Asbestos News Roundup: 10.13.11

October 13th, 2011. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news and information that you should be aware of. An ongoing list of reported asbestos hot spots in the US from the Asbestos News Roundup archive appears on our asbestos map.

Asbestos Lawsuits

St. Clair County, IL: An asbestos lawsuit was filed late September by Julie Anne Mossburg of Ohio in St. Clair County Circuit Court. In her suit, Mossburg names 28 defendant companies, alleging they caused the recently deceased Gary James Mossburg Sr. to develop lung cancer. Mr. Mossburg Sr. died on January 27, 2010, as a result of his asbestos related illnesses.

In her lawsuit, Julie Anne Mossburg claims that Mr. Mossburg’s lung cancer resulted from his exposure to asbestos-containing products throughout the course of his work as a bricklayer and tile setter at various residential, commercial and industrial locations from 1966-2006.

The lawsuit further claims that the defendants should have been aware of the harmful effects of asbestos, but failed to exercise reasonable care and caution for the plaintiffs’ safety.

Before his death and as a result of his asbestos-related illnesses, Gary James Mossburg Sr. became disabled and disfigured, incurred medical costs and suffered great physical pain and mental anguish, the lawsuit states. Additionally, Mr. Mossburg became prevented from pursuing his normal course of employment and, as a result, lost large sums of money that would have accrued, Julie Anne Mossburg alleges.

Julie Anne Mossburg is seeking economic damages of more than $50,000, a judgment of more than $50,000, punitive and exemplary damages of more than $100,000 and compensatory damages of more than $50,000, plus costs and other relief the court deems just. (Madisonrecord.com)

Asbestos Law

Pueblo, CO: Tom Tienda, a contractor in Pueblo, is being tried by state and local prosecutors for hiring a handful of homeless day laborers to dear down a house on Lake Avenue that contained asbestos. The prosecutors allege that Tienda was aware the building contained asbestos, and by hiring itinerant labor he could avoid paying $200,000 to properly remove the carcinogenic substance.

Mike Melito, a prosecutor with the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, explained to the jury that Tienda also took some of the contaminated material and used it on another of his portfolio of homes at 903 Catalpa.

Tienda is charged with felony counts of intentionally causing a hazardous materials incident and attempting to influence a public servant along with numerous misdemeanor counts of air pollution for demolishing the house without any permits.

Tienda, who owns several properties in the area, at least one of which has been condemned, allegedly hired a group people to remove asbestos-containing material before crews started bringing the walls down on his Lake Avenue property.

J.D. Potter, the Pueblo Regional Building department’s assistant building officer, a witness in the case, said old Tienda’s tenants complained about poor plumbing or electrical problems or that the heat had been shut off. Potter said the Lake Avenue property had been in decline since the 1990s. By the time he inspected it in 2006, electrical wiring and copper plumbing had been stripped from the home and vagrants and gangs had squatted in the building. (Chieftan.com)

Movie Madness: Lawsuit Says “Drive” didn’t Drive Enough

October 13th, 2011. By AbiK

Been to a movie lately that you thought, quite frankly, sucked?

Did you file a lawsuit over it? Or even request a refund at the box office? Probably not. But Sarah Deming from Michigan did.

Seems she saw the trailer for the movie, Drive, and subsequently put it on her “must see” list. Deming’s apparently a Fast and Furious (the movie, not the federal gun-running op), hit-the-accelerator type of gal. For most, Hollywood darling Ryan Gosling would’ve been reason enough to hit the box office. But Deming sought the action aspect, and well, unfortunately, when she saw the full movie, she was less than wowed.

Deming’s beef—there are actually a couple—was that the Drive trailer promoted a race action film—i.e., one that would have a lot of fast driving in it—but in reality, Drive had “very little driving” in it. Deming’s complaint actually stated that Drive was promoted as being like Fast and Furious but in reality it was not.

The second part of her lawsuit—which somehow seems completely off-topic from what she’s seeking damages for (i.e., allegedly misleading trailer)–states that there was “extreme gratuitous defamatory dehumanizing racism directed against members of the Jewish faith.” Something tells me the likes of Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman wouldn’t be associated with such a movie—but what do I know?

If you’ve seen the Drive trailer, it doesn’t, IMHO, make you think the movie is just going to be driving a-go-go. There’s actually this little thing called a storyline going on—and you get that from the trailer. Thinking about it now, in fact, most car action movies I recall have a bit more than the driving going on. Heck, even Speed Racer has a plot that puts the cars in “park” for large chunks of the movie.

But my perception does not equate Ms. Deming’s perception. And therein lies the crux of the matter here. Was the trailer for Drive misleading? Was it false advertising?

One has to imagine that Deming could’ve just gotten a refund (reports don’t mention whether Deming sat the whole movie out or if she got up midway through it and left the theater). But Deming is on a rant here so she’s suing. She wants her ticket refunded, and apparently an end to misleading movie trailers—whatever that really means. And, according to kcra.com, she’ll be seeking class action status on this one.

