 award), and payments to authorized class members. Class members include U.S. residents (1) who purchased any green coffee bean extract or garcinia cambogia product from February 2, 2012, until the settlement notice is disseminated and who saw any fake ad purported to be sourced from or approved by Dr. Oz or the media defendants; or (2) who purchased any weight loss product, ingredient and/or plant after viewing three specific Dr. Oz episodes (or any portion of Doctoroz.com on or after April 26, 2012) related to green coffee bean extract or garcinia cambogia, or after seeing any fake ad purported to be sourced from or approved by Dr. Oz or the media defendants. Claimants will receive $30 cash for each product purchased, up to $90 per household without proof of purchase, and without limit for those with receipts. The defendants also promised not to re-air three episodes of "The Dr. Oz Show" that promoted the products and to remove online clips from all three episodes. Since the article was published, the parties have released an agreed-upon joint statement about the agreement, noting, "None of the media defendants have been found liable for any wrongdoing and are pleased with the resolution of this matter." According to the joint statement, per the proposed settlement agreement, the plaintiffs requested that the court dismiss Dr. Oz and Entertainment Media Ventures (Sony Pictures Television was previously dismissed from the suit). Dr. Oz will not personally pay any money toward the proposed deal. Litigation continues against the manufacturers of the dietary supplements. The case is styled Woodard v. Labrada. Why it matters: Though popular for a time, green coffee weight loss products yielded more legal action than weight loss success. In addition to consumer class actions like the one recently settled, the Federal Trade Commission brought several cases against the manufacturers and marketers of green coffee weight loss products alleging violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. One case resulted in a $30 million judgment and a ban on deceptive advertising for one executive, while other companies agreed to pay $9 million and $3.5 million, respectively. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Baldor Electric Dismissed From Dickens' Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Louis Guirola, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi has dismissed, without prejudice, Baldor Electric Company improperly named as "Baldor Electric Company, for its RELIANCE brand of products" from the claims of the Plaintiffs, William Dickens and Karla Dickens, in the case the case entitled William Dickens and Karla Dickens, Plaintiffs, v. A-1 Auto Parts & Repair, Inc., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:18-CV-00162-LG-RHW, (S.D. Miss.). A copy of the Agreed Order dated July 12, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7y2sqvc from Leagle.com. William Dickens & Karla Dickens, Plaintiffs, represented by Cameron M. McCormick , Wiggins Law, PLLC & Eric Przybysz -- eprzybysz@sgptrial.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier, PC, pro hac vice. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., doing business as & General Parts, Inc., doing business as, Defendants, represented by Michael O'Mara Gwin -- mgwin@watkinseager.com -- Watkins & Eager, PLLC & Robert B. Ireland, III -- rireland@watkinseager.com -- Watkins & Eager. Autozone, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith D. Obert , Obert Law Group, P.A. Bell Auto Parts, Inc. & Goulds Pumps, Incorporated, Defendants, represented by Jennifer Marie Studebaker -- jennifer.studebaker@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Borg-Warner Corporation & John Crane, Inc., Defendants, represented by Bradley Adam Hays -- ahays@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning, LLP, Christopher O. Massenburg -- cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning, LLP, Jeanette S. Riggins -- jriggins@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross Massenburg, LLP & Michael D. Goggans -- mgoggans@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross + Massenburg, LLP. Bosch Brake Components LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Morse Automotive Corporation, Defendant, represented by Deirdre C. McGlinchey -- dmcglinchey@mcglinchey.com -- Mcglinchey Stafford, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jose L. Barro, III -- jbarro@mcglinchey.com -- Mcglinchey Stafford, PLLC, pro hac vice & Zelma M. Frederick -- zfrederick@mcglinchey.com -- Mcglinchey Stafford, PLLC. Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Samuel D. Habeeb -- SHabeeb@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC & Colleen S. Welch -- CWelch@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC. CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; sued as successor-by-merger to CBS Corporation (a Pennsylvania Corporation), Defendant, represented by Rose Marie Wade -- rmwade@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff. Crane Co., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Chempump Company, Defendant, represented by Robert W. Wilkinson -- rwilkinson@dwwattorneys.com -- Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC & Kevin M. Melchi -- kmelchi@dwwattorneys.com -- Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, sued individually, doing business as, and as successor to American Talc Company, Metropolitan Talc Co. Inc. and Charles Mathieu Inc. and Sierra Talc Company and United Talc Company & Imerys Talc America, Inc., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Luzenac America, Inc. successor-in-interest to Cyprus Industrial Minerals Company and Windsor Minerals, Inc. and Metropolitan Talc Co., Defendants, represented by Benjamin Lyle Robinson , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Desiree W. Adams , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, pro hac vice & Paula M. Wellons , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, pro hac vice. Dana Companies LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company & Union Carbide Corporation, Defendants, represented by Clare Smith Rush -- CRush@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC & Marcy B. Croft -- MCroft@maronmarvel.com Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC. Eaton Hydraulics LLC, sued as successor to Vickers Inc., Defendant, represented by Clyde O. Adams, IV -- cadams@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young, LLP. Edelbrock Corporation, Defendant, represented by Fred Krutz, III -- fred.krutz@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP & Daniel J. Mulholland -- daniel.mulholland@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP. Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, sued as successor to Felt-Products Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey P. Hubbard -- hubbard@hubbardmitchell.com -- Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Janika D. Polk -- jpolk@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Shell Weiner & Richeson, Deborah D. Kuchler -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler, Polk, Weiner, LLC & Lee Blanton Ziffer -- lziffer@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler, Polk, Weiner, LLC. Holley Performance Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Clift Abdalla -- mary.abdalla@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP. Honeywell International, Inc., sued as successor-in-interest to Bendix Corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward W. Mizell -- edward.mizell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, James H. Bolin -- jay.bolin@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP & Meade W. Mitchell -- meade.mitchell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Donald C. Partridge -- DPartridge@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC, Charles Chan E. McLeod -- CMcLeod@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC & Richard M. Crump -- RCrump@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC. Johnson & Johnson & Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Defendants, represented by Edward W. Mizell -- edward.mizell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, James H. Bolin -- jay.bolin@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, Kathleen I. Carrington -- kat.carrington@butlersnow.com -- BUTLER SNOW LLP & Meade W. Mitchell -- meade.mitchell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP. Markey Machinery Co. Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Margaret Gay -- MMGay@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC, Kimberly Paige Mangum -- KMangum@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC & Sarah E. Jones -- SJones@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC. MW Custom Papers, LLC, as successor-in-interest to The Mead Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Albert Smyth, III -- jsmyth@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC. Perrigo Company, Defendant, represented by Ben F. Galloway, III , Owen & Galloway, PLLC, Jeffrey Jerome Hines -- jjh@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell, Devries, Leech & Dann, LLP, pro hac vice, Joe Sam Owen , Owen, Galloway & Myers, PLLC, Michael A. Pichini -- map@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell, Devries, Leech & Dann, LLP, pro hac vice & Richard Matthew Barnes -- rmb@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell, Devries, Leech & Dann, LLP, pro hac vice. Trinity Marine Products, Inc., for its Nabrico brand of products, Defendant, represented by Allen E. Graham -- teeto.graham@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Barbara L. Arras -- barbara.arras@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP, pro hac vice & James G. Wyly, III -- jim.wyly@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP. Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Clare Smith Rush -- CRush@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC. Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard M. Crump -- RCrump@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC & Charles Chan E. McLeod -- CMcLeod@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bergeron Couple Sues Alleges Asbestos Exposure --------------------------------------------------------------- Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a couple has filed suit against two St. Louis-based companies and others over allegations asbestos exposure caused the husband to develop lung cancer. Albert Bergeron and Karen Bergeron filed a complaint on July 9 in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against Akebono Brake Corp., The Boeing Co., Warren Pumps LLC, et al. alleging negligence and other counts. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various times during Albert Bergeron's work from 1964 to 1990 at various locations in St. Louis and New Jersey, he was exposed to and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by defendants. The suit states that on or about Aug. 7, 2017, he first became aware that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease, and that the disease was wrongfully caused. The plaintiffs holds Akebono Brake Corp., The Boeing Co., Warren Pumps LLC, et al. responsible because the defendants allegedly negligently included asbestos fibers in their products when adequate substitutes were available and failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of working with or around products containing asbestos fibers. The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek compensatory and punitive damages of more than $50,000, plus costs and all further relief as the court may deem just and equitable. They are represented by Randy L. Gori of Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville. St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1822-CC10707 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bonvillain Couple Sues Dow Chemical Over Asbestos ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lhalie Castillo of St. Louis Record reported that a couple alleges that the husband's lung cancer was caused by asbestos exposure from products by companies headquartered in Missouri. Richard Bonvillain and Wanda Bonvillain filed a complaint on July 19 in the St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court against The Dow Chemical Co., General Gasket Corp., Honeywell International Inc., et al. alleging strict liability. