CAR_Public/141121.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, November 21, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 232


                             Headlines

427 KINGS HIGHWAY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
A-1 COLLECTION: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
AARON'S INC: Court Approves Settlement in "Kunstmann" Case
AARON'S INC: Approval of Settlement in "Jewell" Case Pending
AARON'S INC: Discovery Ongoing in "Antoine" Case

AARON'S INC: Appeal of Ruling in "Korrow" Case Pending
AARON'S INC: Plaintiff in "Byrd" Case Requested Appellate Review
AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Case Remains Pending
AARON'S INC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended "Price" Complaint
AARON'S INC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended "Peterson" Complaint

AGV SPORTS: Intern Defeats Motion to Dismiss Class Action
ALLIANCE HOLDINGS: Fenkell Files Amended Notice of Appeal
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Class Action in Pretrial Discovery
ARCHITECTURAL ARTIFACTS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Work
B&B HOSPITALITY: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act

BAYER CONSUMER: Fails to Dismiss Probiotic False Advertising Suit
BED BATH: Sued by Misclassified Assistant Managers Over Unpaid OT
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Gehl Gets Okay to File 2nd Amended Complaint
BMO FINANCIAL: Faces "Branski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Accused of Overstating Mini Cooper Mileage

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Paid for Publication of Settlement Notice
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces 24,000+ Transvaginal Surgical Mesh Cases
CASTRO CONTRACTORS: Faces "Budel" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CBS CORPORATION: Simon & Schuster to Defend Against E-books Case
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Bid to Disqualify Williams Case Counsel Denied

CENTURY ALUMINUM: Medical Benefits Case Proceeding in Trial Court
CHICAGO: Illinois Dist. Court Dismisses "Discount Inn" Case
CLEVELAND: District Court Judgment in "Williams" Case Reversed
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Discovery Ongoing in Royalties Class Suit
DELCATH SYSTEMS: Nov. 25 Deadline to Respond to Class Cert. Bid

EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery Ongoing in Wallboard Antitrust Case
EL TROMPITO: D. Colo. Judge Approves Parties' Settlement
FGX INTERNATIONAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overtime Wage Case
FIFTH GENERATION: Faces 4 Suits Over Tito's Handmade Vodka Claim
GE CAPITAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Belton" Case Denied

GERON CORP: Mississippi Case Transferred to California Court
GINO MORENA: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Drops Bid to Dismiss as to Original Offering
GOLDMAN SACHS: Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Denies Motion to Sever Claims

GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Okayed in Suit Over PE-Sponsored Deals
GOLDMAN SACHS: Parties in RALI Case Seeks Summary Judgment
GOLDMAN SACHS: Demurrers in Zynga Securities Litigation Overruled
GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in FireEye Securities Case
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendant in Millennial Media Securities Case

GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in GT Advanced Securities Case
GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs Seek Class Cert. in Discrimination Case
GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in Overtime Compensation Case
GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Okayed in Antitrust Conspiracy Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Aluminum Facilities Suit on Appeal

GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendant in Zinc Storage Facilities Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks to Dismiss Forex Markets Action
GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in ISDAFIX-Related Litigation
GRAND ISLE: Bid for Conditional Certification Granted in Part
GREATER NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Li" Suit Says

HINSDALE CLEANERS: Faces "Ibarra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
J.M. SMUCKER: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Action Claims
LME HOLDINGS: Bid to Reconsider in Aluminum Antitrust Suit Tossed
MERCURY PAYMENT: N.D. Cal. Judge Won't Transfer Suit to D. Colo.
MOUNTAIN STATE: Court Stays Proceedings in MSU Students' Case

NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Sued in S.D. Ohio Over Illegal Telemarketing
NEW PARTNERS CONSULTING: M.D. Fla. Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss
NEWPARK DRILLING: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
OCWEN LOAN: Court Narrows Claims in "Abraham" Class Action
PACIFIC BELL: Calif. Court Dismisses "Lefevre" Class Action

PARISH OF ST BERNARD: Class Cert. Denial in Estopinal Case Upheld
PIONEER CORP: Case Mgt. Conference in JLK Action Moved to Jan.
RELIABLE REPORTS: Faces "Prontaut" Suit Over Violation of FLSA
RICELAND FOODS: Court Rules on Riceland's Counterclaims
RITE AID: Proceedings in 7 Actions Stayed Pending Mediation

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Dakil" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
SARJ USA: Faces "Mercado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SIRIUS XM: 9th Cir. Flips Ruling in Suit Over Unauthorized Calls
STANDARD INSURANCE: 10th Cir. Remands "Woods" Suit to Dist. Court
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Five Star Farms Suit Over Viptera Corn

SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Lanier" Suit Over Viptera Corn
SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Wilson Farm Suit Over Viptera Corn
STATE FARM: Judge Drops Case of Third-Party Insurance Claimant
SUPERSHUTTLE INTERNATIONAL: N.D. Cal. Judge Grants Settlement
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Meade" Suit Over Defective Airbags

TITEFLEX CORP: 1st Cir. Affirms Product Liability Suit Dismissal
UNITED STATES: Two Motions to Intervene in Keepseagle Case Tossed
UNITED STATES: Customs' Efforts to Introduce Evidence Denied
WYETH LLC: Plaintiffs' Expert Testimony Falls Short


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Reserved $103MM for PI Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Steel Has 830 Fibro Cases as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has 9,700 Corhart Fibro Cases
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Continues to Defend Insurance Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had $451-Mil. Fibro Liability

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Had $1.05B Fibro Claims Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal Water Applies for Fibro Suits Costs Memo
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Continues to Defend PI Suits

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 18,000 Claims as of Sept. 30

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Continues to Defend Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit v. BorgWarner Remains Pending in Calif.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had $111.8-Mil. Fibro Liabilities
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Accrues $151-Mil. Fibro Liabilities

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Allows Inmate Suits to Proceed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Cir. Flips Remand Ruling in "Cuomo" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "June" Suit Deemed Withdrawn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Granted in "Logan" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Cir. Remands Fibro Criminal Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Amends Order in "Gottschall" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit Parties Ordered to Establish Citizenship
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio App. Flips Ruling in Fibro Violations Suit


                            *********


427 KINGS HIGHWAY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Fortino Callejas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. 427 Kings Highway, Inc. d/b/a Peppino's Brick Oven
Pizza & Restaurant, and Joseph Mancino, in his individual and
professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-06628 (E.D.N.Y.,
November 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rebecca Solomon Predovan, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES PLLC
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: rsp@employmentlawyernewyork.com


A-1 COLLECTION: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Krady, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. A-1 Collection Agency, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:14-cv-07062 (D.N.J., November 11, 2014), seeks to redress
the Defendant's actions of using an unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

A-1 Collection Agency, LLC is a company that uses the mail,
telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the
principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged
to be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS LAW LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 660-8169
      E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


AARON'S INC: Court Approves Settlement in "Kunstmann" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in Kunstmann et al
v. Aaron Rents, Inc., filed with the United States District Court,
Northern District of Alabama (Case No.: 2:08-CV-01969-KOB-JEO) on
October 22, 2008, plaintiffs alleged that the Company improperly
classified store general managers as exempt from the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The case was
conditionally certified as an FLSA collective action on January
25, 2010. Plaintiffs sought to recover unpaid overtime
compensation and other damages. In July 2014, the parties engaged
in a successful mediation of this case and reached an agreement in
principle to settle the matter for an immaterial amount. On
October 16, 2014, the Court approved parties' proposed settlement
documents and order.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Approval of Settlement in "Jewell" Case Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the matter of
Kurtis Jewell v. Aaron's, Inc. was originally filed in the United
States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
on October 27, 2011 and was transferred on February 23, 2012 to
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia (Civil No.:1:12-CV-00563-AT). Plaintiff, on behalf of
himself and all other non-exempt employees who worked in Company
stores, alleged that the Company violated the FLSA when it
automatically deducted 30 minutes from employees' time for meal
breaks on days when plaintiffs allegedly did not take their meal
breaks. Plaintiff claimed he and other employees actually worked
through meal breaks or were interrupted during the course of their
meal breaks and asked to perform work. As a result of the
automatic deduction, plaintiff alleged that the Company failed to
account for all of his working hours when it calculated overtime,
and consequently underpaid him. Plaintiffs sought to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for all similarly
situated employees nationwide for the applicable time period. On
June 28, 2012, the Court granted conditional certification of a
class consisting of approximately 1,788 opt-in plaintiffs. In
August 2014, the parties resumed a previous mediation and reached
an agreement to settle the case, subject to court approval. The
proposed settlement documents have been filed with the court and
approval is pending.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Discovery Ongoing in "Antoine" Case
------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in Daniel Antoine
v. Aaron's, Inc., filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (Civil No.:1-14-CV-02120-AT-WEJ), on July 3,
2014, plaintiff alleges that the Company violated his rights and
the rights of putative class members under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by refusing to hire plaintiff and other applicants
based upon pre-employment background check reports without first
sending such background reports and a pre-adverse action notice to
the applicants. The Company filed its answer on August 30, 2014,
denying all liability in the case. Discovery is on-going.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Appeal of Ruling in "Korrow" Case Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in Margaret
Korrow, et al. v. Aaron's, Inc., originally filed in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, Law Division on October 26,
2010, plaintiff filed suit on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated alleging that the Company is liable in damages
to plaintiff and each class member because the Company's lease
agreements issued after March 16, 2006 purportedly violated
certain New Jersey state consumer statutes. Plaintiff's complaint
seeks treble damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and
statutory penalty damages of $100 per violation of all contracts
issued in New Jersey, and also claim that there are multiple
violations per contract. The Company removed the lawsuit to the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
December 6, 2010 (Civil Action No.: 10-06317(JAP)(LHG)). Plaintiff
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated seeks equitable
relief, statutory and treble damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees. Discovery on this matter is closed.
On July 31, 2013, the Court certified a class comprising all
persons who entered into a rent-to-own contract with the Company
in New Jersey from March 16, 2006 through March 31, 2011. In
August 2013, the Court of Appeals denied the Company's request for
an interlocutory appeal of the class certification issue. The
Company has filed a motion to allow counterclaims against all
newly certified class members who may owe legitimate fees or
damages to the Company or who failed to return merchandise to the
Company prior to obtaining ownership. That motion was denied by
the magistrate judge on June 30, 2014, but an appeal of that
ruling is pending with the District Court.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Plaintiff in "Byrd" Case Requested Appellate Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in Crystal and
Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John
Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on
May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court, Western
District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 1:11-CV-00101-SPB), plaintiffs
alleged that the Company and its independently owned and operated
franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises ("Aspen Way") knowingly violated
plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought
certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based
these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software program called "PC
Rental Agent." Although the District Court dismissed the Company
from the original lawsuit on March 20, 2012, after certain
procedural motions, on May 23, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which asserts
the claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, added a
request for injunction, and named additional independently owned
and operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs filed
the third amended complaint, and the Company moved to dismiss that
complaint on substantially the same grounds as it sought to
dismiss plaintiffs' prior complaints. Plaintiffs filed their
motion for class certification on July 1, 2013, and the Company's
response was filed in August 2013. On March 31, 2014, the U.S.
District Judge dismissed all claims against all franchisees other
than Aspen Way Enterprises, LLC. The Court also dismissed claims
for invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy
against all defendants. In addition, the Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the class. Finally, the Judge denied
the Company's motion to dismiss the violation of ECPA claims.
Plaintiff has requested immediate appellate review of these
rulings by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs
seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Case Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in Michael Winslow
and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation, Aaron's, Inc.,
John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed
on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No.
BC502304), plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and its
independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial
Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for
unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and
violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims
arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The
plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages in connection
with the allegations of the complaint. Plaintiffs are also seeking
certification of a putative California class. Plaintiffs are
represented by the same counsel as in the above-described Byrd
litigation. In April 2013, the Company timely removed this matter
to federal court. On May 8, 2013, the Company filed a motion to
stay this litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and a motion to
strike certain allegations in the complaint. The Court
subsequently stayed the case. The Company's motions to dismiss and
strike certain allegations remain pending.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended "Price" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in Lomi Price v.
Aaron's, Inc. and NW Freedom Corporation, filed on February 27,
2013, in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia (Case No. 13-
EV-016812B), an individual plaintiff asserts claims against the
Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee, NW
Freedom Corporation, for invasion of privacy/intrusion on
seclusion, computer invasion of privacy and infliction of
emotional distress. Each of these claims arises out of the alleged
use of PC Rental Agent software.  The plaintiff is seeking
compensatory and punitive damages of not less than $250,000. On
April 3, 2013, the Company filed an answer and affirmative
defenses. On that same day, the Company also filed a motion to
stay the litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to
strike certain allegations in the complaint. The court stayed the
proceeding pending rulings on certain motions in the Byrd case.
The stay has expired and the plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


AARON'S INC: Seeks Dismissal of Amended "Peterson" Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in Michael
Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., filed
on June 19, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, several plaintiffs allege that they leased
computers for use in their law practice. The plaintiffs claim that
the Company and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy
and the privacy of plaintiff's legal clients in violation of the
ECPA and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek
certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based
these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software program called PC
Rental Agent. The plaintiffs claim that information and data
obtained by defendants through PC Rental Agent was attorney-client
privileged. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint.

Aaron's, Inc. is a specialty retailer primarily engaged in the
business of leasing and selling furniture, consumer electronics,
computers, appliances and household accessories throughout the
United States and Canada.


AGV SPORTS: Intern Defeats Motion to Dismiss Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Catherine C. Blake of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the
case entitled ROSS M. WOLFE, et al., v. AGV SPORTS GROUP, INC., et
al., Civil No. CCB-14-1601 (D. Md.)

Defendant AGV has an intern program of which Michael Parotte the
AGV founder, president and sole paid employee, interviews, hires
and supervises the interns. AGV has a policy of classifying the
significant majority of its program participants as Unpaid
Interns. AGV pays no wages to them. Yet AGV used these unpaid
interns to perform AGV's core business functions, including: sales
and marketing, fashion design, graphic arts, information
technology, legal, management, social networking, supply chain
management, web development, and video production -- all of which
are functions typically performed by regular employees

Plaintiff Ross Wolfe is one of the unpaid interns who worked for
AGV's law department, where he logged 28 or more hours per week.
In lodging this complaint, Ross alleges that AGV violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"), Section 3-401 et seq., the
Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL"), Section 3-501
et seq., and Maryland common law. Wolfe contends that defendants
misclassified Wolfe and others like him as unpaid interns when
they were actually employees entitled to wages.

Defendants have moved to dismiss Wolfe's complaint for failure to
state a claim.

Judge Blake denied defendants' motion to dismiss expressing that
Wolfe's claim survives defendants' motion to dismiss, that he had
sufficiently alleged an FLSA violation, that his MWHL claim will
survive and that plaintiff successfully alleged that he was an
employee within the MWPCL's meaning and that he is entitled to
timely payment of wages, which plaintiff alleges defendants have
not provided.

A copy of Judge Blake's memorandum dated November 3, 2014 is
available at http://is.gd/RPMxBffrom Leagle.com.

Michael Parrotte, Defendant, Pro Se.


ALLIANCE HOLDINGS: Fenkell Files Amended Notice of Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William M. Conley signed a notice on November 3,
2014, amending a notice of appeal in CAROL CHESEMORE, DANIEL
DONKLE, THOMAS GIECK, MARTIN ROBBINS, and NANETTE STOFLET, on
behalf of themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANCE HOLDINGS, INC., DAVID
B. FENKELL, PAMELA KLUIE, JAMES MASTRANGELO, STEPHEN W. PAGELOW,
JEFFREY A. SEEFELDT, TRACHIE BUILDING SYSTEMS, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK
OWNERSHIP PLAN, ALLIANCE HOLDINGS, INC. EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION
PLAN, A.H.I., INC., ALPHA INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, JOHN MICHAEL
MAIER, AH TRANSITION CORPORATION, and KAREN FENKELL, Defendants,
CASE NO. 3:09-CV-000413, (W.D. Wis.).

David B. Fenkell amended his Notice of Appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit filed on October 3, 2014.
He is taking an appeal from eight rulings entered by District
Judge William M. Conley.

A copy of the Amended Notice of Appeal is available at
http://is.gd/nJEtMdfrom Leagle.com.

JACKSON LEWIS P.C. David R. Johanson, Los Angeles, California,
Douglas A. Rubel, Cary, North Carolina, Attorneys for Defendant-
Appellant David B. Fenkell.

Daniel Donkel, Thomas Gieck, Martin Robbins, Nannette Stoflet,
Additional Plaintiffs.