Hard to imagine that this one will really go anywhere—if it does, what’s to stop an onslaught of copycat lawsuits? And, what’s next? Read some cover notes at Barnes & Noble, buy the book, read the book, and…?

Next time, perhaps Ms. Deming should just stay home, grab her remote, and watch some NASCAR.

Law School Lawsuits over Law School Scam?

October 12th, 2011. By AbiK

It’s a Catch-22. Law school enrollments have been declining—they’re reportedly down about 10 percent nationally in 2011, with some schools like Vermont Law School down 23.8 percent. Law schools, in order to drive enrollments, need to show that their post-graduate job placement rates are fairly high (Marketing 101).

But the economy is not exactly cooperating as it leaves newly minted attorneys loaded with debt and schlepping coffee orders at Starbucks. And that’s left some students with that WTF? feeling—after all, those published post-grad job placement rates (promises, promises) are looking rather bogus once that graduation cap is tossed in the air.

(Toss that law career, too!)

The cycle is nothing new—very textbook, if you’ll excuse the pun. But, let’s face it, it’s a scam that schools have been known to employ—not just law schools—to bolster enrollment. So while there has been at least one lawsuit filed, according to an AP report, against Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, looks like more are en route…

Two lawyers—David Anziska and Jesse Strauss—are hoping to put a reality check on the marketed outlook for law firm gigs post-graduation.

So far, they’ve filed two lawsuits in New York and Michigan alleging that New York Law School and Thomas Cooley Law School (MI) inflated their post-grad employment rates. Next up, 15 more law schools:

• Albany Law School
• Brooklyn Law School
• California Western School of Law
• Chicago-Kent College of Law
• DePaul University School of Law
• Florida Coastal School of Law
• Hofstra Law School
• John Marshall School of Law in Chicago
• Pace University School of Law
• St. John’s University School of Law
• Southwestern Law School
• Villanova University School of Law
• Widener University School of Law
• University of Baltimore School of Law
• University of San Francisco School of Law

According to Anziska and Strauss, the above 15 schools individually reported post-grad employment rates in a range of 80-98 percent; along with an average debt per student of $108,829.40 (2009 graduates).

That’s more than some folks’ mortgages.

Figure in also that the National Association for Law Placement reported that only just over two-thirds of spring 2010 law grad had landed jobs requiring law licenses nine months post-graduation (source: AP).

And, the same report states that the national median salary for new 2010 law school grads dropped to $63k, down from $72k.

Sure makes the graduation party a bit less festive, and certainly makes the “80-98 percent” placement picture seem like b.s. (assuming, of course, that the 15 schools’ placement rates are in line with national averages, which, I’m guessing they are).

Times are tough, indeed. But having a bunch of eager, aspiring and, dare I say, impressionable lawyer wannabes ramp up their law school application process with visions of plum positions (partner!) in their heads is misleading at best, fraudulent at worst.

Anziska and Strauss are looking for lead plaintiffs. And somehow, I think they’ll find them.

Chewing Gum Lawsuit Seeks $100k for Depression

October 10th, 2011. By AbiK

Rare it is indeed that a lawsuit comes along that can generate that kind of headline. But, as fate would have it, a lawsuit has been filed up in the Great White North (channeling Geddy Lee here) about chewing gum that allegedly caused depression thereby warranting the damages sought for $100,000.

Let me throw some light on this for you.

Seems that Elsie C. Pawlow is a denture wearer (hopefully not a power Fixodent user as well). And, she elected to chew some Stride gum. You know the one—with the big curvy sweepy “S”on the package. Quick background tip: it’s made by Cadbury Adams which is involved in that price fixing lawsuit we mentioned last week.

Now, why Pawlow didn’t choose Freedent is a question that remains unanswered—given that it’s marketed as the gum that “won’t stick to most dental work”. But she didn’t. She chose Stride and that’s when things apparently went downhill.

According to the lawsuit which was filed in Edmonton, Canada, when Pawlow chewed the Stride gum, it started to fall apart into little pieces after she’d been chewing it for about five minutes. Then, the little pieces allegedly stuck to her dentures.

Now, it’s a bit of misfortune that could happen to anyone, right? Kind of like chomping into an apple when you have braces and all that pulp crap gets stuck in the wiring—if you’ve been there, you know. And it’s bummer to have to pick and floss it all out—but, hey, comes with the territory.

Pawlow, however, must not be so breezy peasy about such things.

No, according to the complaint, Pawlow suffered approximately ten minutes of depression while she was digging the pieces of gum out of her dentures.

No joke. Pawlow is claiming she suffered ten minutes of depression.

I’m thinking—and hoping—that the makers of Prozac or Zoloft are reading this and brainstorming a new market for “Prozac Lite” or something—for when you have that ten minutes of circumstantial darkness and just need to get over the hump.

Ten minutes of depression? Please. Ten minutes of aggravation? Yea, gummed up dentures could hit that proverbial last nerve. But I challenge Pawlow to share her definition of “depression” with any true sufferer of depression and see how her version stacks up.