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that at various times during Richard Bonvillain's career beginning in the 1970s, he was exposed to and inhaled or ingested asbestos fibers emanating from certain products manufactured, sold, distributed or installed by defendants. The suit states that on or about Jan. 15, 2016, he first became aware that he developed lung cancer, an asbestos-induced disease. The plaintiffs hold The Dow Chemical Co., General Gasket Corp., Honeywell International Inc., et al. responsible because the defendants allegedly intentionally included asbestos fibers in their products when they knew that it had toxic, poisonous and highly deleterious effect to human health and failed to provide adequate warnings and instructions concerning the dangers of working with or around products containing asbestos fibers. The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek compensatory damages of no less than $50,000, plus interest, costs and all other relief as the court may deem just and equitable. They are represented by Benjamin R. Schmickle and Matthew C. Morris of SWMW Law LLC in St. Louis. St. Louis 22nd Judicial Circuit Court case number 1822-CC10800 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Avon Sole Factory Posts Asbestos Warning ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Manzoni of NBC10 Boston reported that several Massachusetts residents say they're concerned after finding more than a dozen signs outside an abandoned factory that warn of asbestos and cancer, an issue that's prompted attention from both town and state officials. The signs, which are posted around the former Avon Sole Company factory at 55 High St. in Holbrook, warn that asbestos "may cause cancer," and "causes damage to lungs." The signs also recommend wearing "respiratory protection and protective clothing," in the area. "I was woken up to two gentlemen outside on the sidewalk in blue hazmat suits," said Lisa MacCallum, who lives across the street from the abandoned facility. "Who's going to say that five years down the road I’m not going to have asbestos in my lungs?" MacCallum and her neighbors said they've tried to get answers from both town and state officials for months, but haven't been successful. "We've called the DEP over and over. We’ve called Holbrook Board of Health. They say, 'Our hands are tied,'" said Lisa DeMarco-Topping, who lives near the old factory. "What's going to happen 20 years from now? Say, 'Oh, that lady died of cancer.' From what? Because no one will remember." The Town of Holbrook said it hasn't been involved in the issue since it shut down work at the abandoned factory eight months ago. In a letter dated Dec. 7, 2017, the Town of Holbrook’s building inspector wrote: "Please be advised that this department has been notified by MASS DEP as to the serious violations regarding asbestos. Upon receipt of this order, please be further advised this notice is a STOP WORK ORDER . . . . " The letter, which was signed by the town's building commissioner, Daniel F. Moriarty Jr., was sent to High Street Cabinet Shop LLC in Chelmsford. The property owner could not be reached for comment. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection said it recently approved the property owner's new plan to remove asbestos but didn't know when work would resume. ASBESTOS UPDATE: H.B. Fuller Settles 3 Suits, Claims for $195K -------------------------------------------------------------- H.B. Fuller Company reported that for the six months ended June 2, 2018, three asbestos-related lawsuits and claims were settled for US$195,000, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 2, 2018. The Company states, "We have been named as a defendant in lawsuits in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to products containing asbestos manufactured more than 30 years ago. The plaintiffs generally bring these lawsuits against multiple defendants and seek damages (both actual and punitive) in very large amounts. In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable injuries or that the injuries suffered were the result of exposure to products manufactured by us. We are typically dismissed as a defendant in such cases without payment. If the plaintiff presents evidence indicating that compensable injury occurred as a result of exposure to our products, the case is generally settled for an amount that reflects the seriousness of the injury, the length, intensity and character of exposure to products containing asbestos, the number and solvency of other defendants in the case, and the jurisdiction in which the case has been brought. "A significant portion of the defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation is paid by third parties, including indemnification pursuant to the provisions of a 1976 agreement under which we acquired a business from a third party. Currently, this third party is defending and paying settlement amounts, under a reservation of rights, in most of the asbestos cases tendered to the third party. "In addition to the indemnification arrangements with third parties, we have insurance policies that generally provide coverage for asbestos liabilities, including defense costs. Historically, insurers have paid a significant portion of our defense costs and settlements in asbestos-related litigation. However, certain of our insurers are insolvent. We have entered into cost-sharing agreements with our insurers that provide for the allocation of defense costs and settlements and judgments in asbestos-related lawsuits. These agreements require, among other things, that we fund a share of settlements and judgments allocable to years in which the responsible insurer is insolvent. "We do not believe that it would be meaningful to disclose the aggregate number of asbestos-related lawsuits filed against us because relatively few of these lawsuits are known to involve exposure to asbestos-containing products that we manufactured. Rather, we believe it is more meaningful to disclose the number of lawsuits that are settled and result in a payment to the plaintiff. To the extent we can reasonably estimate the amount of our probable liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, we establish a financial provision and a corresponding receivable for insurance recoveries. "Based on currently available information, we have concluded that the resolution of any pending matter, including asbestos-related litigation, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flow." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/90EQco ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Had $1.5-Bil. Liabilities at June 30 --------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. recorded total liabilities of US$1,528 million related to asbestos matters at June 30, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. The Company states, "Honeywell is a defendant in asbestos related personal injury actions related to two predecessor companies: * North American Refractories Company ("NARCO”), which was sold in 1986, produced refractory products (bricks and cement used in high temperature applications). Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing refractory products in an occupational setting. * Bendix Friction Materials ("Bendix”) business, which was sold in 2014, manufactured automotive brake parts that contained chrysotile asbestos in an encapsulated form. Claimants consist largely of individuals who allege exposure to asbestos from brakes from either performing or being in the vicinity of individuals who performed brake replacements. A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/FwjXrb ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Records US$918MM NARCO Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. recorded US$918 million at June 30, 2018, in asbestos-related liabilities involving predecessor company North American Refractories Company (NARCO), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. NARCO, which was sold in 1986, produced refractory products (bricks and cement used in high temperature applications). The Company states, "In connection with NARCO's emergence from bankruptcy on April 30, 2013, a federally authorized 524(g) trust (NARCO Trust) was established for the evaluation and resolution of all existing and future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and NARCO are protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring all present and future individual actions in state or federal courts and requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO asbestos-containing products to be made against the NARCO Trust. The NARCO Trust reviews submitted claims and determines award amounts in accordance with established Trust Distribution Procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth the criteria claimants must meet to qualify for compensation including, among other things, exposure and medical criteria that determine the award amount. In addition, Honeywell provided, and continues to provide, input to the design of control procedures for processing NARCO claims, and has on-going audit rights to review and monitor the claims processor's adherence to the established requirements of the Trust Distribution Procedures. "Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to the NARCO Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust Distribution Procedures (Annual Contribution Claims), subject to annual caps of US$140 million in 2018 and US$145 million for each year thereafter. However, the initial US$100 million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the Initial Claims Amount) will not count against the annual cap and any unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to subsequent years until fully utilized. In 2015, Honeywell filed suit against the NARCO Trust in Bankruptcy Court alleging breach of certain provisions of the Trust Agreement and Trust Distribution Procedures. The parties agreed to dismiss the proceeding without prejudice pursuant to an 18 month Standstill Agreement. Claims processing continued during this period as the parties attempted to resolve disputed issues. The Standstill Agreement expired on October 12, 2017. Notwithstanding its expiration, claims processing continues, and Honeywell continues to negotiate and attempt to resolve remaining disputed issues (that is instances where Honeywell believes the Trust is not processing claims in accordance with established Trust Distribution Procedures). Honeywell reserves its right to seek judicial intervention should negotiations fail or prove futile. As of June 30, 2018, Honeywell has not made any payments to the NARCO Trust for Annual Contribution Claims. "Honeywell is also responsible for payments due to claimants pursuant to settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures criteria (Pre-established Unliquidated Claims), which amounts are estimated at US$150 million and are expected to be paid during the initial years of trust operations (US$5 million of which has been paid since the effective date of the NARCO Trust). Such payments are not subject to the annual cap. "Our consolidated financial statements reflect an estimated liability for Pre-established Unliquidated Claims (US$145 million), as well as unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection and operating and legal costs related to the Trust (collectively US$30 million) and for the estimated value of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be asserted against the NARCO Trust (US$743 million). The estimate of future NARCO claims was prepared in 2002, in the same year NARCO filed for bankruptcy protection, using NARCO tort system litigation experience based on a commonly accepted methodology used by numerous bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts. Accordingly, the estimated value of future NARCO asbestos claims was prepared before there was data on claims filings and payment rates in the NARCO Trust under the Trust Distribution Procedures and also prepared when the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims was in effect (which remained in effect until NARCO emerged from Bankruptcy protection). Some critical assumptions underlying this commonly accepted methodology included claims filing rates, disease criteria and payment values contained in the Trust Distribution Procedures, estimated approval rates of claims submitted to the NARCO Trust and epidemiological studies estimating disease instances. The estimated value of the future NARCO liability reflects claims expected to be asserted against NARCO over a fifteen year period. This projection resulted in a range of estimated liability of US$743 million to US$961 million. We believe that no amount within this range is a better estimate than any other amount and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum amount in the range. Given the Trust's lack of sufficient claims processing experience since NARCO emerged from bankruptcy protection, it is not yet possible to reliably estimate future claim costs based on actual Trust experience. "Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is recoverable for asbestos claims. While the substantial majority of our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis of probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers. "Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be higher or lower than those projected and recorded. Given the uncertainties, we review our estimates periodically, and update them based on our experience and other relevant factors. Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the projected liability or other developments that may impact insurance recoveries." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/FwjXrb ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jack's PI Claims vs. M.W. Custom Papers Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Hon. James L. Robart of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, has dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against defendant M.W. Custom Papers LLC, without prejudice. Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss their claims without prejudice against defendant, M.W. Custom Papers LLC, as alleged in their complaint filed in the case styled Leslie Jack, individually and as Personal Representative of Patrick Jack, individually, Plaintiffs, v. Asbestos Corporation Ltd., et al., Defendants, No. 2:17-CV-00537-JLR, (W.D. Wash.), and defendant has agreed to waive its fees and costs incurred in this matter. A copy of the Order dated July 17, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yb62a4hp from Leagle.com. Leslie Jack, individually and as Personal Representative of Patrick Jack & David Jack, individually, Plaintiffs, represented by Benjamin H. Adams -- badams@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar & Branham, LLP, Charles W. Branham, III , Dean Omar & Branham, LLP, pro hac vice, Kristin M. Houser -- houser@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, Lisa W. Shirley -- lshirley@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice, Lucas W.H. Garrett -- garrett@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender, William Joel Rutzick , Schroeter Goldmark & Bender & Thomas J. Breen -- breen@sgb-law.com -- Schroeter Goldmark & Bender. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest to Buffalo Pumps, Defendant, represented by Barry Neal Mesher . Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Borg-Warner Corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard D. Ross , Selman Brietman LLP. CBS Corporation, sued as successor-by-merger to CBS Corporation f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation and successor-in-interest to BF Sturtevant, Defendant, represented by William D. Harvard -- wdharvard@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff, pro hac vice, Christopher S. Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP & Erin P. Fraser -- efraser@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP. Crane Co, Defendant, represented by Ryan J. Groshong -- ryan.groshong@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP & G. William Shaw -- bill.shaw@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Daniel K. Reising -- dan@frllp.com -- Fucile & Reising & Mark J. Fucile -- mark@frllp.com -- Fucile & Reising. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Christopher S. Marks -- cmarks@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP & Erin P. Fraser -- efraser@tktrial.com -- Tanenbaum Keale LLP. Goulds Pumps Inc & Viad Corporation, formerly known as The Dail Corporation, Defendants, represented by Ronald C. Gardner -- rgardner@gandtlawfirm.com -- Gardner Trabolsi & Assoc. PLLC. Honeywell International Inc, sued as successor-in-interest to Bendix Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kristine E. Kruger -- KKruger@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie & Mary P. Gaston -- MGaston@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie. Ingersoll Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Katherine A. Lawler -- katherine.lawler@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin J. Craig -- kcraig@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP, Mark B. Tuvim mtuvim@grsm.com -- Gordon & Rees & Trevor J. Mohr -- tmohr@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Metlife Inc, Defendant, represented by Richard G. Gawlowski -- gawlowski@wscd.com -- Wilson Smith Cochran & Dickerson. Pneumo Abex LLC, successor to Abex Corporation & Dana Companies, LLC, sued as successor in interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company, Defendants, represented by Diane J. Kero -- dkero@gth-law.com -- Gordon Thomas Honeywell. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Defendant, represented by Robert H. Berkes -- rberkes@bcrslaw.com -- Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal, pro hac vice, Ryan T. Moore -- rmoore@bcrslaw.com -- Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal, pro hac vice, Viiu Spangler Khare -- vspanglerkhare@bcrslaw.com -- Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal, pro hac vice, Andrew Gordon Yates -- yatesa@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC, Jeffrey M. Odom -- odomj@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC & Tim D. Wackerbarth -- wackerbartht@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC. Warren Pumps LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen Eraut -- aeraut@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC & Shaun Mary Morgan -- smorgan@rizzopc.com -- Rizzo Mattingly Bosworth PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Sides With Celanese in $8MM Asbestos Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Underwood of St. Louis Record reported that following a four-day asbestos exposure trial, 12 jurors found in favor of Celanese Corp. on July 19, ruling that the plaintiff's mesothelioma was not directly caused by the defendant. Jerry Crawford v. Celanese Corp. was argued by Aaron Chapman of Dean Omar & Branham LLP of Texas for the plaintiff and attorney Mark Wall of Wall, Templeton & Haldrup in South Carolina for the defendant before 7th Judicial Circuit of South Carolina Judge Jean Toal. Streaming video coverage of the trial was provided to Legal Newsline by Courtroom View Network. The jury heard testimony from July 16 -19 and deliberated for only a few hours before ruling the former employee did not contract cancer from the Spartanburg facility. Crawford was employed by Celanese Corp. from 1970 to 1974 and alleged he was exposed to asbestos at the site from pipe insulation supplied by Covil Corp. The trial was contested from the start, with Toal instructing jurors that although sanctions were requested by Crawford's attorneys who claimed Covil purposely destroyed key documents that would prove the plaintiff developed mesothelioma as a result of working at Celanese, they were to understand that even without the specific evidence, Crawford was in fact exposed to asbestos insulation supplied and installed by Covil Corp. when he was employed in the 1970s. Both parties' attorneys' opening and closing arguments were strikingly similar. While Chapman concluded Covil "knew it, they did it and they hid it," Wall countered that Covil Corp., which has been defunct since 1991, was not responsible since they were not the manufacturer and that Crawford was exposed to asbestos while changing the brakes on his vehicle for years. "It's crazy to believe that a few days ago, I stood up here and told you everything you were going to hear in this case," Chapman said during his closing. "I promised you that were going to hear Covil knew it, they did it and they hid it. I think I have kept that promise." Wall countered that the "short trial, filled with complications" did not prove particular dates of exposure and, in his opinion, the piping manufacturer bore the ultimate responsibility for Crawford's illness, not his client. Despite hours of testimony from molecular biologist Dr. Arnold Brody and qualified pathologist Dr. John C. Maddox, who described at length how mesothelioma can be caused by exposure to asbestos fibers, and former employees of the Daniel Construction Co., which renovated the facility with piping that contained asbestos, the jury was not moved. The 12 jurors were also not persuaded by compelling testimony from Crawford himself or his two daughters, Patty Giles and Tessa Quinn. Rather it was the testimony of Robert Glenn, a representative of Covil-supplied asbestos insulation, and Don Buck, a civil engineer who worked for Daniel Construction, that seemed to sway them to rule in favor of the defendant. "Daniel equals Covil," Chapman said in his closing argument. "If Daniel did the job, Covil did the insulation." While showing family photos of Crawford, Chapman's closing argument constantly blamed Covil, reminding the jury the business decision made by Covil, who was not legally responsible to warn employees of the dangers of asbestos in the 1970s, was morally wrong. Chapman then asked the jury to consider the cost of Crawford's life. "They want to make a business decision, let's make one for them," Chapman said. "We are talking about a life that was taken away here in a board room." After detailing the $568,000 in medical bills Crawford accumulated in 2017 fighting for his life and then multiplying that number by 13 years -- Crawford's life expectancy without mesothelioma -- the attorney concluded that $7.34 million, plus the cost of Crawford's wife dying without the peace of knowing what would happen to her husband, totaled $8 million in damages. In closing, Wall did not deny that Covil Corp. used asbestos piping, citing the 1977 deposition of corporation owner Palmer Covil. "I am not manufacturing these products, I am just buying them," Covil said when asked about the pipes he sold. As he argued throughout the trial, Wall asked the jury to consider the responsibility of both Daniel Construction Co. that used the pipes to construct and renovate parts of the Spartanburg site and also Crawford’s own interaction with asbestos. "Brakes were considered by Dr. Maddox to be a contributing human factor and cause of his mesothelioma," Wall said. The jury agreed, with the court clerk reading the verdict that claimed Covil was not responsible for the negligence and implied and strict liability of Crawford's cancer. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kraus Bid to Strike Government Defense Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Timothy J. Savage of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has denied the plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Government Specifications Defense and Remand in the case titled Robert J. Kraus and Margaret M. Kraus, h/w, v. Alcatel-Lucent, Allen-Bradley Company, Ametek, Inc., BBC Brown Boveri, k/n/a ABB, Inc., Belden Wire & Cable Company, LLC, CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Clark Controller Co., Espey Manufacturing & Electronics Corp., Ford Motor Co., General Dynamics, General Electric Company, Gould Electronics, Inc., GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation, Honeywell International, Honeywell, Inc., IMO Industries, Inc., formerly known as DeLaval Steam Turbine Company, ITT Industries, L-3 Communications, Lockheed Martin Corporation Service Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Motorola Solutions, Navcom Defense Electronics, Northrop Grumman Norden Systems, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Philips North America, LLC, Raytheon, Rockbestos Co., Rockwell Collins, Inc., Rogers Corporation, Space Systems/Loral, Square D Company, UNISYS and United Technologies, Civil Action No. 18-2119, (E.D. Pa.) A copy of the Order dated July 25, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydemhc7m from Leagle.com. Robert J. Kraus & Margaret M. Kraus, H/W, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert E. Paul , Paul Reich & Myers, PC. Allen-Bradley Company, Defendant, represented by G. Daniel Bruch, Jr. -- gdbruch@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell, LLC. Ametek, Inc., Defendant, represented by Albert L. Piccerilli -- apiccerilli@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, LLP & Glenn F. Rosenblum -- grosenblum@mmwr.com -- Montgomery, Mc Cracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP. Belden Wire & Cable Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dawn Dezii -- ddezii@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis & Edelstein & Jeanine D. Clark -- jclark@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis Edelstein. CBS Corporation, formerly known as & General Electric Company, Defendants, represented by John P. McShea , McShea Law Firm PC. Espey Manufacturing & Electronics Corp., Defendant, represented by Kara D. Hill -- khill@rmh-law.com -- Reilly McDevitt & Henrich PC & Susan M. Valinis -- svalinis@rmh-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt P.C. Ford Motor Co., Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Sinclair -- dsinclair@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC & Eric L. Horne -- ehorne@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott. General Dynamics & Motorola Solutions, Defendants, represented by Megan Kathleen Bailey -- mbailey@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP. Gould Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher H. Jones -- cjones@mdmc-law.com -- Mcelroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter. GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward T. Finch -- efinch@lavin-law.com -- Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & Disipio. Honeywell International, Defendant, represented by Peter J. Neeson -- pneeson@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson LLP. Honeywell, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kevin Errol Hexstall -- kehexstall@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, PC. IMO Industries, Inc., formerly known as, Defendant, represented by Joseph I. Fontak -- jfontak@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP. ITT Industries, Defendant, represented by Steven A. Luxton -- steven.luxton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. L-3 Communications, Defendant, represented by Frederick A. Tecce -- fred.tecce@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP. Lockheed Martin Corporation Service Company & Space Systems/LORAL, Defendants, represented by Michael David Smith -- smith@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing & Raytheon, Defendants, represented by Basil A. Disipio -- BDiSipio@lavin-law.com -- Lavin O'Neil Cedrone & Disipio. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam A. Desipio -- adam.desipio@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Nancy Shane Rappaport , DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP. Philips North America LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Wall -- jonathan.wall@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. Rockbestos Co., Defendant, represented by Christian A. Weimann -- caweimann@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin & Tiffany Giangiulio -- tjgiangiulio@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. Square D Company, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Rideout -- crideout@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowen Spinelli & Hanna & W. Matthew Reber -- mreber@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jason McGuire & Spinelli & Hanna. UNISYS, Defendant, represented by Josette Ferrazza Spivak , Hollstein Keating Cattell Johnson & Goldstein & Patricia M. Henrich -- phenrich@rmh-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek And McDevitt P.C. United Technologies, Defendant, represented by William J. Smith -- wsmith@dmclaw.com -- Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Cross Claimant, represented by Basil A. Disipio -- BDiSipio@lavin-law.com -- Lavin O'Neil Cedrone & Disipio. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing & Raytheon, Cross Defendants, represented by Basil A. Disipio -- BDiSipio@lavin-law.com -- Lavin O'Neil Cedrone & Disipio. Belden Wire & Cable Company, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeanine D. Clark -- jclark@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis Edelstein & Dawn Dezii -- ddezii@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis & Edelstein. CBS Corporation & General Electric Company, Cross Defendants, represented by John P. McShea , McShea Law Firm PC. Espey Manufacturing & Electronics Corp., Cross Defendant, represented by Kara D. Hill -- khill@rmh-law.com -- Reilly McDevitt & Henrich PC & Susan M. Valinis -- svalinis@rmh-law.com - Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt P.C. Ford Motor Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Sinclair -- dsinclair@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC & Eric L. Horne -- ehorne@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott. General Dynamics & Motorola Solutions, Cross Defendants, represented by Megan Kathleen Bailey -- mbailey@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP. ITT Industries, Cross Defendant, represented by Steven A. Luxton -- steven.luxton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. L-3 Communications, Cross Defendant, represented by Frederick A. Tecce -- fred.tecce@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Adam A. Desipio -- adam.desipio@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Nancy Shane Rappaport , DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP. Square D Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Christina M. Rideout -- crideout@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowen Spinelli & Hanna & W. Matthew Reber -- mreber@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jason McGuire & Spinelli & Hanna. General Dynamics, Cross Claimant, represented by Megan Kathleen Bailey -- mbailey@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP. Gould Electronics, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher H. Jones -- cjones@mdmc-law.com -- McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter. Honeywell International, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter J. Neeson -- pneeson@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson LLP. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Joseph I. Fontak -- jfontak@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP. Space Systems/LORAL & Lockheed Martin Corporation Service Company, Cross Defendants, represented by Michael David Smith -- smith@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP. UNISYS, Cross Defendant, represented by Patricia M. Henrich -- phenrich@rmh-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek And McDevitt P.C. & Josette Ferrazza Spivak , Hollstein Keating Cattell Johnson & Goldstein. United Technologies, Cross Defendant, represented by William J. Smith -- wsmith@dmclaw.com -- Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote. GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Edward T. Finch -- efinch@lavin-law.com -- Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & Disipio. GTE Products Of Connecticut Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Edward T. Finch -- efinch@lavin-law.com -- Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & Disipio. Lockheed Martin Corporation Service Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Michael David Smith -- smith@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP. Philips North America LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Wall -- jonathan.wall@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. Square D Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Christina M. Rideout -- crideout@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowen Spinelli & Hanna & W. Matthew Reber -- mreber@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jason McGuire & Spinelli & Hanna. Ametek, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Albert L. Piccerilli -- apiccerilli@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, LLP & Glenn F. Rosenblum -- grosenblum@mmwr.com -- Montgomery, Mc Cracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP. Rockbestos Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Tiffany Giangiulio -- tjgiangiulio@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. Ametek, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Albert L. Piccerilli -- apiccerilli@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, Llp & Glenn F. Rosenblum -- grosenblum@mmwr.com -- Montgomery, Mc Cracken, Walker & Rhoads, Llp. Allen-Bradley Company, Cross Claimant, represented by G. Daniel Bruch, Jr. -- gdbruch@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell, LLC. Margaret M. Kraus, H/W & Robert J. Kraus, Cross Defendants, represented by Robert E. Paul , Paul Reich & Myers, PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Withdraws Stay of T. Pogacnick's Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- An appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about April 30, 2018 has been taken to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York for the First Department. Defendant-Appellant moved for a stay of all proceedings pending hearing and determination of the aforesaid appeal, and interim relief had been granted, in part, by a Justice of the Court, entered on May 1, 2018, for a stay of trial. Upon the stipulation of the Parties, dated May 7, 2018, the Court now withdraws the motion for stay, and vacates the interim relief granted by an order the Court on May 1. The appealed case is In Re: New York City Asbestos Litigation. This Document Relates To: Tatjana Pogacnik, as Executrix for the Estate of Leon B. Pogacnik, and Tatjana Pogacnik, Individually, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. A.O. Smith Water Products Co., et al., Defendants-Appellants, Motion No. M-2261, Index No. 190340/15 (N.Y. App. Div. 1d). A copy of the Order dated July 10, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yddwpzx6 from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: O'Connor Appeal Withdrawn from Docket ------------------------------------------------------ The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York for the First Department, after pre-argument conference and upon reading and filing the stipulation of the parties hereto, has ordered withdrawn the appealed case In Re: New York County Asbestos Litigation. Kelly O'Connor, Personal Representative of the Estate of Raymond Flood, Deceased, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Anthony & Sylvan Corp., et al., Defendants, -And- Pentair Water Pool And Spa, Inc., formerly known as Pentair Pool Products, Inc., improperly named as Pentair Aquatic Eco-Systems, Inc. and Pentair Water Group, Inc., Defendant-Appellant. Mary Murphy-Clagett, as Temporary Administrator for the Estate of Pietro Macaluso, Plaintiff, V. A. O. Smith Corporation, et al., Defendants. Index Nos. 190147/15, 190311/15, Motion No. M-2973X, Index No. 40000/88. (N.Y. App. Div. 1d), which appeal was taken from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on or about January 18, 2018, in accordance with the aforesaid stipulation. A copy of the Order dated July 26, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/yarc9bqc from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Opioid Lawsuits Not Comparable to Asbestos ----------------------------------------------------------- Matt Sheehan of Reinsurance News reported that W.R. Berkley's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Robert Berkley has said that prescription opioid drugs, which have come under scrutiny this year following a series of lawsuits against pharmaceutical manufacturers in the U.S, are not comparable to asbestos from a re/insurance point of view. "As far as an asbestos analogy, I think that's apples and oranges," said Berkley during the company’s Q2 2018 earnings call. "And the big difference is policy limits and aggregate limits that backed on the asbestos period didn't exist the way they exist today." Drug overdoses have become the leading cause of death for people under 50 in the U.S, and recent studies have estimated that opioids could be responsible for half a million deaths in the country by 2027 as the crisis of addiction accelerates. Recently, many U.S states have begun filing lawsuits against manufacturers like Purdue Pharma, the creator of OxyContin, who they accuse of proliferating the drug crisis with misleading marketing campaigns that began in the mid-1990s. Opioid manufacturers, it is alleged, underplayed the risks of their painkillers and exaggerated the benefits in order to persuade doctors to overprescribe the pills and convince patients that they were safe and effective. Berkley granted that "the opioid epidemic is very unnerving and it should be very concerning to all of us as a society," but warned that "Unfortunately, when terrible things happen, oftentimes, the way society deals with it, is they say somebody is going to pay." "Whether it's the manufacturers or it's the distributors, or it's anyone else that even was within a stone's throw of the situation, they and by extension their carrier, there will probably be an attempt to pull them in." Some commentators have suggested that opioid health risks may represent an emerging peril similar to that of asbestos, the infamous fibrous building material that was later found to cause various harmful or fatal health effects if inhaled. Asbestos litigation has since become the longest, most expensive mass tort in U.S history, with Fitch Ratings having recently updated its projection for ultimate all-time asbestos-related industry losses for U.S property and casualty (P&C) re/insurers to $100 billion. "How this is going to play out? Clearly, it is a meaningful situation that one should not shrug off," stated Berkley. "At the same time, I think it would be a mistake to suggest that this could be the next asbestos. Could it be meaningful? Yes. Is it the next asbestos? I think likely not." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partially Collapsed Bank Building Has Asbestos --------------------------------------------------------------- WV News of The Exponent Telegraph reported that a former bank building that partially crumbled onto a street in Wallace has tested positive for asbestos -- a finding that could increase the cost of additional site remediation, according to a county official. The property owner, who lives in North Carolina, received a quote of approximately $300,000 for cleanup at the site, according to Harrison County Planning Commission Director Charlotte Shaffer. According to Shaffer, the owner has indicated he is unable to pay that sum of money. The county already had an open case on the building and was making attempts to contact the owner when a portion collapsed and spilled into the street June 2, according to County Administrator Willie Parker. The property had been seized by the state for delinquent property taxes. It has not yet sold in a tax sale, however, making the property owner legally responsible for the property, Parker has said. Shortly after the building partially collapsed, the Harrison County Commission approved emergency cleanup and hazardous materials testing. The county paid $9,730 to Feline Excavation and Construction for the service. The asbestos was limited to tar paper used in the roofing, according to Commissioner David Hinkle. A lien was placed on the property in an attempt to recoup cleanup costs incurred by the county, Parker said. The likelihood that the county would be reimbursed in full is unclear, because delinquent property taxes would also need to be deducted from the proceeds of a sale, Parker has said. According to Shaffer, the property is now fenced off to ensure public safety, and the county is continuing to work with the property owner in an effort to complete the property cleanup. According to Hinkle, an update on the building is expected to appear on a meeting agenda in the near future. "It's just as much a priority for me as the other properties we’re asking people to clean up," he said, referring to a series of eight public nuisance ordinance hearings the commission has conducted since the spring. After two of those property owners failed to complete property cleanup within the 60-day window granted by the commission, commissioners voted to send those two cases to court within 15 days if property cleanup is still incomplete. The actions indicate that the commission sees nuisance properties as a problem in the county and has started the process of correcting the issue "so communities can be a cleaner, safer place," Hinkle said. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Deems Non-PC Claims Inactive ------------------------------------------------------------ PPG Industries, Inc. considers the remaining, reportable claims within the inventory of 114,000 asbestos-related claims, which are not associated with Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PC"), as closed or inactive litigation as they relate to the Company, according to PPG's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2018. The Company states, "Prior to 2000, the Company had been named as a defendant in numerous claims alleging bodily injury from (i) exposure to asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured, sold or distributed by the Company, its subsidiaries, or for which they are otherwise alleged to be liable; (ii) exposure to asbestos allegedly present at a facility owned or leased by the Company; or (iii) exposure to asbestos-containing products of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PC") for which the Company was alleged to be liable under a variety of legal theories (the Company and Corning Incorporated were each 50% shareholders in PC). "In 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in an effort to permanently and comprehensively resolve all of its pending and future asbestos-related liability claims. At the time of the bankruptcy filing, the Company had been named as one of many defendants in approximately 114,000 open claims. The Bankruptcy Court subsequently entered a series of orders preliminarily enjoining the prosecution of asbestos litigation against PPG until after the effective date of a confirmed PC plan of reorganization. "At the time PC filed for bankruptcy, PPG had been named as one of many defendants in one or more of the categories of asbestos-related claims identified above. Over the course of the 16 years during which the PC bankruptcy proceedings, and corresponding preliminary injunction staying the prosecution of asbestos-related claims against PPG, were pending, certain plaintiffs alleging premises claims filed motions seeking to lift the stay with respect to more than 1,000 individually-identified premises claims. The Bankruptcy Court granted motions to lift the stay in respect to certain of these premises claims and directed PPG to engage in a process to address any additional premises claims that were the subject of pending or anticipated lift-stay motions. As a result of the overall process as directed by the Bankruptcy Court involving more than 1,000 premises claims between 2006 and May 27, 2016, hundreds of these claims were withdrawn or dismissed without payment and approximately 650 premises claims were dismissed upon agreements by PPG and its insurers to resolve such claims in exchange for monetary payments. "With respect to the remaining claims still reportable within the inventory of 114,000 asbestos-related claims at the time PC filed for bankruptcy, the Company considers such claims to fall within one or more of the following categories: (1) claims that have been closed or dismissed as a result of processes undertaken during the bankruptcy; (2) claims that may have been previously filed on the dockets of state and federal courts in various jurisdictions, but are inactive as to the Company; and (3) claims that are subject, in whole or in part, to the channeling injunction and thus will be resolved, in whole or in part, in accordance with the Trust procedures established under the PC bankruptcy reorganization plan. As a result of the foregoing, the Company does not consider these three categories of claims to be open or active litigation against it, although the Company cannot now determine whether, or the extent to which, any of these claims may in the future be reinstituted, reinstated, or revived such that they may become open and active asbestos-related claims against it." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/O0CGEV ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Had 475 Open Claims at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2018, that it is aware of approximately 475 open and active asbestos-related claims pending against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries as of March 31, 2018. The Company states, "These claims consist primarily of non-PC Relationship Claims and claims against a subsidiary of PPG. The Company is defending the remaining open and active claims vigorously. "Since April 1, 2013, a subsidiary of PPG has been implicated in claims alleging death or injury caused by asbestos-containing products manufactured, distributed or sold by a North American architectural coatings business or its predecessors which was acquired by PPG. All such claims have been either served upon or tendered to the seller for defense and indemnity pursuant to obligations undertaken by the seller in connection with the Company's purchase of the North American architectural coatings business. The seller has accepted the defense of these claims subject to the terms of various agreements between the Company and the seller. The seller's defense and indemnity obligations in connection with newly filed claims ceased with respect to claims filed after April 1, 2018. "PPG has established reserves totaling approximately US$180 million for asbestos-related claims that would not be channeled to the Trust which, based on presently available information, we believe will be sufficient to encompass all of PPG's current and potential future asbestos liabilities. These reserves include a US$162 million reserve established in 2009 in connection with an amendment to the PC plan of reorganization. These reserves, which are included within "Other liabilities" on the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets, represent PPG's best estimate of its liability for these claims. PPG does not have sufficient current claim information or settlement history on which to base a better estimate of this liability in light of the fact that the Bankruptcy Court's injunction staying most asbestos claims against the Company was in effect from April 2000 through May 2016. PPG will monitor the activity associated with its remaining asbestos claims and evaluate, on a periodic basis, its estimated liability for such claims, its insurance assets then available, and all underlying assumptions to determine whether any adjustment to the reserves for these claims is required. "The amount reserved for asbestos-related claims by its nature is subject to many uncertainties that may change over time, including (i) the ultimate number of claims filed; (ii) the amounts required to resolve both currently known and future unknown claims; (iii) the amount of insurance, if any, available to cover such claims; (iv) the unpredictable aspects of the litigation process, including a changing trial docket and the jurisdictions in which trials are scheduled; (v) the outcome of any trials, including potential judgments or jury verdicts; (vi) the lack of specific information in many cases concerning exposure for which PPG is allegedly responsible, and the claimants' alleged diseases resulting from such exposure; and (vii) potential changes in applicable federal and/or state tort liability law. All of these factors may have a material effect upon future asbestos-related liability estimates. As a potential offset to any future asbestos financial exposure, under the PC plan of reorganization PPG retained, for its own account, the right to pursue insurance coverage from certain of its historical insurers that did not participate in the PC plan of reorganization. While the ultimate outcome of PPG's asbestos litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, PPG believes that any financial exposure resulting from its asbestos-related claims will not have a material adverse effect on PPG's consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/O0CGEV ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Remains Shielded from PC Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, Inc. remains protected under a permanent channeling injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code that prohibits present and future claimants from asserting claims against the Company that arise out of exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold or distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PC") or asbestos on or emanating from any PC premises, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2018. The Company states, "Prior to 2000, the Company had been named as a defendant in numerous claims alleging bodily injury from (i) exposure to asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured, sold or distributed by the Company, its subsidiaries, or for which they are otherwise alleged to be liable; (ii) exposure to asbestos allegedly present at a facility owned or leased by the Company; or (iii) exposure to asbestos-containing products of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PC") for which the Company was alleged to be liable under a variety of legal theories (the Company and Corning Incorporated were each 50% shareholders in PC). "In 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in an effort to permanently and comprehensively resolve all of its pending and future asbestos-related liability claims. At the time of the bankruptcy filing, the Company had been named as one of many defendants in approximately 114,000 open claims. The Bankruptcy Court subsequently entered a series of orders preliminarily enjoining the prosecution of asbestos litigation against PPG until after the effective date of a confirmed PC plan of reorganization. During the pendency of this preliminary injunction staying asbestos litigation against PPG, PPG and certain of its historical liability insurers negotiated a settlement with representatives of present and future asbestos claimants. That settlement was incorporated into a PC plan of reorganization that was confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court on May 24, 2013 and ultimately became effective on April 27, 2016. "With the effectiveness of the plan, the preliminary injunction staying the prosecution of asbestos litigation against PPG expired by its own terms on May 27, 2016. In accordance with the settlement, the Bankruptcy Court issued a permanent channeling injunction under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code that prohibits present and future claimants from asserting claims against PPG that arise, in whole or in part, out of exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products manufactured, sold and/or distributed by PC or asbestos on or emanating from any PC premises. The channeling injunction, by its terms, also prohibits codefendants in cases that are subject to the channeling injunction from asserting claims against PPG for contribution, indemnification or other recovery. "The channeling injunction also precludes the prosecution of claims against PPG arising from alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products