Karen L. Handorf, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington,
DC, Marie A. Stanton, Hurley, Burish & Stanton, S.C., Madison, WI,
Michelle Yau, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC,
Monya Monique Bunch, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Washington, DC, Robert Joseph Barton, Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Bruce Frank Rinaldi, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Additional Counsel for
Plaintiffs.

Alliance Holdings, Inc. Pamela Klute, James Mastrangelo, Stephen
W. Pagelow, Jeffrey A. Seefeldt, Trachte Building Systems, Inc.
Employee Stock Ownership Plan Alliance Holdings, Inc. Employee
Stock Ownership Plan A.H.I., Inc. Alpha Investment Consulting
Group, LLC John Michael Maier, AH Transition Corporation, Karen
Fenkell, Additional Defendants.

Douglas Andrew Rubel, Jackson Lewis P.C., Cary, NC, Brian Arthur
Price, Jackson Lewis LLP, Brookfield, WI, Additional Counsel for
Defendants David B. Fenkell and Karen Fenkell.

Charles Clark Jackson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL,
Christopher Alan Weals, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington,
DC, Emily Anne Glunz, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Chicago, IL,
Katherine Elizabeth Kenny, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Chicago,
IL, Counsel for Alliance Holdings, Inc. and AH Transition
Corporation.

Charles B. Wolf, Vedder Price P.C., Chicago, IL, Patrick
Williamson Spangler, Vedder Price P.C., Chicago, IL, Benjamin
Hartsock, Vedder Price P.C., Chicago, IL, Lynn Marie Stathas,
Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren S.C., Madison, WI, Counsel for Pamela
Klute, James Mastrangelo, Jeffrey A. Seefeldt.

Alan I. Silver, Bassford Remele, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, Jonathan
Paul Norrie, Bassford Remele, Minneapolis, MN, Kevin Patrick
Hickey, Bassford Remele, P.A., Minneapolis, MN, Counsel for
Stephen W. Pagelow.

Brian L. Anderson, DeWitt Ross & Stevens, Madison, WI, Charles B.
Wolf, Vedder Price P.C., Chicago, IL, Patrick W. Spanglera, Vedder
Price P.C., Chicago, IL, Counsel for Trachte Building Systems,
Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

Charles Clark Jackson, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Chicago, IL,
Emily Anne Glunz, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Chicago, IL,
Counsel for A.H.I., Inc.

Lars C. Golumbic, Groom Law Group, Chartered, Washington, DC,
Sarah Adams Zumwalt, Groom Law Group, Chartered, Washington, DC,
Willie E. Wilder, Groom Law Group, Chartered, Washington, DC,
Counsel for Alliance Holdings, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan.
James J. Convery, Laner, Muchin, Chicago, IL, Jeffrey P. Carren,
Laner Muchin, Chicago, IL, Tara Michelle Mathison, Davis &
Kuelthau, S.C., Milwaukee, WI, Counsel for Alpha Investment
Consulting Group, LLC and John Michael Maier.


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Class Action in Pretrial Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that certain
manufacturers and distributors of sugar cane and beet sugar
products filed on April 22, 2011, a suit in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against the Company,
other manufacturers and marketers of high-fructose corn syrup
(HFCS), and the Corn Refiners Association, alleging that the
defendants falsely claimed that HFCS is "natural" and
nutritionally equivalent to sugar. The defendants have filed
counterclaims against the plaintiffs. The parties are currently
engaged in a pretrial discovery.


ARCHITECTURAL ARTIFACTS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Work
---------------------------------------------------------------
DeAngelo Simmons, Joshua Payton, Jubbar Holley, and Roosevelt
Burrell, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly
situated v. Architectural Artifacts, Inc., and Stuart E. Grannen,
individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-09054 (N.D. Ill., November 11,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a museum and gallery that
specializes in unique decorative, architectural or salvage pieces
for home use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1263
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


B&B HOSPITALITY: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ma Guadalupe Cordero-Alpos, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated, known and unknown v. B&B Hospitality
Staffing, LLC and Alliance Hospitality Management, LLC d/b/a
Hilton Garden Inn, Case No. 1:14-cv-09040 (N.D. Ill., November 11,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a staffing agency, located at 65 E.
Palatine Road, Suite 117, Prospect Heights, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


BAYER CONSUMER: Fails to Dismiss Probiotic False Advertising Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bayer must face claims that its Phillips' Colon Health Probiotic +
Fiber product does not defend against constipation, diarrhea, and
gas and bloating, as advertised, reports Rose Bouboushian at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Troy Yuncker and Dino Rikos, of Illinois, filed a putative class
action in May 2011, alleging Bayer falsely advertises that its
over-the-counter Phillips' Colon Health Probiotic + Fiber product
contains "three strains of good bacteria to promote overall
digestive health."

The Morristown, N.J.-based manufacturer began marketing the drugs
nationwide in October 2008 and June 2009, according to an amended
complaint filed in March 2014.

Though Bayer's TV and internet ads, as well as packages, labels,
and in-store samples, allegedly say the drugs "help[] defend
against occasional: constipation, diarrhea, [and] gas and
bloating," based on "scientific evidence," those statements are
not true, the plaintiffs claim.

Relying on those ads, Rikos bought the product in California and
Illinois several times in 2010, while Yuncker bought it at a
Walgreens in Illinois in May 2011, the complaint states.

But the product's ingredient matrix does not provide the digestive
or immune system benefits that Bayer claims, the complaint says.

The plaintiffs say the European Food Safety Authority found in
July 2009, that no available data shows that consuming
lactobacillus gasseri -- one of the strains of bacteria contained
in Phillips' Colon Health -- improves intestinal transit within
the normal range.

The agency also allegedly found that consuming the two other
strains in Phillips' Colon Health (bifidobacterium bifidum and
bifidobacterium longum) does not decrease potentially pathogenic
intestinal microorganisms in infants and children aged 0 to 36
months.

The authority further concluded in 2012 that the consumption of
the bacteria in Phillips Colon Health has not been shown to defend
against pathogenic bacteria, the complaint states.

The plaintiffs assert claims for consumer fraud under New Jersey,
California, and Illinois law; breach of implied warranty of
merchantability; and unjust enrichment.

They seek to halt the dissemination of the allegedly false and
misleading advertising, correct the idea it has created in the
minds of consumers, and obtain redress for those who have
purchased Phillips' Colon Health.

The pharmaceutical giant moved to dismiss for failure to state a
claim on April 30, 2014.

U.S. District Judge Jose Linares dismissed the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act claims November 6, finding that "the states where the
named plaintiffs purchased Phillips' Colon Health have the most
significant relationship to plaintiffs' consumer fraud claims."

Though the unjust enrichment claim survived, the plaintiffs were
required to establish privity under Illinois law to support the
breach of warranty claims, the unpublished ruling states.

"Not only have plaintiffs failed to do so, but it is clear that
cannot do so given their concession that the products at issue
were not purchased directly from Bayer," Linares wrote.

But the court held that the cited scientific studies support the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law
and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claims.

"Such scientific studies, accepted as true for purposes of this
motion, allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
combination of the three strains of bacteria contained in
Phillips' Colon Health does not deliver the digestive health
benefits that Bayer claims it does," Linares wrote.  "Whether or
not plaintiffs will ultimately be able to prove that Bayer's
statements are actually false remains to be seen and is certainly
not at issue on a motion to dismiss."  (Emphasis in original).

The case is captioned In re: Bayer Phillips Colon Health Probiotic
Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 2:11-cv-03017-JLL-JAD, in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.


BED BATH: Sued by Misclassified Assistant Managers Over Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Bed Bath & Beyond
misclassifies employees as assistant managers to duck overtime, a
class action claims in Utah Federal Court.


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Gehl Gets Okay to File 2nd Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore signed a joint stipulation on
November 7, 2014, to allow the filing of a second amended
complaint in the case captioned HOLLY GEHL, et al others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BLOOMIN' BRANDS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 4:13-CV-05961-KAW, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/qsWL1Tfrom Leagle.com, provides that:

1. If the Court rules that Plaintiff Brittni Zacher and Plaintiff
   Shannon Spalding will be withdrawn as named Plaintiffs as
   requested by Plaintiffs' Motion to Withdraw, the Second Amended
   Complaint will be deemed filed and served as of the date that
   the Court issues such a ruling.

2. If the Court rules that Zacher and/or Spalding should not be
   withdrawn as named Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs will promptly revise
   the Second Amended Complaint to reflect such ruling and counsel
   will promptly meet and confer regarding the preparation of a
   stipulation for such revised Second Amended Complaint to be
   filed.

DON SPRINGMEYER -- dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- BRADLEY SCHRAGER
-- bschrager@wrslawyers.com -- (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), JUSTIN
JONES, WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP, Las Vegas,
Nevada.

MATTHEW OSTER -- moster@wrslawyers.com -- ERIC LEVINRAD --
elevinrad@wrslawyers.com -- JOSHUA A. SHAPIRO, WOLF, RIFKIN,
SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP, Los Angeles, California,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

BETH SCHROEDER -- bschroeder@lathropgage.com -- LAUREN KATUNICH --
lkatunich@lathropgage.com -- ALLISON WALLIN --
awallin@lathropgage.com -- (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) LATHROP & GAGE,
LLP, Attorneys for Defendants T-BIRD RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. and T-
BIRD NEVADA, LLC

SARAH ZENEWICZ -- szenewicz@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN &
CRUTCHER LLP, Attorneys for Defendants BLOOMIN' BRANDS, INC.; OSI
RESTAUANT PARTNERS, LLC; and OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC


BMO FINANCIAL: Faces "Branski" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Branski, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. BMO Financial Corp., Case No. 2:14-cv-01418 (E.D.
Wis., November 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work over 40 hours per workweek.

BMO Financial Corp. provides financial and banking services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer J. Allen, Esq.
      Alan C. Olson, Esq.
      ALAN C. OLSON & ASSOCIATES SC
      2880 S Moorland Rd
      New Berlin, WI 53151-3744
      Telephone: (262) 785-9606
      Facsimile: (262) 785-1324
      E-mail: jallen@Employee-Advocates.com
              aolson@employee-advocates.com


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Accused of Overstating Mini Cooper Mileage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that BMW overstated the mileage
per gallon on 2014 Mini Cooper and Mini Cooper 3 3-door vehicles,
a class action claims in Florida Federal Court.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Paid for Publication of Settlement Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
Company paid the initial required payments in a class action
during the second quarter of 2014 and funded the publication of
the settlement notice during the third quarter of 2014.

The Company said, "Fewer than ten individual lawsuits remain
pending in various state and federal jurisdictions against Guidant
Corporation (Guidant) alleging personal injuries associated with
defibrillators or pacemakers involved in certain 2005 and 2006
product communications. Further, we are aware of approximately 30
Guidant product liability lawsuits pending in international
jurisdictions associated with defibrillators or pacemakers,
including devices involved in the 2005 and 2006 product
communications. Six of these suits are pending in Canada and were
filed as class actions, four of which are stayed pending the
outcome of two lead class actions. On April 10, 2008, the Justice
of Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom
defibrillators were implanted in Canada and a class of family
members with derivative claims. On May 8, 2009, the Justice of
Ontario Court certified a class of persons in whom pacemakers were
implanted in Canada and a class of family members with derivative
claims. In each case, these matters generally seek monetary
damages from us. The parties in the defibrillator class action
have reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter for
approximately $3 million. The presiding judge approved the
settlement at a hearing on March 24, 2014. We paid the initial
required payments during the second quarter of 2014 and funded the
publication of the settlement notice during the third quarter of
2014."

Boston Scientific Corporation is a worldwide developer,
manufacturer and marketer of medical devices that are used in a
broad range of interventional medical specialties.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces 24,000+ Transvaginal Surgical Mesh Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of
November 4, 2014, there were over 24,000 product liability cases
or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed
to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse
pending against the Company.

The cases are pending in various federal and state courts in the
United States and include eight putative class actions. There were
also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of three putative
class actions, and fewer than 10 claims in the United Kingdom.

The Company said, "Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal
injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh
products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims,
failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state
consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 2,500
of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state
court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on
Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and
transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to
MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth
quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from
certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal
surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests."

"We have established a product liability accrual for known and
estimated future cases and claims asserted against us as well as
costs of defense thereof associated with our transvaginal surgical
mesh products. While we believe that our accrual associated with
this matter is adequate, changes to this accrual may be required
in the future as additional information becomes available. We
intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims asserted against
us; however, the final resolution is uncertain and could have a
material impact on our results of operations, financial condition
and/or liquidity. Initial trials involving our transvaginal
surgical mesh products have resulted in both favorable and
unfavorable judgments for us.  We do not believe that the judgment
in any one trial is representative of potential outcomes of all
cases or claims related to our transvaginal surgical mesh
products."

Boston Scientific Corporation is a worldwide developer,
manufacturer and marketer of medical devices that are used in a
broad range of interventional medical specialties.


CASTRO CONTRACTORS: Faces "Budel" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Budel, And All Others Similarly Situated v. Felipe Sandoval
Castro d/b/a Castro Contractors, Case No. 4:14-cv-03233 (S.D.
Tex., November 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages and compensation for hours worked.

Felipe Sandoval Castro owns and operates a construction company
located at 12835 Reeveston Road, Houston Texas 77039.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Micah Williams, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES
      810 Highway 6 South, Ste 111
      Houston, TX 77079
      Telephone: (832) 230-4125
      Facsimile: (832) 230-5310
      E-mail: jwilliams10050@gmail.com


CBS CORPORATION: Simon & Schuster to Defend Against E-books Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Simon & Schuster
intends to defend itself in the U.S. Actions on E-books matters.

Commencing in 2012, a number of antitrust suits were filed and/or
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Simon & Schuster, other book
publishers and Apple Inc. ("Apple") in connection with these book
publishers' agency arrangements regarding the distribution of e-
books to e-book retailers. Simon & Schuster has settled all of
these actions without any admission of wrongdoing or liability and
has adopted certain business and compliance practices as part of
certain settlements. On April 10, 2012, Simon & Schuster and two
other book publisher parties entered into a settlement stipulation
and proposed final judgment (the "Stipulation") with the United
States Department of Justice (the "DOJ") in connection with an
antitrust action filed by the DOJ, which was approved by the court
on September 7, 2012. The Stipulation requires the adoption of
certain business practices for a 24 month period (the "24 Month
Period") and certain compliance practices for a five year period.

In connection with Simon & Schuster's settlement of an antitrust
suit filed with the court on April 11, 2012 by the U.S. states and
territories and the District of Columbia (the "States
Settlement"), Simon & Schuster adopted certain business and
compliance practices substantially similar to those described in
the Stipulation. The Company believes that continuing to comply
with these business and compliance practices pursuant to the
Stipulation and States Settlement, which are the only outstanding
obligations under these settlements, will not have a material
adverse effect on its results of operations, financial position or
cash flows.

Following a ruling in favor of the DOJ and a judgment against
Apple that was entered by the court on September 6, 2013 in one of
the antitrust suits described above, Apple filed an appeal, which
will be heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. On October 4, 2013, Simon & Schuster filed an appeal with
the court relating to an aspect of the Apple judgment involving
the 24 Month Period.

Similar antitrust suits have been filed against the Publishing
parties by private litigants in Canada, purportedly as class
actions, under Canadian law, commencing on February 24, 2012
("Canada Actions"); and by an Australian e-book retailer on
September 16, 2013, and two former U.S. e-book retailers in March
2014, each in the United States Court for the Southern District of
New York ("U.S. Actions"). Simon & Schuster executed an agreement
settling the Canada Actions as of May 8, 2014, which is subject to
Canadian court approval. Simon & Schuster intends to defend itself
in the U.S. Actions.

In addition, the European Commission (the "EC") and Canadian
Competition Bureau (the "CCB") conducted separate competition
investigations of agency distribution arrangements of e-books in
this industry. On December 12, 2012, following the close of a
comment period, the EC entered into settlement agreements with
Simon & Schuster and certain Publishing parties. The CCB also
entered into a settlement agreement with Simon & Schuster and
certain Publishing parties, which was effective on February 7,
2014 but was subsequently stayed by the Canadian Competition
Tribunal on March 18, 2014 pending the resolution of an
application to rescind or vary the settlement agreement filed by a
large Canadian e-book retailer. These settlements require the
adoption of certain business and compliance practices similar to
those described in the Stipulation with the DOJ.

CBS Corp. is comprised of the following segments: Entertainment
(CBS Television, comprised of the CBS Television Network, CBS
Television Studios and CBS Global Distribution Group; CBS
Interactive and CBS Films), Cable Networks (Showtime Networks, CBS
Sports Network and Smithsonian Networks), Publishing (Simon &
Schuster) and Local Broadcasting (CBS Television Stations and CBS
Radio).


CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Bid to Disqualify Williams Case Counsel Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Carol E. Jackson denied defendant's motions to
disqualify plaintiff's counsel and to strike the declaration of
Glenn Williams in the case captioned GLENN WILLIAMS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL
TRANSPORT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 4:13-CV-2009
(CEJ), (E.D. Mo.).

A copy of the Court's November 7, 2014 memorandum and order
is available at http://is.gd/vmq9n1from Leagle.com.

Glenn Williams filed this action on October 9, 2013, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, claiming that defendant
Central Transport International, Inc., willfully violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., by
maintaining improper overtime policies and record keeping
practices.  Plaintiff alleges that defendant had a uniform policy
of providing overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of
fifty-five hours per week, instead of the required forty hours per
week, and that its electronic timekeeping system did not record
all hours actually worked. Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs and attorney's fees.

Glenn Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin J. Dolley --
kevin@dolleylaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC & Laura
Spencer Garth -- laura.garth@dolleylaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN
J. DOLLEY, LLC.

Central Transport International Inc., Defendant, represented by
Darrell L. West -- dwest@dickinsonwright.com -- DICKINSON WRIGHT
PLLC, M. Reid Estes, Jr. -- restes@dickinsonwright.com --
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, Robert C. Caldwell --
CCaldwell@dickinsonwright.com -- DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC & Sheena R
Hamilton -- shamilton@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE,
LLP.


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Medical Benefits Case Proceeding in Trial Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Century Aluminum Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the case in
chief related to the Ravenswood Retiree Medical Benefits changes
is currently proceeding in the trial court, subject to the court's
ruling on the motion for summary judgment.

In November 2009, Century Aluminum of West Virginia ("CAWV") filed
a class action complaint for declaratory judgment against the
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy,
Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union
("USWA"), the USWA's local and certain CAWV retirees, individually
and as class representatives, seeking a declaration of CAWV's
rights to modify/terminate retiree medical benefits.  Later in
November 2009, the USWA and representatives of a retiree class
filed a separate suit against CAWV, Century Aluminum Company,
Century Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan, and various John
Does with respect to the foregoing.  These actions, entitled
Dewhurst, et al. v. Century Aluminum Co., et al., and Century
Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper and
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and
Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC, et al., have
been consolidated and venue has been set in the District Court for
the Southern District of West Virginia.

In January 2010, the USWA filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to prevent us from implementing any modifications to
the retiree medical benefits while these lawsuits are pending,
which was dismissed by the trial court, and affirmed upon appeal.
CAWV has filed a motion for summary judgment of these actions. The
case in chief is currently proceeding in the trial court, subject
to the court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment.


CHICAGO: Illinois Dist. Court Dismisses "Discount Inn" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles Ronald Norgel dismissed the case captioned
DISCOUNT INN, INC., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, NO.
13 CV 7168, (N.D. Ill.).

Discount Inn, Inc. sued City of Chicago, challenging the
constitutionality of the City's ordinances governing weed control,
Mun. Code of Chi.7-28-120, and the fencing of vacant lots, Mun.
Code of Cht.7-28-750.  The City filed a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

A copy of the Court's November 5, 2014 opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/aV5QDGfrom Leagle.com.

Discount Inn, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ilia Usharovich --
ilia@usharolaw.com -- Ilia Usharovich, Attorney At Law, Sheldon M.
Sorosky, Kaplan & Sorosky, David N. Schaffer --
schaffer@familylawltd.com -- Schaffer Family Law, LTD. & William
V. Saracco.

City of Chicago, Defendant, represented by Andrew W Worseck --
aworseck@cityofchicago.org -- City of Chicago, Department of Law,
Michael J. Dolesh -- mdolesh@cityofchicago.org -- City of Chicago,
Department of Law & David Michael Baron --
david.boron@cityofchicago.org --


CLEVELAND: District Court Judgment in "Williams" Case Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed
a district court judgment in, and remanded for further
proceedings, the case captioned TYNISA WILLIAMS; SHAWN BEALER,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, Defendant-Appellee,
NO. 13-4162.

Late in 2009, Tynisa Williams filed a putative class action
against Cleveland, alleging that she and other similarly situated
pretrial detainees had been deprived of their constitutional
rights when they were subjected to mandatory strip searches and
delousing upon entry to the City of Cleveland House of Correction
(the "jail) without any individualized suspicion that they were
concealing contraband or were infected with lice.

The district court opined that de-lousing naked inmates in a group
"is justified."

The appeal filed by the plaintiffs boiled down to one question:
whether a complaint states a constitutional claim when it alleges
that defendant's jail, instead of using less invasive procedures,
compelled pretrial detainees who were being processed into the
facility to undress in the presence of other detainees and to have
their naked genitals sprayed with delousing solution from a
pressurized metal canister.

The Sixth Circuit held that such allegations plausibly allege a
violation of the Fourth Amendment. It, therefore, reversed the
district court's contrary conclusion and remanded the case for
further proceedings. On remand, plaintiffs were granted leave to
file a proposed second amended complaint.

A copy of the Sixth Circuit's November 10, 2014 Opinion is
available at http://is.gd/0FsU2mfrom Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Elmer Robert Keach, III -- bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com --
LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC, Amsterdam, New York,
for Appellants.

Alejandro V. Cortes -- ACortes@city.cleveland.oh.us -- CITY OF
CLEVELAND DEPARTMENT OF LAW, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Elmer Robert Keach, III -- bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com --
LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, PC, Amsterdam, New York,
Nicholas Migliaccio -- nmigliaccio@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD, BRYSON
& MASON, LLP, Washington, D.C., Daniel Karon -- karon@gsk-law.com
-- GOLDMAN, SCARLATO, KARON & PENNY, PC, Cleveland, Ohio, for
Appellants.

Alejandro V. Cortes -- ACortes@city.cleveland.oh.us -- Thomas J.
Kaiser -- tkaiser@city.cleveland.oh.us -- Jennifer Meyer, CITY OF
CLEVELAND DEPARTMENT OF LAW, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellee.


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Discovery Ongoing in Royalties Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, the Company is
vigorously defending an alleged class action alleging the Company
improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to
plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners as categorized in the
petition from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma.

The lawsuit was filed in November 2010. The plaintiffs have
alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud,
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and
seek recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages
and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. The Company has
responded to the petition, denied the allegations and raised a
number of affirmative defenses. Discovery is ongoing and
information and documents continue to be exchanged.

The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action
will have on its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the
complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the
matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the
nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the
class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate
potential outcome of the matter. The class has not been certified.

Plaintiffs have indicated that if the class is certified they may
seek damages in excess of $165 million which may increase with the
passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of
interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes that
the case meets the requirements for a class action and is
vigorously defending the case.

Continental Resources's principal business is crude oil and
natural gas exploration, development and production with
properties in the North, South, and East regions of the United
States.


DELCATH SYSTEMS: Nov. 25 Deadline to Respond to Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lead Plaintiff in the In re Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation served Defendants with a Motion for Class
Certification, and Defendants anticipate serving a response to
this Motion by November 25, 2014, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

On May 8, 2013, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bryan
Green, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated,
v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Green"), Case No. 1:13-cv-
03116-LGS.  On June 14, 2013, a substantially similar complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Joseph Connico, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Delcath Systems,
Inc., et al. ("Connico"), Case No. 1:13-cv-04131-LGS.

At a hearing on August 2, 2013, the Court consolidated the Green
and Connico actions under the caption In re Delcath Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-3116, appointed Lead Plaintiff,
Delcath Investor Group, and approved Pomerantz Grossman Hufford
Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as Lead Plaintiff's choice of counsel.

On September 18, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, naming the Company and Eamonn P. Hobbs as defendants
(the "Defendants").  The consolidated amended complaint asserts
that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's New
Drug Application for its Melblez Kit (Melblez (melphalan) for
Injection for use with the Delcath Hepatic Delivery System), for
the treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic ocular
melanoma in the liver.  The putative class period alleged in the
amended complaint is April 21, 2010 through and including
September 13, 2013. Lead Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages,
equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and
other costs.  On October 31, 2013, Defendants filed their motion
to dismiss, which was subsequently denied on June 27, 2014.  On
July 25, 2014, Defendants filed their respective answers to Lead
Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint.  On July 29, 2014, the
Court held a scheduling conference setting forth a case management
plan.  The parties are proceeding with discovery.  On October 15,
2014, Lead Plaintiff served Defendants with a Motion for Class
Certification.  Defendants anticipate serving a response to this
Motion by November 25, 2014.

The Company believes that the In re Delcath Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation action lacks merit and intends to defend the
case vigorously.

The case is, In re Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation,
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Case No. 13-cv-3116)

Delcath Systems, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical and medical
device company focused on oncology.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery Ongoing in Wallboard Antitrust Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that American Gypsum's
production of written discovery is substantially complete, and
discovery is ongoing in the Domestic Wallboard Antitrust
Litigation.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States district courts, including the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North
Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the
Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC ("American
Gypsum"), alleging that American Gypsum conspired with other
wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for drywall sold in the
United States in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some
cases related provisions of state law. The complaints allege that
the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices
through the announcement and implementation of coordinated price
increases, output restrictions, and other restraints of trade,
including the elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In
addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits
include CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation, New NGC, Inc., Lafarge
North America, Temple Inland Inc. and PABCO Building Products LLC.
On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred and consolidated all related cases to the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct
purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. The
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits bring claims
on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers of
wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified
monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases
injunctive relief. On July 29, 2013, the Company and American
Gypsum answered the complaints, denying all allegations that they
conspired to increase the price of drywall and asserting
affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs' claims.

While American Gypsum's production of written discovery is
substantially complete, discovery is ongoing. Due to the fact that
the case is in the discovery phase, and the plaintiffs have not
specified the amount of any damages they are seeking, we are
unable to estimate the amount of any reasonably possible loss or
range of reasonably possible losses. American Gypsum denies the
allegations in these lawsuits and will vigorously defend itself
against these claims.

Eagle Materials Inc. is a diversified producer of basic building
products used in residential, industrial, commercial and
infrastructure construction.


EL TROMPITO: D. Colo. Judge Approves Parties' Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado approves and grants the parties settlement
and dismisses the case NOEL CASTORENA, ANGELES SALAS, and
ELIZABETH SANCHEZ, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EL TROMPITO, INC., doing
business as El Trompito Taqueria, ANTUNEZ HOLDINGS, INC., doing
business as El Trompito, LUIS ALFONSO ANTUNEZ, and SILVIA ANTUNEZ,
Defendants., Civil Action No. 14-CV-00326-KLM (D. Colo.)

The parties brought upon the court a Renewed Joint Motion for
Approval of Settlement Agreement as Stipulated Final Judgment. The
parties request that the court approve the executed Settlement
Agreement, which resolves all of plaintiff's claims, some are
brought pursuant to the Fair labor Standards Avt, 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 et seq.

Judge Mix finds that the litigation involves a bona fide dispute,
that the proposed Settlement Agreement is fair and equitable to
all parties concerned, and that the proposed settlement awards
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The Court therefore approves
the parties' Settlement Agreement.

The parties' joint Motion also requests that the Court, upon
approval of the Settlement Agreement, dismisses this action with
prejudice.  Thus, the Court dismisses the action with prejudice
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

A copy of Judge's Mix Order dated November 3, 2014, is available
at http://is.gd/H8WxbFfrom Leagle.com

Silvia Antunez Defendant, represented by Nicholas Anthony Murray,
Esq. -- Nicholas.Murray@jacksonlewis.com -- Ryan P. Lessmann, Esq.
-- LessmanR@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis P.C.


FGX INTERNATIONAL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Overtime Wage Case
----------------------------------------------------------
KRYSTAL LARSON, On behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FGX INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, CASE
NO. 14-2277-JTM, (D. Kan.) is an action for unpaid minimum and
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), and state law. Plaintiff proposes a class of
similarly situated persons employed by defendant.

On November 7, 2014, District Judge J. Thomas Marten granted
plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint and denied
defendant's motion to dismiss the case as moot.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order is available at
http://is.gd/MdBXYMfrom Leagle.com.

Krystal Larson, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Edward Osman --
mosman@workerwagerights.com -- Osman & Smay, LLP, Mikah K.
Thompson -- mthompson@workerwagerights.com -- Osman & Smay, LLP &
Kathryn J. Starrett Rickley -- krickley@workerwagerights.com --
Osman & Smay, LLP.

FGX International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeannie DeVeney
-- JDeVeney@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Lisa A. Schreter
-- lschreter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & Richard W.
Black -- rblack@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


FIFTH GENERATION: Faces 4 Suits Over Tito's Handmade Vodka Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four separate class action lawsuits filed against the maker of
Tito's Handmade Vodka claim the distiller's product is anything
but made by human hands, reports Chris Fry at Courthouse News
Service.

The most recent of the lawsuits targeting the vodka for its
allegedly fanciful branding was filed in Bergen County, N.J. by
two men who complain the vodka is "mass produced from commercially
manufactured 'Neutral Grain Spirit' by modern, technologically
advanced machines and equipment in a large industrial facility."

Plaintiffs Marc McBrearty and Paul Cantilina say the defendants --
Fifth Generation Inc., Bert Beveridge II and Mockingbord
Distillery Group -- once had a legitimate claim to the "handmade"
moniker, a time when the vodka was made in a 16-gallon pot still.

"However, it is now manufactured by machines in a highly
mechanized process on a 26 acre operation that produced
approximately 850,000 cases in 2012," the men say.

McBrearty and Cantilina also contend "the defendants' Vodka is
simply not 'handmade' as the word is defined in numerous
dictionary sources.  The defendants' Vodka is: (1) made from
commercially manufactured 'neutral grain spirit' that is trucked
and pumped into Tito's industrial facility; (2) distilled in a
large industrial complex with modem, technologically advanced
machines and stills, many of which are automated; and (3) produced
and bottled in extremely large quantities."

The plaintiffs accuse the vodka's distiller and distributor of
acting "improperly and deceitfully by manufacturing, distributing,
marketing and selling Tito's Handmade Vodka with false 'Handmade'
labels and with related misrepresentations claiming that the
product was 'Handmade' when the product is in fact commercially
manufactured in a large factory facility."

They also say "the defendants' Tito's Handmade Vodka was made,
manufactured and/or produced in massive buildings containing ten
floor-to-ceiling stills and bottling 500 cases an hour."  They
also write that "automated machinery is used, which is the
complete opposite of the product being handmade.  Likewise, the
automated commercial factory process is the complete opposite of
the product being 'Crafted in an Old Fashioned Pot Still,' as the
Defendants represent to consumers."

According to the filing, Fifth Generation had an estimated $85
million in revenue from sales of the beverage in 2012.

Several other lawsuits have been filed against Tito's Handmade
Vodka in the last two months alleging similar claims, including
cases in California, Florida and Illinois.  The class action in
California is seeking nationwide status.

Fifth Generation owner Tito Beveridge says he will vigorously
contest the lawsuits and told Shaken News Daily that "all of our
labels have gone through the approval process of the Department of
the Treasury's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB)."
He also stated that "after sending a field agent to Austin to
review our processes, the TTB has approved our use of 'Handmade'
on our label.  We think our pot still batch distillation process
is one of the key things that differentiates us from a great
majority of other vodkas.  We disagree with these claims and will
defend ourselves against this misguided attack."

McBrearty and Cantilina seek damages and restitution of the
defendants "ill-gotten gains" for themselves and a proposed class
of other New Jersey residents allegedly taken in by the
defendants' marketing on claims the defendants violated the
Consumer Fraud Act while engaging in unjust enrichment and
intentional misrepresentation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barry Gainey, Esq.
          GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON
          95 Route 17 South, Suite 310
          Paramus, NJ 07652
          Telephone: (201) 225-9001
          Facsimile: (201) 225-9002
          E-mail: bgainey@gme-law.com


GE CAPITAL: Bid to Compel Arbitration in "Belton" Case Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain issued a corrected and modified
bench ruling on a motion to compel arbitration in In re: NYREE
BELTON, Chapter 7, Debtor. NYREE BELTON, Plaintiff, v. GE CAPITAL
CONSUMER LENDING, INC. A/K/A GE MONEY BANK, Defendant, CASE NO.
12-23037 (RDD), Adv. Proc. No. 14-08223 (RDD), (S.D. N.Y.).