Was she unable to function? Was she feeling hopeless and purposeless for all of ten minutes? And is “flash depression” grounds for a lawsuit? Think about it—I’m guessing you probably experience 600 seconds of depression on a daily basis. Get to the root of it and maybe you can have a lawsuit, too.

I jest, of course. And I do feel badly for Elsie Pawlow.

But here’s a newsflash, Elsie: Gum sticks to things. And when a pack of gum costs a couple of dollars and maybe a few minutes of aggravation, somehow $100,000 seems a bit…much.

Bought any Candy Bars? Chocolate Candy Class Action Settlement Update

October 7th, 2011. By AbiK

Ever snag a chocolate bar as you’re checking out at the grocery store? Ever buy Halloween candy? Or, if you’re like me, maybe you keep a stash somewhere in the house. Just in case. For when you need that fix.

Well, you just might be part of a class action lawsuit settlement that you never knew you were part of. And funny how that word “fix” figures into this one. See, in the chocolate class action, the ‘fix’ is about alleged price fixing (which somehow sounds better with a French whirl: chocolat à prix fixe, doesn’t it?)

The Chocolate Class Action Lawsuit alleged that several chocolate makers—and we’re not talking high-end chocolatiers here—we’re talking the mass-marketed brands that every red-blooded American has bought at one time or other–conspired to “fix, raise, maintain or stablize prices of Chocolate Candy resulting in overcharges to those who purchased Chocolate Candy by a Defendant”. Yes, your basic anti-trust lawsuit.

If you’re tracking here, “a Defendant” implies there’s more than one defendant here. And there are. The defendants in the chocolate class action are: Cadbury Holdings Ltd., Cadbury pc, and Cadbury Adams Canada, Inc.; Hershey Canada, Inc., The Hershey Company, Mars, Inc., Mars Snackfood U.S., LLC and Nestle U.S.A., Inc.

Think of how much chocolate’s included there! Seriously…why there’s…

Hershey’s Milk Chocolate bars, Hershey’s Cookies ‘n Creme, Hershey’s Dark Chocolate, Hershey’s Milk Chocolate with Almonds, Hershey’s Miniatures, Mr. Goodbar, Symphony chocolate bars, Nestle Crunch, Butterfinger, Kit-Kat, M&M’s, Milky Way, Twix, Snickers, 3 Musketeers, Mars Bar, to name some favorites. Almost forgot—Cadbury Creme Eggs, too!

Ok, so now that you know who’s on the receiving end of this one, here are the details—as so far, Cadbury Holdings Ltd., Cadbury plc, and Cadbury Adams Canada, Inc. (“Cadbury”) have reached settlements—and the other defendants are still in litigation.

Are you part of the Chocolate Class Action Lawsuit?

There are actually two classes for this class action settlement. Because chocolate candy is sold at retailers and, therefore, the retailer—like Wal-Mart or Winn-Dixie—has had to purchase the chocolate wholesale directly from the manufacturer, there is a “Direct Purchasers” class. Direct purchase would mean anyone who bought the candy direct from the Defendant(s) and intended to resell it.

As you’ve probably guessed, the second class is for “Indirect Purchasers“; “Indirect Purchasers” meaning anyone who  bought the chocolate in question from someone other than the Defendant(s) (e.g., a store) for the purpose of personal consumption–or to give as a gift.

You must have purchased the chocolate December 9, 2002 through December 20, 2007.

It is possible to be a member of both classes.

What does the Chocolate Class Action Settlement give me?

So far, only Cadbury has reached a settlement. The terms of the Cadbury settlement call for Cadbury to pay out $250,000 in cash to the Indirect Purchasers, and $1,312,500 in cash to the Direct Purchasers. The settlement also provides $250,000 to pay for notice of the settlements to all settlement classes. Cadbury also agreed to cooperate in the remaining litigation against the other Defendants.

What do I have to do to Submit a Claim for the Chocolate Class Action Settlement?

The Fairness Hearing is set for December 12, 2011. That’s when the final ok (or not) would be granted for the Cadbury settlement to go ahead. Once that happens, the claims administrator for the class action settlement would post a claim form that you would need to fill out and submit.

Right now, your best bet is to keep an eye on things, and you can do so at the Chocolate Candy Class Action Settlement websites–yes, there are two of them: One for Direct Purchasers, www.ChocolateSettlementDirect.com; and one for Indirect Purchasers, www.ChocolateSettlementIndirect.com. The Indirect one is the one you want if you just bought chocolate at a store for yourself or as a gift. (Do not submit claims to LawyersandSettlements.com for this.)

Also, if you’d like to be excluded from either class for the Cadbury settlement, the deadline is October 21, 2011. The deadline to object to the Cadbury settlement is November 28, 2011. Additionally, the deadline to submit a Notice of Intention toAppear at the Fairness Hearing is also November 28, 2011.