NEW HAVEN, Conn. - An insurer told a federal court in Connecticut on April 18 that a motion for reconsideration of the confirmation of an arbitration award should not be granted because there was no manifest injustice in the confirmation decision (General Re Life Corporation v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 15-cv-01860, D. Conn.).
NEW YORK - A panel of the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 20 ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to decide a case in which a group of residents sued Tronox Inc. contending that they had been harmed as a result of exposure to wood treated with creosote at the company's plant in Pennsylvania (Avoca Plaintiffs v. Kerr-McGee Corporation; In Re: Tronox Inc., No. 16-343, 2nd Cir.).
ASHEVILLE, N.C. - A company being sued by a North Carolina man who contends that he contracted cancer as a result of groundwater contamination for which the man says the company is liable on April 17 filed a brief in North Carolina federal court, arguing that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs cannot show causation (Kent Stahle v. CTS Corporation, No. 14-48, W.D. N.C.).
SAN FRANCISCO - The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 14 agreed with a federal district court that nine plaintiffs bringing claims against Cordis Corp. for injuries allegedly caused by the defendant's inferior vena cava (IVC) device are not seeking trials that would trigger federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) (Jerry Dunson, et al. v. Cordis Corporation, No. 17-15257, 9th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 6446).
PITTSBURGH - There is neither sufficient cause nor subject matter jurisdiction to reopen the Chapter 11 case of Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (PCC) at the request of the company's asbestos trust to determine whether thousands of claims from a consolidated Texas litigation qualify for payment by the trust, the claimants told a Pennsylvania federal bankruptcy court April 14 (In re: Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, No. 00-22876, W.D. Pa. Bkcy.).
SAN DIEGO - A California federal judge on April 12 granted preliminary approval of a $700,000 settlement to be paid by Similasan Corp. to end a class complaint alleging false or deceptive labeling of the company's homeopathic products (Kim Allen, et al. v. Similasan Corporation, No. 12-376, S.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56333).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A reinsurer on April 7 asked a federal court in Connecticut to reconsider its opinion confirming an arbitration award, arguing that there is no basis in the record to show how to calculate a monetary judgment (General Re Life Corporation v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 15-cv-01860, D. Conn.).
LOS ANGELES - Moments after a California federal jury returned a $454 million verdict in a California class action trial involving MicroCool surgical gowns, the judge on April 7 urged the parties to try to resolve the dispute to avoid having the matter go on "for many years further after today's verdict" (Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC, et al. v. Kimberly Clarke Corporation, et al., No. 14-8390, C.D. Calif.).
TRENTON, N.J. - Two former executive team leaders on April 6 accepted a $83,000 offer of judgment filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by Target Corp. and Target Corporation of Minnesota (collectively, Target), ending their proposed collective action that accused the retailer of misclassifying them as exempt from receiving overtime pay (Richard Locicero, et al. v. Target Corporation, et al., No. 16-5592, D. N.J.).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal jury on April 7 returned a $454 million verdict in a California class action trial alleging that defendants Kimberly-Clark Corp. and spinoff Halyard Health Inc. sold surgical gowns that did not meet standards for protecting operating room personnel from bodily fluids (Bahamas Surgery Center, LLC, et al. v. Kimberly Clarke Corporation, et al., No. 14-8390, C.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal magistrate judge in California on April 3 ordered a property owner to withdraw a request to the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to have a former owner conduct additional site investigation for contamination, finding that the request violated the terms of a settlement agreement with the parties (Northern California River Watch v. Fluor Corporation, No. 10-cv-05105-WHO, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50763).
TRENTON, N.J. - Finding an expert's testimony on the placement of a warning label on a watercraft unreliable, a New Jersey federal judge on March 31 ruled that summary judgment is still not appropriate on a failure-to-warn claim because there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the two existing warnings on the watercraft were adequate (Angela Ruggiero v. Yamaha Motor Corporation U.S.A., No. 15-49, D. N.J., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48908).
NEW HAVEN, Conn. - A federal judge in Connecticut on March 31 granted a motion to confirm an arbitration award as clarified, noting that the original unclarified award was ambiguous (General Re Life Corporation v. The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, No. 15-cv-01860, D. Conn., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48860).
HAMMOND, Ind. - A federal judge in Indiana on March 31 approved a proposed settlement between the federal government, Illinois, Michigan and Indiana and United States Steel Corp. over violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA), but acknowledged comments from objectors to the agreement who sought a harsher civil penalty or an agreement that the company take on more environmental projects (United States of America, et al. v. United States Steel Corporation, No. 12-CV-304-PPS-APR, N.D. Ind., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47607).
CHICAGO - A general contractor's third-party lawsuit against a subcontractor that allegedly failed to properly install steel beams and ornamental steelwork was properly dismissed by a trial court judge, an Illinois appeals panel ruled March 31, after finding that the defendant LLC was not a mere continuation of a defendant corporation (The Groves of Palatine Condominium Association v. Walsh Construction Company, No. 1-16-1035, Ill. App., 1st Dist., 5th Div., 2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 204).
BOSTON - The National Labor Relations Board did not err when it adhered to the "successor bar doctrine" established in UGL-UNICCO Service Co., 357 N.L.R.B. 801 (2011), and ruled that the company that obtained a portion, including employees, of a bankrupt auto parts delivery company was a successor employer and had to bargain with the workers' union, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled March 31 (National Labor Relations Board v. Lily Transportation Corporation, No. 15-2398, 1st Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 5634).
HARRISBURG, Pa. - A federal magistrate judge in Pennsylvania on March 31 vacated a $4.24 million verdict handed down in favor of a group of residents against a hydraulic fracturing company they had accused of contaminating their groundwater. The judge ordered that a new trial be held if the parties are unable to reach a mutual settlement on the remaining claims in the lawsuit (Nolen Scott Ely v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, No. 09-2284, M.D. Pa.; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49075).
MIAMI - A Florida federal judge on March 28 found that a dispute over a charter party agreement should be compelled to arbitration but denied the motion until the parties could agree as to where the arbitration should be conducted (Internaves De Mexico, s.a. de C.V. v. Andromeda Steamship Corporation, et al., No. 16-81719, S.D. Fla., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46507).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) on March 27 released its order discontinuing an arbitration commenced by two Canadian entities that sought damages from the United States in relation to their investment in a crude oil pipeline (TransCanada Corporation & TransCanada PipeLines Limited v. The Government of The United States, No. ARB/16/21, ICSID).
MINNEAPOLIS - In the wake of the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals' rejection and remand of a proposed settlement between Target Corp. and a class of consumers whose personally identifiable information (PII) was compromised in 2013 data breaches, the consumers on March 27 filed a memorandum in Minnesota federal court supporting a newly filed motion for class certification and defending the adequacy of their class representation (In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 14-2522, D. Minn.).