Ms. Belton seeks under 11 U.S.C. Sections 105(a) and 524, as well
as by invoking the Court's inherent power to enforce and find
parties in contempt for breach of its orders, to enforce the
discharge of debt under section 727(a) of the Bankruptcy Code that
she received at the end of her bankruptcy case. In addition to
requesting relief on behalf of Ms. Belton, the adversary
proceeding also seeks, pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7023, to
enforce the discharge on behalf of a class of all similarly
situated debtors. The Court previously addressed an issue raised
by the complaint's request for class action relief in a closely
analogous proceeding, Haynes v. Chase Bank USA (In re Haynes),
2014 Bankr. LEXIS 3111 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2014).

"I conclude that GE Capital's motion should be denied. Counsel for
the debtor should submit a proposed order to chambers consistent
with this ruling," wrote Judge Drain in his November 10, 2014
order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/e2WK57 from
Leagle.com.

Counsel for the Plaintiff:

     George Carpinello, Esq.
     BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
     30 South Pearl Street
     Albany, NY 12207
     E-mail: gcarpinello@bsfllp.com

          - and -

     Charles W. Juntika, Esq.
     CHARLES JUNTIKKA & ASSSOCIATES LLP
     1250 Broadway, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10001
     E-mail: charles@cjalaw.com

Counsel for GE Capital Consumer Lending, Inc.:

     JENNER & BLOCK, LLP
     Joseph L. Noga, IV, Esq.
     919 Third Avenue, 37th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     E-mail: jnoga@jenner.com

Counsel to the U.S. Trustee:

     Greg M. Zipes, Esq.
     OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
     33 Whitehall Street, 21st Floor
     New York, NY 10004


GERON CORP: Mississippi Case Transferred to California Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Geron Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, the Mississippi
District Court transferred the class action lawsuit to the
California District Court.

On March 14, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, or the California District Court, naming
as defendants the Company and certain of its officers.  The
Company said, "The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by us related to our Phase 2 trial of
imetelstat in patients with essential thrombocythemia, or ET, or
polycythemia vera, or PV. The plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that we failed to disclose facts related to the occurrence
of persistent low-grade liver function test, or LFT, abnormalities
observed in our Phase 2 trial of imetelstat in ET or PV patients
and the potential risk of chronic liver injury following long-term
exposure to imetelstat. The plaintiff seeks damages and an award
of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees."

"On March 28, 2014, a second purported securities class action
lawsuit was commenced in the California District Court, and on
June 6, 2014, a third purported securities lawsuit, not styled as
a class action, was commenced in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi, or the Mississippi
District Court, naming as defendants us and certain of our
officers. These lawsuits, which are based on the same factual
background as the purported securities class action lawsuit that
commenced on March 14, 2014, also allege violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek damages and an award of
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees.

"On June 30, 2014, the California District Court consolidated both
of the purported class actions filed in the California District
Court and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel to represent
the purported class. On July 21, 2014, the California District
Court ordered the lead plaintiff to file its consolidated amended
complaint, which was filed on September 19, 2014. Our response to
the consolidated amended complaint is due by November 18, 2014.

"On August 11, 2014, we filed a motion to transfer the purported
securities lawsuit filed in the Mississippi District Court to the
California District Court so it can be consolidated with the
purported class action lawsuits. On November 4, 2014, the
Mississippi District Court granted our motion and transferred the
case to the California District Court, and we intend to seek to
consolidate the transferred case with the purported class action
lawsuits filed in the California District Court."

Geron is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company developing a
telomerase inhibitor, imetelstat, in hematologic myeloid
malignancies.


GINO MORENA: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the Southern District of
California granted plaintiffs' motion in the case WILLIAM GREENE
and DEIDRE JONES, individually, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GINO MORENA ENTERPRISES,
LLC, a California limited liability company, and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants., Case No. 13CV1332 JM(NLS) (S.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs William Greene and Deidre Jones filed this wage-and-
hour putative class action suit on behalf of themselves and all
individuals who are/were employed by Gino Morena Enterprices LLC
or GMA in California as nonexempt barbers, stylist and
beauticians. The action was initially filed in San Diego Superior
Court, but defendant removed the Action to federal court based on
the Federal Enclave Doctrine and subsequently answered the
complaint. The class involves a total of 752 current and former
employees of GME. On January 21, 2014, the parties participated in
a full day of mediation before Judge William Pate (ret.), at the
end of which the parties ultimately reached a negotiated
settlement.

On May 13, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Preliminary
Class Action Settlement, which was granted by the Court.
Plaintiffs then filed a motion for an order granting final
approval of class action settlement and entering judgment.

In granting plaintiffs' motion for an order granting final
approval of class action settlement and entering judgment, the
court through Judge Miller held that:

     (1) Attorneys' fees in the sum of $189,750 and litigation
expenses in the sum of $18,321.98 to Class Counsel, BISNAR|CHASE
LLP and BRANIGAN ROBERTSON, INC.;

     (2) An incentive award in the sum of $10,000 each to William
Greene and Deidre Jones; and

     (3) Claims administration costs in the sum of $15,560 to the
appointed claims administrator, ILYM, Group, Inc.

A copy of Judge Miller's order dated November 4, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/Lj2FLxfrom Leagle.com.

Gino Morena Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, is represented by Daniel
E Gardenswartz, Esq. -- dgardenswartz@swsslaw.com -- Leah Suzanne
Strickland, Esq. -- lstrickland@swsslaw.com -- at Solomon Ward
Seidenwurm & Smith LLP.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Drops Bid to Dismiss as to Original Offering
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and GS
Mortgage Securities Corp. and three current or former Goldman
Sachs employees are defendants in a putative class action
commenced on December 11, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of
various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed
certificates issued by various securitization trusts established
by the firm and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007. The complaint
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
supplements for the certificates violated the federal securities
laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission or
rescissionary damages.

By a decision dated September 6, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
plaintiff's claims with respect to 10 of the 17 offerings included
in plaintiff's original complaint but vacated the dismissal and
remanded the case to the district court with instructions to
reinstate the plaintiff's claims with respect to the other seven
offerings. On October 31, 2012, the plaintiff served an amended
complaint relating to those seven offerings, plus seven additional
offerings (additional offerings). On July 10, 2014, the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss as to the additional
offerings. On June 3, 2010, another investor filed a separate
putative class action asserting substantively similar allegations
relating to one of the additional offerings and thereafter moved
to further amend its amended complaint to add claims with respect
to two of the additional offerings.

On March 27, 2014, the district court largely denied defendants'
motion to dismiss as to the original offering, but denied the
separate plaintiff's motion to add the two additional offerings
through an amendment. The securitization trusts issued, and GS&Co.
underwrote, approximately $11 billion principal amount of
certificates to all purchasers in the fourteen offerings at issue
in the complaints.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Petition for Leave to Appeal Denied
--------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that an
appellate court has denied defendants' petition for leave to
appeal from the district court's January 22, 2014 order granting
class certification.

On September 30, 2010, a class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Group Inc. and two former GS&Co.
employees on behalf of investors in $823 million of notes issued
in 2006 and 2007 by two synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1
and 2006-2). The amended complaint asserts federal securities law
and common law claims, and seeks unspecified compensatory,
punitive and other damages. The defendants' motion to dismiss was
granted as to plaintiff's claim of market manipulation and denied
as to the remainder of plaintiff's claims by a decision dated
March 21, 2012. On May 21, 2012, the defendants counterclaimed for
breach of contract and fraud. On June 27, 2014, the appellate
court denied defendants' petition for leave to appeal from the
district court's January 22, 2014 order granting class
certification.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Denies Motion to Sever Claims
--------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Group
Inc., Litton, Ocwen and Arrow Corporate Member Holdings LLC, a
former subsidiary of Group Inc., are defendants in a putative
class action pending since January 23, 2013 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York generally challenging
the procurement manner and scope of "force-placed" hazard
insurance arranged by Litton when homeowners failed to arrange for
insurance as required by their mortgages. The complaint asserts
claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
misappropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of
Florida unfair practices law, and seeks unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
An amended complaint, filed on November 19, 2013, added an
additional plaintiff and RICO claims. On September 29, 2014, the
court denied without prejudice and with leave to renew at a later
date Group Inc.'s motion to sever the claims against it and
certain other defendants.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement Okayed in Suit Over PE-Sponsored Deals
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Group Inc.
is among numerous private equity firms named as defendants in a
federal antitrust action filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts in December 2007. As amended, the
complaint generally alleges that the defendants have colluded to
limit competition in bidding for private equity-sponsored
acquisitions of public companies, thereby resulting in lower
prevailing bids and, by extension, less consideration for
shareholders of those companies in violation of Section 1 of the
U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act and common law. The complaint seeks,
among other things, treble damages in an unspecified amount. In
June 2014, Group Inc. and the plaintiffs agreed to a settlement,
which the court preliminarily approved on September 29, 2014.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Parties in RALI Case Seeks Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs and defendants moved for summary judgment in the
RALI Pass-Through Certificates Litigation, The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among numerous underwriters named
as defendants in a securities class action initially filed in
September 2008 in New York Supreme Court, and subsequently removed
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering
documents in connection with various offerings of mortgage-backed
pass-through certificates violated the disclosure requirements of
the federal securities laws. In addition to the underwriters, the
defendants include Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap), Residential
Accredit Loans, Inc. (RALI), Residential Funding Corporation
(RFC), Residential Funding Securities Corporation (RFSC), and
certain of their officers and directors. On January 3, 2013, the
district court certified a class in connection with one offering
underwritten by GS&Co. which includes only initial purchasers who
bought the securities directly from the underwriters or their
agents no later than ten trading days after the offering date. On
April 30, 2013, the district court granted in part plaintiffs'
request to reinstate a number of the previously dismissed claims
relating to an additional nine offerings underwritten by GS&Co. On
May 10, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
incorporating those nine additional offerings. On December 27,
2013, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification as to the nine additional offerings but denied the
plaintiffs' motion to expand the time period and scope covered by
the previous class definition. On October 17, 2014, the plaintiffs
and defendants moved for summary judgment.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Demurrers in Zynga Securities Litigation Overruled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The court overruled the defendants' demurrers, which sought to
dismiss the Zynga Securities Litigation, The Goldman Sachs Group,
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August
1, 2012 in the California Superior Court, County of San Francisco.
In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Zynga Inc.
(Zynga) and certain of its directors and officers. The
consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 29, 2013, generally
alleges that the offering materials for the March 2012 $516
million secondary offering of Zynga common stock by certain of
Zynga's shareholders violated the disclosure requirements of the
federal securities laws, and seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount and rescission. On September 29, 2014, the
court overruled the defendants' demurrers, which sought to have
the complaint dismissed. GS&Co. underwrote 14,824,358 shares for a
total offering price of approximately $178 million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in FireEye Securities Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in June 2014 in the California Superior Court, County of
Santa Clara. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants
include FireEye, Inc. (FireEye) and certain of its directors and
officers. The complaints generally allege misstatements and
omissions in connection with the offering materials for the March
2014 offering of approximately $1.15 billion of FireEye common
stock, assert claims under the federal securities laws, and seek
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission.
GS&Co. underwrote 2,100,000 shares for a total offering price of
approximately $172 million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendant in Millennial Media Securities Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on
September 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. In addition to the underwriters, the
defendants include Millennial Media, Inc. (Millennial Media) and
certain of its directors, officers and shareholders. As to the
underwriters, the complaint generally alleges misstatements and
omissions in connection with Millennial Media's $152 million March
2012 initial public offering and the October 2012 offering of
approximately $163 million of Millennial Media's common stock,
asserts claims under the federal securities laws, and seeks
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission.
GS&Co. underwrote 3,519,000 and 3,450,000 shares of common stock
in the March and October 2012 offerings, respectively, for an
aggregate offering price of approximately $95 million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in GT Advanced Securities Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants
in several putative securities class actions filed in October 2014
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In
addition to the underwriters, the defendants include certain
directors and officers of GT Advanced Technologies Inc. (GT
Advanced Technologies). As to the underwriters, the complaints
generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with
the December 2013 offerings by GT Advanced Technologies of
approximately $86 million of common stock and $214 million
principal amount of convertible senior notes, assert claims under
the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount and rescission. GS&Co. underwrote 3,479,769
shares of common stock and $75 million principal amount of notes
for an aggregate offering price of approximately $105 million. On
October 6, 2014, GT Advanced Technologies filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs Seek Class Cert. in Discrimination Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs
have moved for class certification in the case alleging that
Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) systematically discriminated against
female employees in respect of compensation, promotion,
assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees alleging that Group Inc. and Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against
female employees in respect of compensation, promotion,
assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint
alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at
specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since
July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City
discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status,
injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.

On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in
part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of
plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked
standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group
Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations
in their entirety as premature.

On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the
named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an
arbitration agreement with the firm. On May 19, 2014, plaintiffs
moved for class certification.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in Overtime Compensation Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Group Inc.
and Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), are named as defendants in a
putative class action complaint, filed on October 30, 2014, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging that the method for paying overtime compensation to
certain nonexempt employees did not comply with the Fair Labor
Standards Act and seeking unspecified damages, including alleged
unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Bid to Dismiss Okayed in Antitrust Conspiracy Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the numerous
defendants in putative antitrust class actions relating to credit
derivatives, filed beginning in May 2013 and consolidated in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaints generally allege that defendants violated federal
antitrust laws by conspiring to forestall the development of
alternatives to over-the-counter trading of credit derivatives and
to maintain inflated bid-ask spreads for credit derivatives
trading. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief as
well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On September 4,
2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants'
motion to dismiss, permitting the claim alleging an antitrust
conspiracy to proceed but confining it to a period after the fall
of 2008.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of Aluminum Facilities Suit on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Certain plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of class action in
connection with the management of aluminum storage facilities, and
the remaining plaintiffs filed proposed amended complaints, The
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

Group Inc. and its subsidiaries, GS Power Holdings LLC (GS Power)
and Metro International Trade Services LLC (Metro), are among the
defendants in a number of putative class actions filed beginning
on August 1, 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege
violation of federal antitrust laws and other federal and state
laws in connection with the management of aluminum storage
facilities. The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other
equitable relief as well as unspecified monetary damages,
including treble damages. On August 29, 2014, the court granted
the Goldman Sachs defendants' motion to dismiss. Certain
plaintiffs appealed on September 24, 2014, and the remaining
plaintiffs filed proposed amended complaints on October 9 and 10,
2014.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendant in Zinc Storage Facilities Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Group
Inc., GS Power, Metro and GSI are among the defendants named in
putative class actions, filed beginning May 23, 2014 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, based on
similar alleged violations of the federal antitrust laws in
connection with the management of zinc storage facilities.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Seeks to Dismiss Forex Markets Action
----------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the defendants named
in several putative antitrust class actions relating to trading in
the foreign exchange markets, filed beginning in December 2013 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaints generally allege that defendants violated federal
antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seek
declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an
unspecified amount. On February 13, 2014, the cases were
consolidated into one action. On February 28, 2014, Group Inc. was
named in a separate putative class action containing substantially
similar allegations, which was not consolidated but is coordinated
with the other proceeding for pretrial purposes; that complaint
was amended on April 30, 2014. On May 30, 2014, defendants moved
to dismiss the complaints in both actions.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in ISDAFIX-Related Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 5, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the defendants named in several
putative class actions relating to trading in interest rate
derivatives, filed beginning in September 2014 in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaints generally allege that the defendants violated federal
antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with
an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the ISDAFIX benchmark and seek
declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an
unspecified amount.


GRAND ISLE: Bid for Conditional Certification Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lance M. Africk granted in part a motion for
conditional certification of the case captioned DEAN WELLMAN, v.
GRAND ISLE SHIPYARD, INC., Section I, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-831,
(E.D. La.) as a collective action.

According to the complaint, Grand Isle "has been supplying
personnel to the oil and gas industry for decades" and "provides
'a full range of construction services' including project
management and contract labor."  Plaintiff, a former employee of
Grand Isle, alleges that he is owed wages for uncompensated
overtime hours. Plaintiff alleges that he and other similarly
situated workers were compensated pursuant to a "straight time for
overtime" policy instead of the time-and-a-half minimum rate for
overtime hours required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Plaintiff contends that defendant willfully violated the FLSA and
that it must compensate him and a class of similarly situated
workers for unpaid overtime wages, as well as reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.  Plaintiff asked the Court to
conditionally certify this case as a collective action and
authorize notice to "[a]ll persons employed by Grand Isle as
Project Managers and paid on an hourly basis at any time from
April 10, 2011 to present."

Defendant's objections to plaintiff's proposed notice are
dismissed without prejudice.

The Court directed counsel for both parties to meet and confer
regarding the proposed notice and consent form. The parties must
jointly file a proposed notice and consent form no later than
Friday, November 21, 2014, at 3:00 p.m.  If the parties are unable
to agree on a proposed notice and/or consent form, the parties
must submit (1) their proposed notice and/or consent form and (2)
their objections, with supporting authority, to the opposing
party's notice and/or consent form, no later than Friday, November
21, 2014, at 10:00 a.m.