to the extent that a claimant is alleging or seeking to impose liability, directly or indirectly, for the conduct of, claims against, or demands on PC by reason of PPG's: (i) ownership of a financial interest in PC; (ii) involvement in the management of PC, or service as an officer, director or employee of PC or a related party; (iii) provision of insurance to PC or a related party; or (iv) involvement in a financial transaction affecting the financial condition of PC or a related party. The foregoing PC related claims are referred to as "PC Relationship Claims." "The channeling injunction channels the Company's liability for PC Relationship Claims to a trust funded in part by PPG and its participating insurers for the benefit of current and future PC asbestos claimants (the "Trust"). The Trust is the sole recourse for holders of PC Relationship Claims. PPG and its affiliates have no further liability or responsibility for, and will be permanently protected from, pending and future PC Relationship Claims. The channeling injunction does not extend to present and future claims against PPG that arise out of alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products historically manufactured, sold and/or distributed by PPG or its subsidiaries or for which they are alleged to be liable that are not PC Relationship Claims, and does not extend to claims against PPG alleging personal injury allegedly caused by asbestos on premises presently or formerly owned, leased or occupied by PPG. These claims are referred to as non-PC Relationship Claims. "In accordance with the PC plan of reorganization, PPG's equity interest in PC was canceled. PPG satisfied its funding obligations to the Trust on June 9, 2016, when it conveyed to the Trust the stock it owned in Pittsburgh Corning Europe and 2,777,778 shares of PPG's common stock and made a cash payment to the Trust in the amount of US$764 million. PPG's historical insurance carriers participating in the PC plan of reorganization are required to make cash payments to the Trust of approximately US$1.7 billion, subject to a right of prepayment at a 5.5% discount rate. "On October 13, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order entering a final decree and closing the Chapter 11 case. That order provided that the Bankruptcy Court retained jurisdiction to enforce any order issued in the case and any agreements approved by the court, enforce the terms and conditions of the modified third amended Plan, and consider any requests to reopen the case." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/O0CGEV ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Kraus' Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Devries ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Timothy J. Savage of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, at the behest of CBS Corporation, has stayed the proceedings in the case styled Robert J. Kraus and Margaret M. Kraus, h/w, v. Alcatel-Lucent, Allen-Bradley Company, Ametek, Inc., BBC Brown Boveri, k/n/a ABB, Inc., Belden Wire & Cable Company, LLC, CBS Corporation, formerly known as Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Clark Controller Co., Espey Manufacturing & Electronics Corp., Ford Motor Co., General Dynamics, General Electric Company, Gould Electronics, Inc., GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation, Honeywell International, Honeywell, Inc., IMO Industries, Inc., formerly known as DeLaval Steam Turbine Company, ITT Industries, L-3 Communications, Lockheed Martin Corporation Service Company, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Motorola Solutions, Navcom Defense Electronics, Northrop Grumman Norden Systems, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Philips North America, LLC, Raytheon, Rockbestos Co., Rockwell Collins, Inc., Rogers Corporation, Space Systems/Loral, Square D Company, UNISYS and United Technologies, Civil Action No. 18-2119, (E.D. Pa.), pending the Supreme Court's Decision in Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al. v. Devries. A copy of the Order dated July 25, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6w9ctns from Leagle.com. Robert J. Kraus & Margaret M. Kraus, H/W, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert E. Paul , Paul Reich & Myers, PC. Allen-Bradley Company, Defendant, represented by G. Daniel Bruch, Jr. -- gdbruch@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell, LLC. Ametek, Inc., Defendant, represented by Albert L. Piccerilli -- apiccerilli@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, LLP & Glenn F. Rosenblum -- grosenblum@mmwr.com -- Montgomery, Mc Cracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP. Belden Wire & Cable Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dawn Dezii -- ddezii@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis & Edelstein & Jeanine D. Clark -- jclark@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis Edelstein. CBS Corporation, formerly known as & General Electric Company, Defendants, represented by John P. McShea , McShea Law Firm PC. Espey Manufacturing & Electronics Corp., Defendant, represented by Kara D. Hill -- khill@rmh-law.com -- Reilly McDevitt & Henrich PC & Susan M. Valinis -- svalinis@rmh-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt P.C. Ford Motor Co., Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Sinclair -- dsinclair@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC & Eric L. Horne -- ehorne@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott. General Dynamics & Motorola Solutions, Defendants, represented by Megan Kathleen Bailey -- mbailey@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP. Gould Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christopher H. Jones -- cjones@mdmc-law.com -- McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter. GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward T. Finch -- efinch@lavin-law.com -- Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & Disipio. Honeywell International, Defendant, represented by Peter J. Neeson -- pneeson@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson LLP. Honeywell, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kevin Errol Hexstall -- kehexstall@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, PC. IMO Industries, Inc., formerly known as, Defendant, represented by Joseph I. Fontak -- jfontak@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP. ITT Industries, Defendant, represented by Steven A. Luxton -- steven.luxton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. L-3 Communications, Defendant, represented by Frederick A. Tecce -- fred.tecce@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP. Lockheed Martin Corporation Service Company & Space Systems/LORAL, Defendants, represented by Michael David Smith -- smith@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP. Minnesota Mining And Manufacturing & Raytheon, Defendants, represented by Basil A. Disipio -- BDiSipio@lavin-law.com -- Lavin O'Neil Cedrone & Disipio. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Defendant, represented by Adam A. Desipio -- adam.desipio@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Nancy Shane Rappaport , DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP. Philips North America LLC, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Wall -- jonathan.wall@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. Rockbestos Co., Defendant, represented by Christian A Weimann -- caweimann@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin & Tiffany Giangiulio -- tjgiangiulio@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. Square D Company, Defendant, represented by Christina M. Rideout -- crideout@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowen Spinelli & Hanna & W. Matthew Reber -- mreber@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jason McGuire & Spinelli & Hanna. UNISYS, Defendant, represented by Josette Ferrazza Spivak , Hollstein Keating Cattell Johnson & Goldstein & Patricia M. Henrich -- phenrich@rmh-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek And McDevitt P.C. United Technologies, Defendant, represented by William J. Smith -- wsmith@dmclaw.com -- Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Cross Claimant, represented by Basil A. Disipio -- BDiSipio@lavin-law.com -- Lavin O'Neil Cedrone & Disipio. Minnesota Mining And Manufacturing & Raytheon, Cross Defendants, represented by Basil A. Disipio -- BDiSipio@lavin-law.com -- Lavin O'Neil Cedrone & Disipio. Belden Wire & Cable Company, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jeanine D. Clark -- jclark@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis Edelstein & Dawn Dezii -- ddezii@margolisedelstein.com -- Margolis & Edelstein. CBS Corporation & General Electric Company, Cross Defendants, represented by John P. McShea , McShea Law Firm PC. Espey Manufacturing & Electronics Corp., Cross Defendant, represented by Kara D. Hill -- khill@rmh-law.com -- Reilly McDevitt & Henrich PC & Susan M. Valinis -- svalinis@rmh-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek & McDevitt P.C. Ford Motor Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Sinclair -- dsinclair@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC & Eric L. Horne -- ehorne@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott. General Dynamics & Motorola Solutions, Cross Defendants, represented by Megan Kathleen Bailey -- mbailey@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP. ITT Industries, Cross Defendant, represented by Steven A. Luxton -- steven.luxton@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. L-3 Communications, Cross Defendant, represented by Frederick A. Tecce -- fred.tecce@icemiller.com -- Ice Miller LLP. Northrop Grumman Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Adam A. Desipio -- adam.desipio@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Nancy Shane Rappaport , DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US, LLP. Square D Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Christina M. Rideout -- crideout@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowen Spinelli & Hanna & W. Matthew Reber -- mreber@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jason McGuire & Spinelli & Hanna. General Dynamics, Cross Claimant, represented by Megan Kathleen Bailey -- mbailey@grsm.com -- Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP. Gould Electronics, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Christopher H. Jones -- cjones@mdmc-law.com -- McElroy Deutsch Mulvaney & Carpenter. Honeywell International, Cross Defendant, represented by Peter J. Neeson -- pneeson@rawle.com -- Rawle & Henderson LLP. IMO Industries, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Joseph I. Fontak -- jfontak@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP. Space Systems/Loral & Lockheed Martin Corporation Service Company, Cross Defendants, represented by Michael David Smith -- smith@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP. UNISYS, Cross Defendant, represented by Patricia M. Henrich -- phenrich@rmh-law.com -- Reilly Janiczek And McDevitt P.C. & Josette Ferrazza Spivak , Hollstein Keating Cattell Johnson & Goldstein. United Technologies, Cross Defendant, represented by William J. Smith -- wsmith@dmclaw.com -- Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote. GTE Products Of Connecticut Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Edward T. Finch -- efinch@lavin-law.com -- Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & Disipio. GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by Edward T. Finch -- efinch@lavin-law.com -- Lavin, O'Neil, Ricci, Cedrone & Disipio. Lockheed Martin Corporation Service Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Michael David Smith -- smith@glazieryee.com -- Glazier Yee LLP. Philips North America LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Wall -- jonathan.wall@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. Square D Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Christina M. Rideout -- crideout@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jasons McGowen Spinelli & Hanna & W. Matthew Reber -- mreber@kjmsh.com -- Kelley Jason McGuire & Spinelli & Hanna. Ametek, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Albert L. Piccerilli -- apiccerilli@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, LLP & Glenn F. Rosenblum -- grosenblum@mmwr.com -- Montgomery, Mc Cracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP. Rockbestos Co., Cross Defendant, represented by Tiffany Giangiulio -- tjgiangiulio@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. Ametek, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Albert L. Piccerilli -- apiccerilli@mmwr.com -- Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads, LLP & Glenn F. Rosenblum -- grosenblum@mmwr.com -- Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP. Allen-Bradley Company, Cross Claimant, represented by G. Daniel Bruch, Jr. -- gdbruch@swartzcampbell.com -- Swartz Campbell, LLC. Margaret M. Kraus, H/W & Robert J. Kraus, Cross Defendants, represented by Robert E. Paul , Paul Reich & Myers, PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: R. Mullinax's Claims vs. Honeywell Dropped ----------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Martin Reidinger of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, upon consideration of the Parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss Honeywell International Inc., has dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Honeywell from the case is Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, as Executor of the Estate of Jack Junior Waugh, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., et al., Defendants, Civil Case No. 1:16-cv-00310-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C.), without prejudice. A copy of the Order dated July 24, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y7ajy5an from Leagle.com. Robert A. Mullinax, Individually, Plaintiff, represented by Sabrina G. Stone -- sstone@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham, LLP, pro hac vice, William M. Graham , Wallace & Graham & Kevin W. Paul -- kpaul@dobllp.com -- Dean Omar Branham LLP. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Daniel International Corporation, formerly known as Daniel Construction Company, Inc., Fluor Constructors International, formerly known as Fluor Corporation, Fluor Constructors International, Inc., Fluor Daniel Services Corporation, Fluor Enterprises, Inc. & Union Carbide Corporation, Defendants, represented by Christopher B. Major -- cmajor@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick -- sfrick@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & W. David Conner -- dconner@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest to, Blackmer Pump Company, Goulds Pumps, Inc., Grinnell, LLC, doing business as, Pfizer, Inc., Viad Corporation, formerly known as The Dial Corporation & Yuba Heat Transfer, LLC, Defendants, represented by Tracy Edward Tomlin -- tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough LLP, Travis Andrew Bustamante -- travis.bustamante@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP & William M. Starr -- bill.starr@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, LLP. Borg-Warner Morse TEC, Inc., Successor in interest to, Defendant, represented by David L. Levy -- dlevy@hedrickgardner.com -- Hedrick Gardner Kincheloe & Garofalo LLP. BW/IP, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, Defendant, represented by James M. Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White, & Boyd, P.A., Ronald Gene Tate, Jr. -- rtate@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd, PA, pro hac vice, Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, Whte & Boyd, P.A., pro hac vice & T. David Rheney -- drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A., pro hac vice. Covil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robin Alexander Seelbach -- Robin.Seelbach@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup & William W. Silverman -- William.Silverman@WallTempleton.com -- Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A. Dana Companies LLC, Defendant, represented by Carter T. Lambeth , Carter T. Lambeth Attorney, P.C., Christopher B. Major -- cmajor@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. & William P. Early , Pierce Herns Sloan & Wilson, LLC. Flowserve US Inc., individually, Defendant, represented by James M. Dedman, IV -- jdedman@gwblawfirm.com -- White, & Boyd, P.A., T. David Rheney -- drheney@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A. & Allyson R. Twilley -- atwilley@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan, Whte & Boyd, P.A. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman -- Ejmtechman@ewhlaw.com -- vert Weathersby Houff. Genuine Parts Company, doing business as Rayloc, Defendant, represented by Shannon Strickland Frankel -- Shannon.Frankel@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore and Henderson P.A., Heather B. Adams , Alston & Bird LLP & David Gerald Williams -- David.Williams@youngmoorelaw.com -- Young Moore & Henderson, P.A. Georgia-Pacific LLC, formerly known as Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Kyre, Jr. -- kkyre@pckb-law.com -- Pinto Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC. O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric T. Hawkins -- ehawkins@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young & Douglas Andrew Rubel -- drubel@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young, LLP. Pneumo Abex, LLC, successor in interest to, Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch , Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller. Uniroyal, Inc., formerly known as United States Rubber Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald Moffatt G. McDonald -- mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com -- Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A. Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Bennett -- jbennett@bennett-guthrie.com -- Bennett Guthrie Latham, PLLC. Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ronald Howard Hatfield, Jr. -- Hatfield@LitchfieldCavo.com -- Litchfield Cavo LLP. William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by David B. Oakley -- doakley@pbp-attorneys.com -- Poole Brooke Plumlee PC. Zenith Electronics, LLC, Defendant, represented by E. Elaine Shofner -- eshofner@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP & Douglas Andrew Rubel -- drubel@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young, LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scots Woman Negligently Exposed to Asbestos ------------------------------------------------------------ The Scotsman reported that a judge has ruled a woman who died from cancer was "negligently exposed" to asbestos when she washed her husband's dirty work clothes more than 40 years ago. In the first case of its kind in Scots law, Lady Carmichael concluded Adrienne Sweeney was exposed to the substance when she laundered her husband William's clothes in the 1960s. Mr Sweeney, from Paisley in Renfrewshire, spent the decade working as a fitter at a boiler making factor in nearby Renfrew. After coming home from work, Mr Sweeney, who died in 2008, would "cuddle" Mrs Sweeney whilst wearing overalls that were covered in dust and dirt. The non smoker would then wash his clothes. It was whilst she did this household chore that Mrs Sweeney was exposed to asbestos. Lady Carmichael ruled this exposure "materially increased" the risk of Mrs Sweeney contracting mesothelioma -- the illness that claimed her life in 2015. In a written judgement, the judge ruled Mr Sweeney's former employers, Babcock International, should pay his and his wife's surviving relatives damages, which were undisclosed. Mrs Sweeney's children Kay Gibson, 54, of Paisley, Jan Sweeney, 52, of Moscow, Ayrshire, and William Sweeney, 50, of Beith, also Ayrshire, originally sued Babcock for GBP50,000 as individuals. Her eldest child Kay also sought GBP200,000 as the executrix of her estate with lesser sums sought by other family members. Prior to dying aged 75, Mrs Sweeney gave a statement to a legal firm's representative detailing her employment history and that of her late husband William. The firm's employee Joe McCluskey said Mrs Sweeney told him: "She said she knew there was asbestos dust on his overalls that she washed." Mr McCluskey, 43, said she had met Mrs Sweeney at her home in June 2015 to take notes for a statement. He said: "She was emotional, understandably. She was very lucid and able to hold a conversation without any difficulty." She explained her late husband, who died in 2008 aged 71, had worked at the boiler plant and came home with asbestos dust on his overalls and other clothes. In the judgement published, Lady Carmichael wrote lawyers acting for Mrs Sweeney's family argued that Mr Sweeney's employers should have done more to prevent his wife being exposed to the substance. Lawyers for Babcock argued the evidence to prove Mrs Sweeney's claims was insufficient. They argued it wasn't clear as to whether and to what extent Mr Sweeney was exposed to asbestos at the boiler maker factory. Advocate Neil Mackenzie told the court that there was nothing to suggest that warnings given to shipyards were given to factories such as boiler plant in Renfrew. However, Lady Carmichael ruled in favour of the family. She said: "I accept that Mr Sweeney brought dusty clothes home with him. Whether the deceased had any basis in her own knowledge or from discussion with Mr Sweeney for her statement that the clothing had asbestos dust on it, I do not know. "I accept that the deceased shook out and washed Mr Sweeney's work clothes in the manner described in her statement. Her statement is imprecise as to the frequency with which she did so, but I infer from what she said that this was a regular occurrence, carried out throughout the different seasons and, on the balance of probabilities, at least weekly. "I infer the defenders knew or ought to have known that work clothes would be cleaned at home given that they did not provide clean clothing themselves." ASBESTOS UPDATE: Thrash's PI Claims vs. Boeing Company Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District California, pursuant to the Parties' stipulation, has dismissed with prejudice all claims against Defendant The Boeing Company from the case styled Joseph Thrash, an individual; Chez Thrash, an individual; Plaintiffs, v. Cirrus Enterprises LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-01501-JST, (N.D. Cal.). A copy of the Order dated July 18, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydc25xud from Leagle.com. Joseph Thrash, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Benno Behnam Ashrafi , Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Adam Cooper , Weitz & Luxenberg P.C., pro hac vice, Carlos Jorge Enrique Guzman , Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Josiah Parker , Weitz and Luxenberg, Michael Thomas Reid , Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Robert Allen Green , Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock , Weitz & Luxenburg, P.C. Chez Thrash, an individual, Plaintiff, represented by Benno Behnam Ashrafi , Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Adam Cooper , Weitz & Luxenberg P.C., pro hac vice, Carlos Jorge Enrique Guzman , Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Michael Thomas Reid , Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., Robert Allen Green , Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. & Tyler Robert Stock , Weitz & Luxenburg, P.C. Honeywell International Inc., formerly known as, AlliedSignal Inc., Successor in Interest to the Bendix Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jessica Jean Thomas -- jjthomas@mwe.com -- McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Alice Truong Wong -- alwong@mwe.com -- McDermott Will Emery LLP & Jonathan Yang -- joyang@mwe.com -- McDermott Will & Emery LLP. IMO Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey -- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP, Frederick W. Gatt -- fgatt@leaderberkon.com -- Leader & Berkon LLP & Ketul Dilip Patel , Leader & Berkon LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.2-Bil. Net Reserves at June 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc., had net asbestos reserves of US$1,183 million at June 30, 2018, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018. The Travelers Companies states, "The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition to contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other participating insurers. "The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a reduction in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims. "Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will continue to pursue settlement opportunities. "In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It is possible that the filing of other direct actions against insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future. It is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs would be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to any such claims and has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions. "The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among policyholders in the Home Office and Field Office, and Assumed Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity. Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish asbestos reserves and the Company's evaluations have not resulted in a reliable method to determine a meaningful average asbestos defense or indemnity payment. Over the past decade, the property and casualty insurance industry, including the Company, has experienced net unfavorable prior year reserve development with regard to asbestos reserves, but the Company believes that over that period there has been a reduction in the volatility associated with the Company's overall asbestos exposure as the overall asbestos environment has evolved from one dominated by exposure to significant litigation risks, particularly coverage disputes relating to policyholders in bankruptcy who were asserting that their claims were not subject to the aggregate limits contained in their policies, to an environment primarily driven by a frequency of litigation related to individuals with mesothelioma. The Company's overall view of the current underlying asbestos environment is essentially unchanged from recent periods and there remains a high degree of uncertainty with respect to future exposure to asbestos claims. "Because each policyholder presents different liability and coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the factors which the Company may consider in the course of this review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved; past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims; allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit and the available coverage, if any, for that claim. "Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first six months of 2018 and 2017 were US$98 million and US$139 million, respectively. Net asbestos reserves were US$1.18 billion at June 30, 2018, compared with US$1.19 billion at June 30, 2017." A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available at https://is.gd/mRp0iz ASBESTOS UPDATE: W. Dickens' Claims vs. Gardner Denver Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Louis Guirola, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi has dismissed, without prejudice, Gardner Denver Inc. from the claims of the Plaintiffs, William Dickens and Karla Dickens, in the case the case entitled William Dickens and Karla Dickens, Plaintiffs, v. A-1 Auto Parts & Repair, Inc., et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:18-CV-00162-LG-RHW, (S.D. Miss.). A copy of the Agreed Order dated July 10, 2018, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y8bz56l6 from Leagle.com. William Dickens & Karla Dickens, Plaintiffs, represented by Cameron M. McCormick , Wiggins Law, PLLC & Eric Przybysz -- eprzybysz@sgptrial.com -- Simon Greenstone Panatier, PC, pro hac vice. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., doing business as Carquest & General Parts, Inc., doing business as Carquest Auto Parts, Inc., Defendants, represented by Michael O'Mara Gwin -- mgwin@watkinseager.com -- Watkins & Eager, PLLC & Robert B. Ireland, III -- rireland@watkinseager.com -- Watkins & Eager. Autozone, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith D. Obert , Obert Law Group, P.A. Baldor Electric Company, for its Reliance brand of products & Markey Machinery Co. Inc., Defendants, represented by Mary Margaret Gay -- MMGay@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC, Kimberly Paige Mangum -- KMangum@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC & Sarah E. Jones -- SJones@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC. Bell Auto Parts, Inc. & Goulds Pumps, Incorporated, Defendants, represented by Jennifer Marie Studebaker -- jennifer.studebaker@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP. Borg-Warner Morse Tec LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Borg-Warner Corporation & John Crane, Inc., Defendants, represented by Bradley Adam Hays -- ahays@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning, LLP , Christopher O. Massenburg -- cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com -- Manion Gaynor Manning, LLP, Jeanette S. Riggins -- jriggins@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross Massenburg, LLP& Michael D. Goggans -- mgoggans@mgmlaw.com -- Manning Gross + Massenburg, LLP. Bosch Brake Components LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Morse Automotive Corporation, Defendant, represented by Deirdre C. McGlinchey -- dmcglinchey@mcglinchey.com -- Mcglinchey Stafford, PLLC, pro hac vice, Jose L. Barro, III -- jbarro@mcglinchey.com -- Mcglinchey Stafford, PLLC, pro hac vice & Zelma M. Frederick -- zfrederick@mcglinchey.com -- Mcglinchey Stafford, PLLC. Caterpillar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Samuel D. Habeeb -- SHabeeb@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC & Colleen S. Welch -- CWelch@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC. CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; sued as successor-by-merger to CBS Corporation (a Pennsylvania Corporation), Defendant, represented by Rose Marie Wade -- rmwade@ewhlaw.com -- Evert Weathersby Houff. Crane Co., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Chempump Company, Defendant, represented by Robert W. Wilkinson -- rwilkinson@dwwattorneys.com -- Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC & Kevin M. Melchi -- kmelchi@dwwattorneys.com -- Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, sued individually, doing business as, and as successor to American Talc Company, Metropolitan Talc Co. Inc. and Charles Mathieu Inc. and Sierra Talc Company and United Talc Company & Imerys Talc America, Inc., sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Luzenac America, Inc. successor-in-interest to Cyprus Industrial Minerals Company and Windsor Minerals, Inc. and Metropolitan Talc Co., Defendants, represented by Benjamin Lyle Robinson , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Desiree W. Adams , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, pro hac vice & Paula M. Wellons , Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, pro hac vice. Dana Companies LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Victor Gasket Manufacturing Company & Union Carbide Corporation, Defendants, represented by Clare Smith Rush -- CRush@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy & Marcy B. Croft -- MCroft@maronmarvel.com Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC. Eaton Hydraulics LLC, sued as successor to Vickers Inc. formerly known as Eaton Hydraulics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Clyde O. Adams, IV -- cadams@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins, Parnell, Thackston & Young, LLP. Edelbrock Corporation, Defendant, represented by Fred Krutz, III -- fred.krutz@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP & Daniel J. Mulholland -- daniel.mulholland@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP. Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, sued as successor to Felt-Products Manufacturing Co., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey P. Hubbard -- hubbard@hubbardmitchell.com -- Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC. Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Janika D. Polk -- jpolk@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler Polk Shell Weiner & Richeson, Deborah D. Kuchler -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler, Polk, Weiner, LLC & Lee Blanton Ziffer -- lziffer@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler, Polk, Weiner, LLC. Holley Performance Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Clift Abdalla -- mary.abdalla@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Watkins & Krutz, LLP. Honeywell International, Inc., sued as successor-in-interest to Bendix Corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward W. Mizell -- edward.mizell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, James H. Bolin -- jay.bolin@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP & Meade W. Mitchell -- meade.mitchell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP. Ingersoll-Rand Company, Defendant, represented by Donald C. Partridge -- DPartridge@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC, Charles Chan E. McLeod -- CMcLeod@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC & Richard M. Crump -- RCrump@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC. Johnson & Johnson & Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, Defendants, represented by Edward W. Mizell -- edward.mizell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, James H. Bolin -- jay.bolin@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP, Kathleen I. Carrington -- kat.carrington@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP & Meade W. Mitchell -- meade.mitchell@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP. MW Custom Papers, LLC, as successor-in-interest to The Mead Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Albert Smyth, III -- jsmyth@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard, Cooper & Gale, PC. Perrigo Company, Defendant, represented by Ben F. Galloway, III , Owen & Galloway, PLLC, Jeffrey Jerome Hines -- jjh@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell, Devries, Leech & Dann, LLP, pro hac vice, Joe Sam Owen , Owen, Galloway & Myers, PLLC, Michael A. Pichini -- map@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell, Devries, Leech & Dann, LLP, pro hac vice & Richard Matthew Barnes -- rmb@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell, Devries, Leech & Dann, LLP, pro hac vice. Trinity Marine Products, Inc., for its Nabrico brand of products, Defendant, represented by Allen E. Graham -- teeto.graham@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Barbara L. Arras -- barbara.arras@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP, pro hac vice & James G. Wyly, III -- jim.wyly@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP. Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Clare Smith Rush -- CRush@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC. Viking Pump, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard M. Crump -- RCrump@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC & Charles Chan E. McLeod -- CMcLeod@maronmarvel.com -- Maron Marvel Bradley Anderson & Tardy, LLC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Admits to Asbestos Fraud Scheme ------------------------------------------------------ Hudson Valley 360 reported that an Earlton woman who owns an Albany-based asbestos testing firm pleaded guilty to scheming to defraud 19 customers and collecting about $40,000 for services her businesses wasn't licensed to provide, officials said. Ronda M. Dolan, 51, who owns Albany Environmental Consultants LLC, and project manager Brian K. McLaren, 54, of Troy, pleaded guilty in Albany City Court to one count each of second-degree scheme to defraud, a class A misdemeanor, according to a statement from Attorney General Barbara Underwood. Dolan, McLaren and the company are accused of illegally forging documents to defraud customers into believing the company was licensed by the state to test for asbestos and stealing another company's licence number, according to the attorney general's office. Albany Environmental Consultants LLC, was also charged and pleaded guilty to one count of first-degree scheme to defraud, a class E felony, according to the attorney general's office. The defendants were arraigned in Albany City Court and charged with one count of first-degree identity theft, a class D felony; four counts of third-degree grand larceny, a class D felony; two counts of fourth-degree grand larceny, a class E felony, and one count of first-degree scheme to defraud, a class E felony, according to the attorney general's office. "We all know about the extreme risks posed by asbestos exposure," Underwood said in a statement. "It is unconscionable that a company would work without a New York license -- undermining the public trust and risking the health of unsuspecting customers." Albany Environmental Consultants had a state asbestos remediation license until about August 2014. After the license expired, the defendants forged their letterhead with a license number from another company knowing they needed that license to perform asbestos-related jobs, according to the attorney general. The defendants took on 19 jobs without a legitimate license through at least January 2015, according the attorney general. During that time, the company is accused of stealing $40,000 from clients including a hospital, firehouse, church, bus station, manufacturing facility and individual homeowners throughout Albany, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady, Washington and Westchester counties, according to the attorney general. The clients had to have the asbestos work redone by a licensed company. Dolan's attorney, Dennis Schlenker, of Albany, declined to comment on the legal proceedings. McLaren's attorney, Matthew Toporowski of the Wagoner Firm in Albany, did not return calls for comment as of press time. Dolan, McLaren and the company's convictions were the result of a joint investigation by the Attorney General's Criminal Enforcement and Financial Crimes Bureau, in partnership with the state Department of Environmental Conservation, the state Department of Labor Asbestos Control Bureau and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ********* 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. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, 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 ***