A copy of the Court's November 7, 2014 order and reasons is
available at http://is.gd/e1Kjjrfrom Leagle.com.

Dean Wellman, Plaintiff, represented by Derrick Glenn Earles --
digger@labordelawfirm.com -- Laborde Law Firm & James A. Jones --
jjones@brucknerburch.com -- Bruckner Burch PLLC.

Grand Isle Shipyard, Inc., Defendant, represented by David M. Korn
-- david.korn@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP, Alexis A. Butler -
- lexy.butler@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP & MaryJo L. Roberts
-- maryjo.roberts@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar, LLP.


GREATER NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Li" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hong Yin Li, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Greater New York Social and Health Adult Day
Care Center, LLC., Lisa Ye, Paul Wu, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10,
Case No. 1:14-cv-06631 (E.D.N.Y., November 11, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for
all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operates an adult day care business located
at 132-29 Blossom Avenue, Flushing, New York 11355 from March 5,
2014 to November 8, 2014.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


HINSDALE CLEANERS: Faces "Ibarra" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Ibarra, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Hinsdale Cleaners, Inc. and Joong Soon Hong,
Case No. 1:14-cv-09037 (N.D. Ill., November 11, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants are engaged in dry cleaning and laundry business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com
              Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


J.M. SMUCKER: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clayton Grayson, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. The J.M. Smucker Company, a Ohio
corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02883 (W.D. Tenn., November 11,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide
proper disclosures to job applicants regarding their procurement
of consumer reports.

The J.M. Smucker Company is a marketer and manufacturer of fruit
spreads, peanut butter, shortening and oils, ice cream toppings,
sweetened condensed milk, and health and natural foods and
beverages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan G. Crone, Esq.
      CRONE & MCEVOY, PLC
      5583 Murray Road, Suite 120
      Memphis, TN 38119
      Telephone: (901) 737-7740
      Facsimile: (901) 737-7558
      E-mail: acrone@thecmfirm.com

         - and -

      John P. Wolff III, Esq.
      Christopher K. Jones, Esq.
      KEOGH, COX & WILSON, LTD.
      701 Main Street
      Baton Rouge, LA 70802
      Telephone: (225) 383-3796
      Facsimile: (225) 343-9612
      E-mail: jwolff@kcwlaw.com
              cjones@kcwlaw.com

         -and-

      Philip Bohrer, Esq.
      Scott E. Brady, Esq.
      BOHRER LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
      8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
      Baton Rouge, LA 70809
      Telephone: (225) 925-5297
      E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com
              scott@bohrerlaw.com


LME HOLDINGS: Bid to Reconsider in Aluminum Antitrust Suit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 25, 2014, the Court issued an Opinion and Order in IN RE
ALUMINUM WAREHOUSING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, NO. 13-MD-2481 (KBF),
(S.D. N.Y.), dismissing the London Metal Exchange Limited as
defendant from this action on sovereign immunity grounds without
leave to replead.  Now before the Court is plaintiffs' joint
motion for reconsideration of the Opinion and Order pursuant to
Local Civil Rule 6.3.

District Judge Katherine B. Forrest, in an Opinion and Order dated
November 7, 2014, denied the plaintiffs' joint motion for
reconsideration of the Court's dismissal of the LME on foreign
sovereign immunity grounds without leave to replead and its denial
of limited discovery from the LME.  A copy of the Court's order is
available at http://is.gd/ABpqJhfrom Leagle.com.

Superior Extrusion Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Martin
Jaccarino, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Christopher
Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Craig M.
Essenmacher, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, David P.
Germaine, Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C., Harold Gurewitz, Gurewitz
& Raben, PLC, James J. Sabella, Grant & Eisenhofer, James Joseph
Sabella, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., John Paul Bjork, Vanek Vickers &
Masini, Joseph M Vanek, Vanek, Vickers & Masini PC, Linda P.
Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Peter Anthony Barile, III,
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. & Troy T. Gorman, Gorman Law Group, P.C..
Master Screens Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip Timothy
Howard, HOWARD & ASSOCIATES PA & Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP.

GRACE ADRIANNA FLETCHER, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip Timothy
Howard, HOWARD & ASSOCIATES PA.

River Parish Contractors, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
E. Becnel, Jr., Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Jennifer L. Crose, Becnel
Law Firm, LLC & Matthew B. Moreland, Becnel Law Firm, LLC.
Viva Railings,LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Azra Zahoor Mehdi,
The Mehdi Firm & Peter George Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, P.C..
Regal Recycling,Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Azra Zahoor Mehdi,
The Mehdi Firm & Peter George Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, P.C..
D-Tek Manufacturing, Plaintiff, represented by Adam E Polk, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Christina H. C. Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, John Anthony
Kehoe, Girard Gibbs LLP, Amanda Steiner, Girard Gibbs LLP & Daniel
Charles Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP.

D-Tek Manufacturing, D-Tek Manufacturing, Plaintiff, represented
by Jonathan K. Levine, Girard Gibbs LLP, Kenneth A. Wexler, Wexler
Toriseva Wallace LLP & Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP.

Peterson Industries, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bonny E.
Sweeney, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Carmen A. Medici,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David W. Mitchell, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Mark J. Dearman, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Patrick Joseph Coughlin, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Paul Jeffrey Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Robert
M. Rothman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Samuel Howard
Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Claridge Products and Equipment, Incorporated, Plaintiff,
represented by Edith M. Kallas, Whatley Kallas LLP, Joe R.
Whatley, JR., Whatley, Drake & Kallas, LLC, John G. Emerson, Jr.,
Emerson Poynter LLP, Linda P. Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.,
William T. Crowder, Emerson Poynter LLP & Christopher Lovell,
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP.

Thule, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bonny E. Sweeney, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Carmen A. Medici, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Linda P. Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Mark J. Dearman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Patrick Joseph Coughlin, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Paul Jeffrey Geller, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Randi Dawn Bandman, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Robert M. Rothman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP.
Ampal Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Linda P. Nussbaum, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Benjamin Martin Jaccarino, Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson LLP, Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian
Jacobson LLP, David P. Germaine, Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C.,
Dean M Harvey, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Eric B.
Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, Harold Z.
Gurewitz, Gurewitz & Raben, PLC, James Joseph Sabella, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., John Paul Bjork, Vanek Vickers & Masini, John D.
Radice, Grant & Eisenhofer, PA, Joseph M Vanek, Vanek, Vickers &
Masini PC, Lin Y Chan, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein & Peter
Anthony Barile, III, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A..

Custom Aluminum Products Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Linda P.
Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Benjamin Martin Jaccarino,
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Christopher Lovell, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Craig M. Essenmacher, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, David P. Germaine, Vanek, Vickers &
Masini, P.C., Harold Gurewitz, Gurewitz & Raben, PLC, James Joseph
Sabella, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., John Paul Bjork, Vanek Vickers &
Masini, Joseph M Vanek, Vanek, Vickers & Masini PC & Peter Anthony
Barile, III, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A..

Extruded Aluminum Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Linda P.
Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Benjamin Martin Jaccarino,
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Christopher Lovell, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, David P. Germaine, Vanek, Vickers &
Masini, P.C., James Joseph Sabella, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., John
Paul Bjork, Vanek Vickers & Masini, Joseph M Vanek, Vanek, Vickers
& Masini PC & Peter Anthony Barile, III, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A..
International Extrusions Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Linda P.
Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Benjamin Martin Jaccarino,
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Christopher Lovell, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Craig M. Essenmacher, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, David P. Germaine, Vanek, Vickers &
Masini, P.C., Harold Z. Gurewitz, Gurewitz & Raben, PLC, James
Joseph Sabella, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., John Paul Bjork, Vanek
Vickers & Masini, Joseph M Vanek, Vanek, Vickers & Masini PC &
Peter Anthony Barile, III, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A..

Team Ward Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Edward W. Ciolko,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, John Quinn Kerrigan, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Kimberly A. Justice, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP & Terrence Scott Ziegler, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP.

Pierce Aluminum Company, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bonny E.
Sweeney, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Carmen A. Medici,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP (San Diego), David W. Mitchell,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Mark J. Dearman, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Patrick Joseph Coughlin, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, Paul Jeffrey Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Robert M. Rothman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Samuel Howard
Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Theodore M. Hess-Mahan,
Hutchings, Barsamian, Cross and Mandelcorn, LLP.

David J Kohlenberg, Plaintiff, represented by Brian R. Strange,
Strange and Carpenter, Brian Russell Strange, Starfield & Payne,
P.C., Craig E. Hilborn, Hilborn & Hilborn, John Theodore Ceglia,
Strange & Carpenter & Keith Lawrence Butler, Strange & Carpenter.

Welk-Ko Fabricators, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, David M. Honigman, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, PC, Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.,
Jessica Ann Perez, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., Joel Davidow,
Kile Goekjian Reed & McManus Pllc, Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Katherine Van Dyck, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
LLP, Patrick Wayne Pendley, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin L.L.P., Yifei
Li, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP & Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP.

Tyler Sales Inc., Doing Business as Norther Metals, Inc.,
Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H. Frey, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman,
David M. Honigman, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, PC,
Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc., Jessica Ann Perez, Pendley,
Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., Joel Davidow, Kile Goekjian Reed &
McManus Pllc, Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP,
Katherine Van Dyck, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP, Patrick Wayne
Pendley, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin L.L.P. & Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert
& Laduca, LLP.

Quicksilver Welding Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Brendan H. Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C.,
David F. Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, David M. Honigman, Mantese
Honigman Rossman & Williamson, PC, Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese
Assoc., Jessica Ann Perez, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., Joel
Davidow, Kile Goekjian Reed & McManus Pllc, Jonathan Watson Cuneo,
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Katherine Van Dyck, Cuneo Gilbert &
Laduca, LLP, Patrick Wayne Pendley, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin
L.L.P., Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP & Joseph H. Meltzer,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

Lexington Homes, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H. Frey,
Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F. Hansma,
Mantese and Rossman, David M. Honigman, Mantese Honigman Rossman &
Williamson, PC, Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc., Jessica Ann
Perez, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., Joel Davidow, Kile
Goekjian Reed & McManus Pllc, Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert
& LaDuca, LLP, Katherine Van Dyck, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP,
Patrick Wayne Pendley, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin L.L.P., Yifei Li,
Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP & Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP.

Breezin Metal Works, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan H.
Frey, Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson, P.C., David F.
Hansma, Mantese and Rossman, David M. Honigman, Mantese Honigman
Rossman & Williamson, PC, Gerard V. Mantese, Mantese Assoc.,
Jessica Ann Perez, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., Joel Davidow,
Kile Goekjian Reed & McManus Pllc, Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Katherine Van Dyck, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca,
LLP, Patrick Wayne Pendley, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin L.L.P. &
Yifei Li, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP.

Talan Products, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by W. Joseph
Bruckner, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen & Holstein, P.L.L.P., Adam
James Pessin, Fine, Kaplan and Black, R.P.C., Alyson L. Oliver,
Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David A Goodwin,
Gustafson Gluek. PLLC, Dianne M. Nast, Roda & Nast, P.C., Erin C
Burns, RodaNast P.C., Joseph Goldberg, Freedman Boyd Hollander
Goldberg Urias & Ward P.A., Josh Ewing, Freedman Boyd Hollander
Goldberg Urias & Ward P.A., Linda P. Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer
P.A., Roberta D. Liebenberg, Fine, Kaplan and Black, R.P.C.,
Vincent Ward, Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward P.A. &
Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP.

Big River Outfitters, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Abraham
Singer, Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook, Alan
Mcquarrie Mansfield, Whatley Kallas, LLP, David Gregory Scott, Law
Office of David G. Scott, PLLC, William J. Doyle, II, Doyle
Lowther LLP & Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP.

Seating Constructors USA, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David J.
Guin, Guin, Stokes & Evans, LLC, Tammy Mcclendon Stokes, Guin,
Stokes & Evans, LLC, Charles R. Watkins, Guin, Stokes & Evans, LLC
& S. Thomas Wienner, Weinner, Gould.

F&F Custom Boats, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Abraham Singer,
Kitch Drutchas Wagner Valitutti & Sherbrook, Alan Mcquarrie
Mansfield, Whatley Kallas, LLP, David Gregory Scott, Law Office of
David G. Scott, PLLC, William J. Doyle, II, Doyle Lowther LLP &
Joseph H. Meltzer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.

AGFA Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Derek Y. Brandt,
Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Bardnerd LLC, Garrett W.
Wotkyns, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky, L.L.P., Jason
H Kim, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP, Todd
Michael Schneider, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Brayton Konecky LLP,
Andrea B. Bierstein, Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher &
Hayes, LLP, Christopher M. Santomassimo, Nicoll Davis & Spinella
LLP, John Robert Phillips, Simmons Firm, Kristen M. Anderson,
Scott Scott, LLP (CA), Linda P. Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.,
Michael C McKay, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, Patrick J
Van Zanen, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, Sylvia Sokol,
Scott Scott, L.L.P. & Walter W. Noss, ScottScott LLP.

Admiral Beverage Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Geoffrey
Milbank Horn, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., Gerald
Lawrence, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, PC, Peter Dexter St.
Philip, Jr, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., Raymond Peter
Girnys, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., Thomas Michael
Skelton, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., Vincent Briganti,
Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., Linda P. Nussbaum, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Patrick E. Cafferty, Caffert Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP, L.L.P. & Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian
Jacobson LLP.

Central Aluminum Company, Plaintiff, represented by Vincent J.
Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Christopher Lovell, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Dean M. Googasian, Googasian Law
Firm, Joseph Richard Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Kevin
E. Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Linda P. Nussbaum, Grant
& Eisenhofer P.A. & Thomas H. Howlett, Googasian Law Firm.

Hall Enterprises Metals, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Solomon
B. Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP.

Brick Pizzeria LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Russell
Strange, Starfield & Payne, P.C., Douglas G. Thompson,
Finkelstein,Thompson & Loughran, Eugene J. Benick, Finkelstein
Thompson LLP, Michael Glenn McLellan, Finkelstein Thompson LLP &
Rosalee Belinda Connell Thomas, Finkelstein Thompson LLP.

Mag Instrument Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Steyer, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Andrea B. Bierstein,
Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes, LLP, Christopher M
Burke, Daniel Jay Mogin, The Mogin Law Firm P.C., David R Scott,
Scott and Scott LLP, Derek Y. Brandt, Simmons Browder Gianaris
Angelides & Bardnerd LLC, Garrett W Wotkyns, Schneider Wallace
Cottrell Konecky LLP, Jason H Kim, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Brayton Konecky LLP, John Robert Phillips, Simmons Firm, Kristen
M. Anderson, Scott Scott, LLP (CA), Linda P. Nussbaum, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Max R Schwartz, Scott and Scott LLP, Michael C
McKay, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, Patrick J Van
Zanen, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, Sylvia Sokol, Scott
Scott, L.L.P., Thomas F Quilling, Wasserman and Wasserman LLP,
Todd M Schneider, Schneider Wallace Cottreel Brayton Konecky LLC &
Walter W. Noss, ScottScott LLP.

SUNPORCH STRUCTURES, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Darryl
Bressack, David H. Fink, Douglas A. Millen, Freed Kanner London &
Millen LLC, Gregory Bradley Linkh, Michael L. Silverman, Freed
kanner London & Millen LLC & Steven A. Kanner, Much, Shelist,
Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, P.C..

AGFA Graphics, NV, Plaintiff, represented by Andrea B. Bierstein,
Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes, LLP, Linda P.
Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Sylvia Sokol, Scott Scott,
L.L.P. & Walter W. Noss, ScottScott LLP.

Energy beverage management, llc, Plaintiff, represented by Steven
A. Martino, Taylor Martino, P.C..

Goldring gulf distributing company, llc, Plaintiff, represented by
Steven A. Martino, Taylor Martino, P.C..

Gulf distributing co. of mobile, llc, Plaintiff, represented by
Steven A. Martino, Taylor Martino, P.C..

Allstate beverage company, llc, Plaintiff, represented by Steven
A. Martino, Taylor Martino, P.C..

Duncan Galvanizing Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Linda P.
Nussbaum, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. & Peter Anthony Barile, III,
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A..

Eastman Kodak Company, Plaintiff, represented by Andrea B.
Bierstein, Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes, LLP &
Walter W. Noss, ScottScott LLP.

Daniel Javorsky, Petitioner, represented by Brian Russell Strange,
Starfield & Payne, P.C., Douglas G. Thompson, Finkelstein,Thompson
& Loughran, Eugene J. Benick, Finkelstein Thompson LLP, Michael
Glenn McLellan, Finkelstein Thompson LLP & Rosalee Belinda Connell
Thomas, Finkelstein Thompson LLP.

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin M.
McGovern, Holland & Knight, LLP, Gregory Lee Curtner, Schiff
Hardin LLP, JEROME WAYNE HOFFMAN, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, Jessica A.
Sprovtsoff, Schiff Hardin LLP, Mark Aaron Cunningham, Jones
Walker, Richard C. Pepperman, II, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP,
Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Wesley B. Gilchrist,
Lightfoot, Franklin & White & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan and
Cromwell, LLP.

GS Power Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Benjamin M.
McGovern, Holland & Knight, LLP, Gregory Lee Curtner, Schiff
Hardin LLP, JEROME WAYNE HOFFMAN, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, Jessica A.
Sprovtsoff, Schiff Hardin LLP, Mark Aaron Cunningham, Jones
Walker, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Richard
C. Pepperman, II, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Suhana S. Han,
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Wesley B. Gilchrist, Lightfoot,
Franklin & White & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP.
Metro International Trade Services, L. L. C., Defendant,
represented by Benjamin M. McGovern, Holland & Knight, LLP,
Gregory Lee Curtner, Schiff Hardin LLP, JEROME WAYNE HOFFMAN,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Schiff Hardin LLP,
Mark Aaron Cunningham, Jones Walker, Menachem David Possick,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Richard C. Pepperman, II, Sullivan and
Cromwell, LLP, Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Wesley
B. Gilchrist, Lightfoot, Franklin & White & Yavar Bathaee,
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP.

London Metal Exchange Limited, Defendant, represented by Jennifer
Lynn Giordano, Latham & Watkins LLP, Margaret M. Zwisler, Latham &
Watkins LLP, William H. Horton, Giarmarco, Mullins & Horton, P.C.
& William R. Sherman, Latham & Watkins LLP.

JP Morgan Chase & Co, Defendant, represented by Henry Liu,
Covington & Burling LLP, GEORGE N MEROS, JR, GRAYROBINSON PA, John
S. Playforth, Covington & Burling LLP, Mark David Herman,
Covington & Burling LLP, Neil Kenneth Roman, Covington & Burling,
L.L.P. & Robert D. Wick, Covington & Burling, L.L.P..

Henry Bath LLC, Defendant, represented by Henry Liu, Covington &
Burling LLP, John S. Playforth, Covington & Burling LLP, Mark
David Herman, Covington & Burling LLP, Neil Kenneth Roman,
Covington & Burling, L.L.P. & Robert D. Wick, Covington & Burling,
L.L.P..

Pacorini Metals USA, LLC, Defendant, represented by John M.
Nannes, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Jay B. Kasner,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Thomas Jerome Nolan,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP.

LME Holdings Limited, Defendant, represented by Margaret M.
Zwisler, Latham & Watkins LLP & William H. Horton, Giarmarco,
Mullins & Horton, P.C..

The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Defendant, represented by Menachem
David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Richard C. Pepperman,
II, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP.

MCEPF Metro I, Inc., Defendant, represented by Menachem David
Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Richard C. Pepperman, II,
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and Cromwell,
LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP.

MITSI Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Menachem David
Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Richard C. Pepperman, II,
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and Cromwell,
LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP.

Pacorini Metals AG, Defendant, represented by Jay B. Kasner,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, John H. Lyons, Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, John M. Nannes, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Tiffany Rider Rohrbaugh, Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Margaret M. Zwisler, Latham & Watkins LLP.

Glencore Ltd., Defendant, represented by Chelsea Rebekah McLean,
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, Eliot Lauer, Curtis,
Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, LLP & Jacques Semmelman, Curtis,
Mallet-Prevost, Colt and Mosle LLP.


MERCURY PAYMENT: N.D. Cal. Judge Won't Transfer Suit to D. Colo.
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied defendant's motion to
transfer the case HEARTLAND PAYMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff v.
MERCURY PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, No. C-14-0437 CW (N.D.
Cal.)

Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. is a New Jersey-based company
incorporated in Delaware, while Mercury Payment Systems, LLC is a
Colorado-based company incorporated in Delaware.

Plaintiff brought an action against Mercury alleging that the
latter engages in unfair business practices in violation of
federal and California law. Plaintiff asserts five causes of
action against defendant: (1) false advertising in violation of 15
U.S.C. Section 1125(a)(1)(B) (Lanham Act); (2) unfair competition
in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and
Professions Code section 17000 et seq. (UCL); (3) false
advertising in violation of California Business and Professions
Code section 17500 et seq.; (4) intentional interference with
contractual relations; and (5) intentional interference with
prospective economic advantage. The complaint was brought before
the Northern District of California.

Mercury moves to transfer the case to the District of Colorado
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  It argues that the District of
Colorado is the proper venue, that convenience factors
overwhelmingly favor the transfer, and that the interests of
justice favor the transfer to discourage forum-shopping.

Judge Wilken denied the defendants motion to transfer, expressing
that all of the factors weigh against transfer or are neutral.
Defendant Mercury has failed to show that the balance of
inconveniences favors transfer to the District of Colorado.

A copy of Judge Wilken's order dated November 4, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/h5Wi41from Leagle.com.

Mercury Payments Systems LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel
Murray Wall, Esq. -- dan.wall@lw.com -- Kirsten Marie Ferguson,
Esq. -- kirsten.ferguson@lw.com -- Sarah Meyers Ray, Esq. --
sarah.ray@lw.com -- Timothy L. O'Mara, Esq. -- tim.o'mara@lw.com
-- at Latham & Watkins LLP


MOUNTAIN STATE: Court Stays Proceedings in MSU Students' Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gina M. Groh issued a memorandum opinion and order
on November 7, 2014, granting a motion to stay proceedings and a
motion to withdraw certain motions made by the Defendants in the
case captioned FATOUMA KAMARA; LINDA OGBONNA; HENRIETTA DEDO;
MARIATU WANN; NYNDAN SUMA; BILIKI DOUGLAS; FLORE KOM; MATTHEW
FONDU; LOVELINE ASONGANYI; VERONICA DARIA; SARAH NYELENKEH;
KADIATU SHAW; ALFRED SESAY; EZEKIEL AKANDE; MARIE S. JOSEPH;
JOSEPH P. THOMAS; HANNAH COLE; YOLETTE JOANIS; LOUISA EWII; MARIE
N. DUBUCHE; ADAMA C. KARGBO; PAULINA EYIAH; Plaintiffs, v. CHARLES
H. POLK; MOUNTAIN STATE UNIVERSITY, INC.; MOUNTAIN STATE
UNIVERSITY BUILDING COMPANY; MOUNTAIN STATE UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION,
INC.; MOUNTAIN STATE UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT FUND, INC., Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-143, NO. 3:12-CV-144., 3:12-CV-145, 3:12-
CV-146, 3:12-CV-147, 3:12-CV-148, 3:12-CV-149, 3:12-CV-150, 3:12-
CV-151, 3:12-CV-152, 3:12-CV-153, 3:12-CV-154, 3:12-CV-155, 3:12-
CV-156, 3:12-CV-157, 3:12-CV-158, 3:12-CV-159, 3:12-CV-160, 3:12-
CV-161, 3:12-CV-162, 3:12-CV-167, 3:13-CV-31, (N.D. W.Va.).  A
copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/Uakbw1
from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs were nursing students at Mountain State University
(MSU).  While they were enrolled at MSU, MSU lost its
accreditation. As a result, the Plaintiffs filed these cases
against the MSU Defendants and MSU's former President, Dr. Charles
H. Polk.

Fatouma Kamara, Plaintiff, represented by Sherman L. Lambert, Sr.
-- sherman@shermanlambertlaw.com -- Dr. Charles H. Polk,
Defendant, represented by Edward P. Tiffey -- ed@tiffeylaw.com --
Edward P. Tiffey, PLLC.

Mountain State University, Inc., Defendant, represented by Allison
B. Williams -- allison.williams@steptoe-johnson.com -- Steptoe &
Johnson, PLLC, Jeffrey M. Cropp -- jeffrey.cropp@steptoe-
johnson.com -- Steptoe & Johnson PLLC & John R. Merinar, Jr. --
jack.merinar@steptoe-johnson.com -- Steptoe & Johnson PLLC.

Mountain State University Building Company, Defendant, represented
by Allison B. Williams, Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, Jeffrey M. Cropp,
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC & John R. Merinar, Jr., Steptoe & Johnson
PLLC.

Mountain State University Foundation, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Allison B. Williams, Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC, Jeffrey M. Cropp,
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC & John R. Merinar, Jr., Steptoe & Johnson
PLLC.

Mountain State University Endowment Fund, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Allison B. Williams, Steptoe & Johnson, PLLC,
Jeffrey M. Cropp, Steptoe & Johnson PLLC & John R. Merinar, Jr.,
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC.


NATIONAL HOLDINGS: Sued in S.D. Ohio Over Illegal Telemarketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip J. Charvat on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. National Holdings Corporation d/b/a National
Securities, Case No. 2:14-cv-02205 (S.D. Ohio, November 11, 2014),
seeks to redress for the Defendant's wide scale illegal
telemarketing in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

National Holdings Corporation is an investment firm that has its
principal office in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
      Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
      Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq.
      Jennifer A. Hemenway, Esq.
      MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
      1114 Dublin Road
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 488-0400
      Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
      E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
              murray@mmmb.com
              moul@mmmb.com
              hemenway@mmmb.com

         - and -

      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
      125 Summer St., Suite 1030
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 738-7080
      Facsimile: (617) 314-7783

         - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      1 South Avenue, Suite 3
      Natick, MA 01760
      Telephone: (508) 655-1415
      Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
      E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


NEW PARTNERS CONSULTING: M.D. Fla. Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the Middle
District of Florida denied defendant's motion to dismiss the case
LORI SHAMBLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OBAMA FOR AMERICA, DNC SERVICES
CORPORATION, and NEW PARTNERS CONSULTING, INC., Defendants., Case
No. 8:13-CV-2428-T-33TBM. (M.D. Fla.).

Plaintiff Lori Shamblin received two unsolicited auto-dialed
telephone calls from defendant Obama for America to her cellular
telephone that left pre-recorded messages on her voice mail
system. Plaintiff filed a putative class action against defendant
Obama for America for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) 46 U.S.C. Section 227. Plaintiff then asks
the court to make amendments to her complaint of which the court
granted and on her second amended complaint she added New Partners
Consulting, Inc. as defendant. She alleges that defendants
violated the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section 227. The TCPA makes it
illegal to call any telephone number assigned to a cellular
telephone service using an automatic-telephone-dialing system or
artificial or pre-recorded voice.

New Partners Consulting, Inc. then filed a Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1).

The court through Judge Covington denied defendant's motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter by expressing that New Partners
Consulting, Inc.'s offer of judgment failed to provide maximum
allowable relief to plaintiff and therefore did not moot
plaintiff's claim and deprive the court of subject matter
jurisdiction.

A copy of Judge Covington's order dated November 5, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/vS1ES9from Leagle.com

Peter Grilli, Mediator, represented by Peter John Grilli, Esq. --
meditr@aol.com -- at Peter J. Grilli, PA.


NEWPARK DRILLING: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Christianson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Newpark Drilling Fluids, LLC, Case No. 4:14-
cv-03235 (S.D. Tex., November 11, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work over 40 hours
per workweek.

Newpark Drilling Fluids, LLC provides drilling fluid products and
fluid services to thousands of wells located throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet St
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


OCWEN LOAN: Court Narrows Claims in "Abraham" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
LISA A. ABRAHAM, LISA CAVE and SCOTT CAVE, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-4977, (E.D. Penn.)
raises two claims, a violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices Act and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL), 73 Pa. Stat.
Ann. Section 201-2(xxi), and a violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e(2)(A),
f(1).

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC asked the court to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint.

District Judge John R. Padova ruled that Ocwen's Motion to Dismiss
the complaint is granted only as to that portion of Count II that
alleges a violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692f. The Motion is
denied in all other respects.  Copies of the Court's November 7,
2014 memorandum and order are at http://is.gd/eV4dU5and
http://is.gd/AIyptKfrom Leagle.com.

LISA A. ABRAHAM, Plaintiff, represented by ERIC LECHTZIN --
elechtzin@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., ANN MILLER, ANN
MILLER -- jamiller@jamlaw.us -- LLC & TODD S. COLLINS --
tcollins@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.

LISA CAVE, Plaintiff, represented by ERIC LECHTZIN, BERGER &
MONTAGUE, P.C., ANN MILLER, ANN MILLER, LLC & TODD S. COLLINS,
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C..

SCOTT CAVE, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by ERIC LECHTZIN, BERGER &
MONTAGUE, P.C., ANN MILLER, ANN MILLER, LLC & TODD S. COLLINS,
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C..

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant, represented by BRIAN M.
FORBES -- brian.m.forbes@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP, DAVID R.
FINE -- david.fine@klgates.com -- K & L GATES LLP, R. BRUCE
ALLENSWORTH -- bruce.allensworth@klgates.com -- K & L GATES LLP &
ROBERT SPARKES, III -- robert.sparkes@klgates.com -- K & L GATES
LLP.


PACIFIC BELL: Calif. Court Dismisses "Lefevre" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick dismissed the case captioned
JUSTIN LEFEVRE, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-03803-WHO, (N.D. Cal.).

Mr. Lefevre brings this putative class action complaint against
defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, failure to furnish proper wage
statement stubs, and violations of the Business and Professions
Code and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to Judge Orrick, Mr. Lefevre alleges only conclusory
facts, so the hearing set on November 12, 2014 was vacated and the
defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6) with leave to amend within 20 days is
granted.  The Court denied defendants' request for judicial notice
of an existing collective bargaining agreement (CBA) because
plaintiff disputes the validity of the CBA and does not rely on it
in the FAC.

A copy of the Court's November 7, 2014 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/k7r4rnfrom Leagle.com.

Justin Lefevre, Plaintiff, represented by William Anthony Baird --
tbaird@marlinsaltzman.com -- Marlin & Saltzman LLP, Robert Ira
Spiro, Spiro Law Corp. & Stanley Donald Saltzman, Marlin &
Saltzman.

YP Holdings, LLC, Defendant, represented by Richard Keith Chapman
-- kchapman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Joshua David
Kienitz -- jkienitz@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Julie
Ann Totten -- jatotten@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP.

YP Western Directory LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua David
Kienitz -- jkienitz@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Julie
Ann Totten -- jatotten@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington &
Sutcliffe LLP & Richard Keith Chapman -- kchapman@littler.com --
Littler Mendelson, PC.


PARISH OF ST BERNARD: Class Cert. Denial in Estopinal Case Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in NOLAN ESTOPINAL, ET AL. v. PARISH OF ST. BERNARD, ET
AL., NO. 2013-CA-1561 arises from the allegedly unconstitutional
and unlawful condemnation of properties severely damaged by
Hurricane Katrina located in St. Bernard Parish. The plaintiffs
allege that a class action lawsuit is the proper procedural
vehicle to seek recompense. The trial court found that variables
between the plaintiffs precluded the usage of the class action
procedure and denied their motion to certify the class.

"We find that a class action lawsuit is an inappropriate
procedural device for these plaintiffs because commonality,
typicality, adequacy, ascertainable class definition,
predominance, and superiority do not exist, as required by La.
C.C.P. art. 591," ruled the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth
Circuit, in its November 5, 2014 opinion, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/LOr87afrom Leagle.com.

"Therefore, we affirm," the Louisiana Appeals Court concluded.

Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants, Nolan Estopinal, et al. are:

     Sidney D. Torres III, Esq.
     Roberta L. Burns, Esq.
     Beau F. Camel, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SIDNEY D. TORRES, III, APLC
     8301 West Judge Perez Drive
     Torres Park Plaza, Suite 303
     Chalmette, LA 70043
     E-mail: storres@torres-law.com
             rburns@torres-law.com
             bcamel@torres-law.com

          - and -

     Salvador Joseph Randazzo, Esq.
     SALVADOR J. RANDAZZO, ATTORNEY AT LAW
     4890 Highway 22, Suite A
     Mandeville, LA 70471

          - and -

     Jerald Norman Andry, Jr.
     ANDRY & ANDRY, L.L.C.
     710 Carondelet Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee, Barowka and Bonura Engineers and
Consultants, LLC:

     Sue Buser, Esq.
     Dennis J. Phayer, Esq.
     BURGLASS & TANKERSLEY
     5213 Airline Drive
     Metairie, LA 70001

          - and -

     Patricia S. LeBlanc, Esq.
     Deborah A. Villio, Esq.
     Michael L. Fantaci, Esq.
     LEBLANC BUTLER, LLC
     3421 North Causeway Boulevard, Suite 301
     Metairie, LA 70002,

Counsel for Defendant/Appellee, Unified Recovery Group, LLC:

     Jeffrey C. Brennan, Esq.
     Jena A. Smith, Esq.
     E-mail: jbrennan@degan.com
             jsmith@degan.com
     DEGAN, BLANCHARD & NASH
     400 Poydras Street, Suite 2600
     New Orleans, LA 70130

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE, HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY:

     Kenan S. Rand, Jr., Esq.
     PLAUCHE' MASELLI & PARKERSON LLC
     701 Poydras Street, Suite 3800
     New Orleans, LA 70001
     E-mail: krand@pmpllp.com


PIONEER CORP: Case Mgt. Conference in JLK Action Moved to Jan.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) filed on August 18, 2014, a
class action complaint against Pioneer Corporation, Pioneer High
Fidelity Taiwan Co., Ltd., Pioneer North America, Inc., and
Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc., in JLK Systems Group, Inc., et al.
v. Pioneer Corporation., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03748-LB (the
JLK Action).

On August 25, 2014, the Court entered an order deeming the JLK
Action related to In re Optical Disk Drive Products Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 3:10-MD-2143-RS (the ODD Litigation) and
transferring the JLK Action to the Northern District of Calif.
Court.

District Judge Richard Seeborg signed on November 7, 2014, a
stipulation and order regarding case management conference and
response to the complaint, which provides that:

* The Case Management Conference set in the JLK Action for
  November 13, 2014 was taken off calendar and consolidated with
  the Case Management Conference in the ODD Litigation, which is
  scheduled to take place on January 29, 2015.

* The response of Pioneer North America, Inc. and Pioneer
  Electronics (USA) Inc. to the complaint in the JLK Action is due
  on or before February 28, 2015, 30 days from the Case Management
  Conference scheduled in the ODD Litigation.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/TroZkQfrom Leagle.com.

The case is JLK SYSTEMS GROUP, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PIONEER CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-03748-
RS, MDL NO. 2143, (N.D. Cal.).

The ruling relates to: Case No. 3:10-md-02143 RS IN RE OPTICAL
DISK DRIVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

SAVERI & SAVERI, INC., Cadio Zirpoli -- cadio@saveri.com --
Counsel for DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS.

JONES DAY, Eric P. Enson -- epenson@jonesday.com -- Attorneys for
Defendants PIONEER NORTH AMERICA, INC. AND PIONEER ELECTRONICS
(USA) INC.


RELIABLE REPORTS: Faces "Prontaut" Suit Over Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Prontaut, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Reliable Reports Of Texas, Inc., a Texas
Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00945 (M.D.N.C., November 11, 2014),
is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Reliable Reports of Texas, Inc. is a property and casualty
insurance inspection and reporting company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Davis, Esq.
      BELL, DAVIS & PITT, P.A.
      227 W. Trade St., Ste. 2160
      Charlotte, NC 28202
      Telephone: (704) 227-0400
      Facsimile: (704) 227-0178
      E-mail: ward.davis@belldavispitt.com

         - and -

      Andrew Allen Freeman, Esq.
      BELL DAVIS & PITT, P.A.
      POB 21029
      Winston-Salem, NC 27120-1029
      Telephone (336) 714-4156
      Facsimile: (336) 722-8153
      E-mail: afreeman@belldavispitt.com


RICELAND FOODS: Court Rules on Riceland's Counterclaims
-------------------------------------------------------
DON M. DOWNING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RICELAND FOODS, INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 4:13CV321 CDP, (E.D. Mo.) claims that Riceland
had been unjustly enriched at plaintiffs' expense. Riceland
brought counterclaims for breach of contract and tortious
interference, and it has sued plaintiffs and some other parties in
state court under identical claims. District Judge Catherine D.
Perry dismissed Riceland's counterclaims on plaintiffs' motion,
and plaintiffs now ask that Judge Perry issue an expedited Order
entering final judgment of those counterclaims under Rule 54(b) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Riceland opposes entry of
final judgment and for the second time moves to dismiss for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction.

According to Judge Perry's November 7, 2014 memorandum and order,
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/QauMOcfrom
Leagle.com, the court has already determined that it has subject-
matter jurisdiction over this matter, and nothing in Riceland's
motion changes that conclusion.  "I see no just reason for
delaying entry of final judgment on Riceland's dismissed
counterclaims, and so I will grant the plaintiffs' motion," she
added.

Accordingly, Judge Perry concluded that:

* defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is
  denied.

* plaintiffs' motion for order under Rule 54(b) entering final
  judgment on Riceland's counterclaims is granted.

* judgment be entered with respect to the issues determined in
  the court's Memorandum and Order dated August 20, 2014, and she
  will enter a final judgment in favor of plaintiffs dismissing
  with prejudice the claims asserted by Riceland in its
  Counterclaim.

* plaintiffs' motion to expedite ruling on the pending motion for
  an order under Rule 54(b) entering final judgment on Riceland's
  counterclaims is denied as moot, and its motions to supplement
  are granted.

Don M. Downing, Plaintiff, represented by Gretchen Garrison, GRAY
AND RITTER, P.C., Michael M. Liskow, WOLF AND HALDENSTEIN, Stacey
T. Kelly, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER, Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND
SIEGEL, LLP, Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Todd E.
Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP & Don M. Downing, GRAY AND RITTER,
P.C..

Adam J. Levitt, Plaintiff, represented by Gretchen Garrison, GRAY
AND RITTER, P.C., Stacey T. Kelly, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER, Bradley
T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND
SIEGEL, LLP, Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP & Don M.
Downing, GRAY AND RITTER, P.C..

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Plaintiff, represented
by Gretchen Garrison, GRAY AND RITTER, P.C., Michael M. Liskow,
WOLF AND HALDENSTEIN, Stacey T. Kelly, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER,
Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Patrick J. Stueve,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP &
Don M. Downing, GRAY AND RITTER, P.C..

Looper Reed & McGraw, P.C., Plaintiff, represented by Gretchen
Garrison, GRAY AND RITTER, P.C., Michael M. Liskow, WOLF AND
HALDENSTEIN, Stacey T. Kelly, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER, Bradley T.
Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND
SIEGEL, LLP, Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP & Don M.
Downing, GRAY AND RITTER, P.C..

Gray Ritter & Graham PC, Plaintiff, represented by Gretchen
Garrison, GRAY AND RITTER, P.C., Michael M. Liskow, WOLF AND
HALDENSTEIN, Stacey T. Kelly, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER, Bradley T.
Wilders, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Patrick J. Stueve, STUEVE AND
SIEGEL, LLP, Todd E. Hilton, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP & Don M.
Downing, GRAY AND RITTER, P.C..

Riceland Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Barry Deacon,
DEACON LAW FIRM, P.A., Christopher M. Hohn, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP,
Jason Mark Milne, DEACON LAW FIRM, P.A., John R. Musgrave,
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP & Kimberly M. Bousquet, THOMPSON COBURN, LLP.
Goldman Phipps PLLC, Consolidated Filer Defendant, represented by
Michael A. Vitale, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Peter W. Herzog, Jr., HERZOG
CREBS LLP.

Goldman, Pennebaker & Phipps P.C., Consolidated Filer Defendant,
represented by Michael A. Vitale, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Peter W.
Herzog, Jr., HERZOG CREBS LLP.

Martin Phipps, Consolidated Filer Defendant, represented by
Michael A. Vitale, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Peter W. Herzog, Jr., HERZOG
CREBS LLP.

Keller Stolarczyk PLLC, Consolidated Filer Defendant, represented
by Michael A. Vitale, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Peter W. Herzog, Jr.,
HERZOG CREBS LLP.

Mikal C. Watts, P.C., Consolidated Filer Defendant, represented by
Michael A. Vitale, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Peter W. Herzog, Jr., HERZOG
CREBS LLP.

Mikal C. Watts, Consolidated Filer Defendant, represented by
Michael A. Vitale, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Peter W. Herzog, Jr., HERZOG
CREBS LLP.

Stephen B. Murray, Sr., Consolidated Filer Defendant, represented
by Michael A. Vitale, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Peter W. Herzog, Jr.,
HERZOG CREBS LLP.

Murray Law Firm, Consolidated Filer Defendant, represented by
Michael A. Vitale, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Peter W. Herzog, Jr., HERZOG
CREBS LLP.

Charles A. Banks, Consolidated Filer Defendant, represented by
Michael A. Vitale, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Peter W. Herzog, Jr., HERZOG
CREBS LLP.

Banks Law Firm, Consolidated Filer Defendant, represented by
Michael A. Vitale, HERZOG CREBS LLP & Peter W. Herzog, Jr., HERZOG
CREBS LLP.


RITE AID: Proceedings in 7 Actions Stayed Pending Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Mendez signed stipulations on November 5
and 6, 2014, staying proceedings in these actions:

CHRIS GONZALEZ, an individual Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-01963
JAM-EFB, RELATED TO NO. 2:13-CV-02439 JAM-EFB., 2:14-CV-01946
JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01957 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01960 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-
01961 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB, (E.D. Cal.)

BRUCE KAUFMAN, an individual Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NOS. 2:14-CV-01961
JAM-EFB, 2:13-CV-02439 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01946 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-
01957 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01960 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01963 JAM-EFB,
2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB, (E.D. Cal.)

KATHRYN VON KOPP, an individual Plaintiff, v. RITE AID
CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NOS.
2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB, 2:13-CV-02439 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01946 JAM-
EFB, 2:14-CV-01957 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01960 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01961
JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01963 JAM-EFB, (E.D. Cal.)

MARK JAEGER, an individual Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-01960
JAM-EFB, RELATED TO NO. 2:13-CV-02439 JAM-EFB., 2:14-CV-01946
JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01957 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01961 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-
01963 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB, (E.D. Cal.)

KEITH WELDAY, an individual Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-02439
JAM-EFB, RELATED TO NO. 2:14-CV-01946 JAM-EFB., 2:14-CV-01957
JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01960 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01961 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-
01963 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB, (E.D. Cal.)

TOM BAUSER, an individual Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION, and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV-01946 JAM-
EFB, RELATED TO NO. 2:13-CV-02439 JAM-EFB, NO. 2:14-CV-01957 JAM-
EFB., 2:14-CV-01960 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01961 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01963
JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB, (E.D. Cal.)

RACHEL CHAVEZ, an individual Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION,
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NOS. 2:14-CV-01957
JAM-EFB, 2:13-CV-02439 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01946 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-
01960 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01961 JAM-EFB, 2:14-CV-01963 JAM-EFB,
2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB, (E.D. Cal.)

Rite Aid moved to stay these actions on October 22, 2014, pending
the proceedings in Romero v. Rite Aid Corp., U.S.D.C., C.D. Cal.,
No. CV 13-7720-MWF (JEMx), a putative class action in which the
plaintiff alleges that Rite Aid has misclassified salaried Store
Managers in California as exempt from the overtime pay and related
requirements of California law.  Rite Aid moved to stay these
action on the grounds, inter alia, that Rite Aid would suffer
prejudice as a result of litigating Romero -- a large putative
class action that threatens to bring in the claims of every exempt
Store Manager in California -- while simultaneously litigating the
merits of plaintiffs' individual claims in these cases,
particularly in light of the fact that the plaintiffs are putative
class members in Romero and that the plaintiff in Romero is
represented by the same counsel who represent plaintiffs in these
cases.

Since Rite Aid filed its motion to stay, the parties have engaged
in discussions regarding potential mediation of plaintiffs' claims
and have agreed to mediate the claims on January 13, 2015.

Accordingly, the parties stipulated that the November 19, 2014
hearing on the motion to stay these actions filed by defendant
Rite Aid Corporation is vacated.  All proceedings in these actions
are stayed until January 27, 2015.  The parties must file an
updated joint status report within 21 days after expiration of the
stay imposed.

Copies of the court-approved stipulations are available at

     http://is.gd/3iEoBo
     http://is.gd/v6WQC0
     http://is.gd/XsxvBQ
     http://is.gd/2akKem
     http://is.gd/nx7MMp
     http://is.gd/Yx5omeand,
     http://is.gd/I2Mokzfrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

   Matthew Righetti, Esq.
   John Glugoski, Esq.
   Michael Righetti, Esq.
   RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
   456 Montgomery St., Ste. 1400
   San Francisco, CA 94104
   Telephone: 415-983-0900
   Facsimile: 415-397-9005

JEFFREY D. WOHL -- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- RISHI N. SHARMA --
rishisharma@paulhastings.com -- PETER A. COOPER --
petercooper@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP, San Francisco,
California, Attorneys for Defendant Rite Aid Corporation.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Dakil" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven T. Dakil, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sandridge Energy, Inc., Tom Ward, James D.
Bennett, and Eddie M. Leblanc, Case No. 5:14-cv-01256 (W.D. Okla.,
November 11, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.

Sandridge Energy, Inc. explores and produces oil and natural gas
properties primarily in the Mid-Continent region of the United
States.

The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Sandridge
Energy, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Rubenstein, Esq.
      RUBENSTEIN & PITTS PLLC
      1503 E 19th St
      Edmond, OK 73013
      Telephone: (405) 340-1900
      Facsimile: (405) 340-1001
      E-mail: mrubenstein@oklawpartners.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Francis P. McConville, 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
              fmcconville@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


SARJ USA: Faces "Mercado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cirenio Mercado, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Sarj USA, Inc. and Jatin Patel, Case No.
1:14-cv-09036 (N.D. Ill., November 11, 2014), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmacy in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq.
      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com
              Dave@StevensLawLLC.com


SIRIUS XM: 9th Cir. Flips Ruling in Suit Over Unauthorized Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
In ERIK KNUTSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC.,
Defendant-Appellee, NO. 12-56120, Knutson appeals a district court
order dismissing his putative class action and granting Sirius XM
Radio Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA). Knutson alleges that he did not consent to
enter into a binding Customer Agreement with Sirius XM, and that
the Customer Agreement as a whole, and the arbitration provision
specifically, are unconscionable.

In November 2011, Knutson purchased a vehicle from Toyota that
included a 90-day trial subscription to Sirius XM satellite radio.
About a month after his trial subscription was activated, Knutson
received a "Welcome Kit" from Sirius XM that contained a Customer
Agreement. Knutson alleges that during his trial subscription, he
received three unauthorized calls from Sirius XM on his cellphone.
In response to these calls Knutson, in February 2012, brought a
class action suit against Sirius XM alleging violations of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The district court
found that both parties consented to enter into the Customer
Agreement and that the arbitration clause was valid and
enforceable under the FAA.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit ruled in an
opinion dated November 10, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/kUV7C1from Leagle.com, that Knutson timely appealed
the district court's judgment.  Since it has jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. Section 1291, the Ninth Circuit reverses the district
court ruling.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  mike@kazlg.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Chad S. Hummel, Esq.
          Becca Wahlquist, Esq.
          Lydia M. Mendoza, Esq.
          MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
          11355 W. Olympic Blvd.
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 312-4000
          Facsimile: (310) 312-4224
          E-mail: chummel@manatt.com
                  bwahlquist@swlaw.com
                  lmendoza@manatt.com

The appellate case is Erik Knutson v. Sirius Xm Radio Inc., Case
No. 12-56120, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.  The District Court case is Erik Knutson v. Sirius Xm
Radio Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-00418-AJB-NLS, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.


STANDARD INSURANCE: 10th Cir. Remands "Woods" Suit to Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRETT F. WOODS and KATHLEEN VALDES, for themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STANDARD INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Oregon insurance company; MARTHA QUINTANA, a New
Mexico resident, Defendants-Appellants, NO. 13-2160 is an appeal
which requires the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
to evaluate whether remand to the state court pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) is required under either of two
CAFA provisions: the state action provision, which excludes from
federal jurisdiction cases in which the primary defendants are
states; or the local controversy exception, which requires federal
courts to decline jurisdiction where, among other things, there is
a local defendant whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis
for the claims asserted by plaintiffs and from whom plaintiffs
seek significant relief.

On November 10, 2014, the Tenth Circuit concluded that neither
provision provides a basis for remand, and therefore it reversed
the decision of the magistrate judge remanding the case to state
court.  But because it cannot determine whether Defendants have
established the amount in controversy required to confer federal
jurisdiction, the Tenth Circuit remanded to the district court for
the resolution of that issue.  A copy of the Court's ruling is
available at http://is.gd/tTXzMd from Leagle.com.

Jill B. Davenport -- jill.davenport@figdav.com -- (Keith R. Verges
with her on the briefs), Figari & Davenport, L.L.P., Dallas,
Texas, for the Appellants.

Elizabeth Radosevich -- eradosevich@peiferlaw.com -- Peifer,
Hanson & Mullins, P.A., Albuquerque, New Mexico (Robert E. Hanson
-- rhanson@peiferlaw.com -- and Matthew E. Jackson --
mjackson@peiferlaw.com -- Peifer, Hanson & Mullins, P.A., and
William H. Carpenter, William H. Carpenter Law Office, Ltd.,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, with her on the briefs) for the
Appellees.


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Five Star Farms Suit Over Viptera Corn
-----------------------------------------------------------
Five Star Farms; Frahm Farmland, Inc., Robert C. Ita and Elanor J.
Ita, McGuire Farms, Stewart Feed Yard, Inc.; Martin Petska and
Patricia Petska, Frerichs Land LLC, Kenneth Frerichs, Bieber Farm,
Rolling Ridge Ranch, on their own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Syngenta AG, Syngenta  Crop Protection AG,
Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Syngenta
Biotechnology, Inc., Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02571
(D. Kan., November 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain
elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the
dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or
otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold.

The Defendants are engaged in commercial seed business,
developing, producing, and selling, through dealers and
distributors or directly to growers, a wide range of agricultural
products throughout the United States, including corn seed with
certain genetically modified traits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: 816-714-7100
      Facsimile: 816-714-7101
      E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

      Don M. Downing, Esq.
      Gretchen Garrison, Esq.
      Jason Sapp, Esq.
      GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
      701 Market Street, Suite 800
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: 314-241-5620
      Facsimile: 314-241-4140
      E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com
              ggarrison@grgpc.com
              jsapp@grgpc.com

         - and -

      William B. Chaney, Esq.
      Andrew K.York, Esq.
      Alex Fuller, Esq.
      GRAY, REED & MCGRAW P.C.
      1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (469) 320-6031
      Facsimile: (469) 320-6836
      E-mail: wchaney@grayreed.com
              dyork@grayreed.com
              afuller@grayreed.com

         - and -

      Scott A. Powell, Esq.
      Jason Earley, Esq.
      HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON
      2025 3rd Ave. North, Suite 800
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 328-5330
      Facsimile: (205) 324-2165
      E-mail: scott@hwnn.com
              jason@hwnn.com

         - and -

      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher M. Ellis, Esq.
      BOLEN ROBINSON & ELLIS LLP
      202 S. Franklin St.
      Decatur, IL 62523
      Telephone: 217-429-4296
      Facsimile: 219-329-0039
      E-mail: cellis@brelaw.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Lanier" Suit Over Viptera Corn
----------------------------------------------------
Richard Fredrick Lanier, William Council Lanier, and Richard Ralph
Lanier, Jr. v. Syngenta AG, Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta
Corporation, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 7:14-cv-00262
(E.D.N.C., November 11, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain
elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the
dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or
otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold.

The Defendants are engaged in commercial seed business,
developing, producing, and selling, through dealers and
distributors or directly to growers, a wide range of agricultural
products throughout the United States, including corn seed with
certain genetically modified traits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian L. Kinsley, Esq.
      CRUMLEY ROBERTS
      2400 Freeman Mill Rd.
      Greensboro, NC 27406
      Telephone: (336) 333-9899
      Facsimile: (336) 333-9894
      E-mail: blkinsley@crumleyroberts.com

         - and -

      Francois M. Blaudeau, Esq.
      SOUTHERN INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL & LEGAL AFFAIRS
      2224 1st Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 326-3336
      E-mail: francois@southernmedlaw.com

         - and -

      W. Lewis Garrison Jr., Esq.
      William L. Bross, Esq.
      Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
      Mark R. Ekonen, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
      2224 1st Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 326-3336
      E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com
              william@hgdlawfirm.com
              mark@hgdlawfirm.com


SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Wilson Farm Suit Over Viptera Corn
-------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Farm Inc., et al., v. Syngenta AG, Syngenta  Crop
Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc., Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No.
4:14-cv-01908 (E.D. Mo., November 11, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to provide an adequate warning to
farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the general public
regarding the dangers of planting, growing, harvesting,
transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera
corn was sold.

The Defendants are engaged in commercial seed business,
developing, producing, and selling, through dealers and
distributors or directly to growers, a wide range of agricultural
products throughout the United States, including corn seed with
certain genetically modified traits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don M. Downing, Esq.
      Gretchen Garrison, Esq.
      Jason Sapp, Esq.
      GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
      701 Market Street, Suite 800
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 241-5620
      Facsimile: (314) 241-4140
      E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com
              ggarrison@ggpc.com
              jsapp@grgpc.com

         - and -

      William B. Chaney, Esq.
      Andrew K. York, Esq.
      Alex Fuller, Esq.
      GRAY, REED & MCGRAW P.C.
      1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (469) 320-6031
      Facsimile: (469) 320-6836
      E-mail: wchaney@grayreed.com
              dyork@grayreed.com
              afuller@grayreed.com

         - and -

      Scott A. Powell, Esq.
      Jason Earley, Esq.
      HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON
      2025 3rd Ave. North, Suite 800
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 328-5330
      Facsimile: (205) 324-2165
      E-mail: scott@hwnn.com
              jason@hwnn.com

         - and -

      Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Ave. South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher M. Ellis, Esq.
      BOLEN ROBINSON & ELLIS LLP
      202 S. Franklin St.
      Decatur, IL 62523
      Telephone: (217) 429-4296
      Facsimile: (219) 329-0039
      E-mail: cellis@brelaw.com


STATE FARM: Judge Drops Case of Third-Party Insurance Claimant
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Magnuson of the District Court of Minnesota
granted the defendants' motions to dismiss in the case John
Jaskulske, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Audatex
North America, Inc., Explore Information Services, LLC, and Solera
Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-869 (PAM/TNL) (D.
Minn.)

Plaintiff John Jaskulske, while driving his car, met an accident
with a State Farm-insured driver. His vehicle was in a total loss
because its repair cost was greater than its value. Plaintiff made
an insurance claim against defendant State Farm and State Farm
hired co-defendant AudaExplore to generate a valuation which the
State Farm would use to determine the amount that it would pay to
settle plaintiff's claim. In its valuation report, the value of
the vehicle was reduced by 7% to account for the difference
between the typical asking and selling price of plaintiff's
vehicle.

After some negotiations and obtaining an increase in the
settlement amount, Plaintiff accepted the payment but later
brought a putative class action against State Farm and
AudaExplore, alleging that, in settling third-party car insurance
claims for total-loss vehicles in Minnesota, they systematically
reduce every vehicle's value by an arbitrary 7%. He contended that
the practice itself violated State Farm's obligation under
Minnesota's Uniform Consumer Protection Act and its own insurance
policies to pay third-party beneficiaries. Under this contention
he asserted claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract
and injunctive relief. He also contended that State Farm concealed
such practice from claimants by omitting from settlement
communications that it applied the 7% reduction and the basis for
reduction and under this contention, plaintiff claim for fraud,
deceptive trade practices through the private-attorney-general
statute, and false advertising.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims and argued that the
declaratory-judgment claim failed because a private party cannot
enforce the UCPA and the UCPA is limited to first-party insured,
not third-party claimants like Jaskulske; the fraud claim failed
to plead any misrepresentation or omission with particularity; the
breach-of-contract claim failed because Minnesota law forbids
third-party enforcement of insurance policies and the insurance
policy allows the 7% reduction; the deceptive-trade-practices
claim failed because Jaskulske would neither be likely to suffer
future harm nor secure a public benefit; and the false-advertising
claim failed because Jaskulske did not challenge any
advertisements.  Made aware of the defects in some of his claims,
Jaskulske amended the Complaint. He dropped the declaratory-
judgment, false-advertising, and injunctive-relief claims, and
kept the fraud, breach-of-contract, and deceptive-trade practices
claims.

Defendants again moved to dismiss the case.

Judge Magnuson granted defendants' motions to dismiss expressing
that the fraud claim fails because Jaskulske has not pleaded that
State Farm and AudaExplore owed him a duty to disclose the
settlement practice. The deceptive trade-practices claim fails
because Jaskulske cannot plead that he is likely to suffer future
harm from the settlement practice. And the breach-of-contract
claim fails because Jaskulske agrees that it lacks merit. Count I
of Jaskulske's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice, and
Counts II and III are dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Magnuson's memorandum and order dated October 31,
2014 is available at http://is.gd/VE2h8dfrom Leagle.com.

Solera Holdings, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Paul J Ferak,
Esq. -- ferakp@gtlaw.com -- Paul T Fox, Esq. -- foxp@gtlaw.com --
at Greenberg Traurig LLP; and Benjamin W Hulse, Esq. --
bhulse@blackwellburke.com -- at Blackwell Burke PA.


SUPERSHUTTLE INTERNATIONAL: N.D. Cal. Judge Grants Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey S. White of the Northern District of
California grants plaintiff's motion for final approval of class
and collective action settlement in the case ROOSEVELT KAIRY,
LARRY BROWN, WAYNE DICKSON, DRAKE OSMUN, HARJINDER SINGHDIETZ,
FREDERICK FERNANDEZ, YURIK ZADOV, and MUNIR AHMED on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SUPERSHUTTLE INTERNATIONAL, INC. and SUPERSHUTTLE FRANCHISE
CORPORATION, d.b.a. SUPERSHUTTLE; CLOUD 9 SHUTTLE, INC.;
SUPERSHUTTLE OF SAN FRANCISCO, INC.; MINI-BUS SYSTEMS, INC.;
SUPERSHUTTLE LOS ANGELES, INC.; AND SACRAMENTO TRANSPORTATION
SERVICES, INC., and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants.,
Case No. 4:08-CV-02993 JSW (N.D. Cal.)

The Court confirms as final its preliminary certification in the
June 12, 2014 Order of the Settlement Class, as that term is
defined in and by the terms of the Agreement. With respect to the
Settlement Class and for purposes of approving this Settlement
only, the Court finds and concludes that: (a) the Members of the
Settlement Class are ascertainable and so numerous that joinder of
all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law or
fact common to the Settlement Class, and there is a well-defined
community of interest among Members of the Settlement Class with
respect to the subject matter of the Lawsuit; (c) the claims of
the Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the other
members of the Settlement Class; (d) the Class Representatives
have fairly and adequately protected the interests of the
Settlement Class; (e) a class action is superior to other
available methods for an efficient adjudication of this
controversy; and (f) the counsel of record for the Class
Representatives, i.e., Class Counsel, are qualified to serve as
class counsel.

The Court confirms as final the appointment of Roosevelt Kairy,
Larry Brown, Wayne Dickson, Drake Osmun, Harjinder Dubb, Frederick
Fernandez, Yurik Zadov, and Munir Ahmed as class representatives.

The Court confirms as final the appointment of Plaintiffs' law
firms, Leonard Carder, LLP; Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP;
Lewis Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C.; and Bryan Schwartz
Law as Class Counsel.

Plaintiffs have requested approval of a payment from the aggregate
settlement fund of $7,500 to the California Labor and Workforce
Development Agency (LWDA) in settlement of the California Class'
PAGA claims. The Court finds that this LWDA payment is fair,
adequate, and reasonable and approves a payment to the LWDA in the
amount of $7,500.

Plaintiffs have requested appointment of the Legal Aid Society-
Employment Law Center (San Francisco, CA) as cy pres beneficiary.
The Court hereby designates the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law
Center as cy pres beneficiary for receipt of undistributed funds
as provided under the Agreement and the Court's Order.

On October 31, 2015, any of the 266 Undelivered Notice Class
Members who have still not been mailed Notice will be excluded
from the Settlement and shall not be bound by the Release. The
dollars attributable to their shares of settlement will be
disbursed to the cy pres beneficiary.

The Lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of Judge White's revised order dated November 3, 2014 is
available at http://is.gd/ho3S0mfrom Leagle.com.

Yurik Zadov, Esq., Counter-defendant, represented by Rosha Jones,
Esq. -- rjones@rhdtlaw.com -- at Rukin Hyland Doria Tindall LLP
-- Aaron D. Kaufmann, Esq. -- akaufmann@leonardcarder.com -- at
Leonard Carder, LLP; and Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz, Esq. at Bryan
Schwartz Law.


TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Meade" Suit Over Defective Airbags
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linsey Meade and Joseph Przybyszewski, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-14338 (E.D. Mich., November 11, 2014), alleges
that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the
Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from
bodily injury during accidents, violently explode and expel
vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and
shrapnel.

Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      Marc L. Newman, Esq.
      Casey A. Fry, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM
      Miller Building
      950 West University Drive, Suite 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Telephone: (248) 841-2200
      Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
      E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
              mln@millerlawpc.com
              caf@millerlawpc.com

         - and -

      Kessler Topaz, Esq.
      Joseph H. Meltzer
      Edward W. Ciolko
      Peter A. Muhic
      MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056


TITEFLEX CORP: 1st Cir. Affirms Product Liability Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Sandra Lynch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the district court of a
product liability suit against TiteFlex Corporation.

Tim Kerin owns a house in Florida which has Gastite or corrugated
stainless steel tubing or CSST installed to provide gas for his
outdoor firepit. In his complaint, Kerin asserted four causes of
action under Massachusetts law, each based on allegations of
Gastite CSST's vulnerability to lightning strikes: (1) strict
liability for design and manufacturing defects; (2) negligence in
designing and failing to test the product; (3) negligence in
failure to warn; and (4) strict liability in failure to warn."
Kerin does not allege that this vulnerability of his home's CSST
to lightning strikes has manifested in any actual harm. Rather, he
seeks damages "that may be measured as his overpayment or as the
cost of remedying the safety issue. He brought the claim under
diversity jurisdiction in Massachusetts, where Titeflex is
located.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
dismissed for lack of standing because Kerin's injury was too
speculative. The Plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court affirms the dismissal of the lower court
expressing that Kerin fails to allege either facts sufficient to
assess the probability of future injury or instances of actual
damage where the cause is clear and finding that the alleged risk
of harm is too speculative to give rise to a case or controversy.

A copy of Judge Lynch's decision dated November 4, 2014 is
available at http://is.gd/jjN7ISfrom Leagle.com.

The appellate case is entitled TIM KERIN, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. TITEFLEX
CORPORATION t/a GASTITE, Defendant, Appellee, No.
14-1130 (1st Cir.).

Kevin T. Peters, with whom Erika Todd and Arrowood Peters LLP were
on brief, for appellant.  Mr. Peters may be reached at:

     Kevin T. Peters, Esq.
     ARROWOOD PETERS LLP
     10 Post Office Square
     Suite 1180 North
     Boston, MA 02109
     Tel: (617) 849-6211
     Fax: (617) 849-6201
     E-mail: kpeters@arrowoodpeters.com

John G. Papianou, Esq. -- jpapianou@mmwr.com -- with whom Charles
B. Casper, Esq. -- ccasper@mmwr.com -- Montgomery, McCracken,
Walker & Rhoads, LLP; Jeffrey E. Poindexter, Esq. --
jpoindexter@bulkley.com -- Jodi K. Miller, Esq. --
jmiller@bulkley.com -- Bulkley Richardson and Gelinas, LLP were on
brief, for appellee.

The First Circuit Panel consists of Chief Judge Sandra Lynch,
Circuit Judges Bruce M. Selyan and Kenneth Francis Ripple.


UNITED STATES: Two Motions to Intervene in Keepseagle Case Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pending before the Court in MARILYN KEEPSEAGLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. TOM VILSACK, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-3119 (EGS), (D. D.C.)
are two motions to intervene in this case. Both groups of putative
intervenors seek to participate in proceedings regarding the
Court's consideration of a pending motion to modify the cy pres
provisions of the 2011 agreement that resulted in the settlement
of this class action (the Agreement).

First, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and its affiliated Jones
Academy Foundation (the Choctaw Movants) seek to intervene on the
basis of their concern that the proposed modification will
adversely affect their opportunity to receive cy pres funds.

Second, a group of class members who successfully obtained
compensation under the Agreement (calling themselves "the Great
Plains Claimants") seek intervention due to their concern that
Class Counsel has failed to request a modification that would
provide for additional payments to them.
Both motions raise questions regarding the requirements for
intervening in post-judgment proceedings involving cy pres
distributions. In this case, the Agreement created a cy pres fund
to distribute any leftover funds. That portion of the Agreement
was not objected to, and no appeal was filed from the Court's
approval of it. So this is not a case where parties seek to
intervene to address whether cy pres is appropriate in the first
instance. The narrow issue before the Court is modification:
"Should the cy pres provisions of the Agreement be modified and,
if so, how?" It is on this issue that the putative intervenors
seek to be heard as parties.

The Choctaw Movants desire to maintain the status quo. They oppose
the proposed changes to the procedures for distributing cy pres
funds. In doing so, they assert that they have a legal right to
the cy pres funds, despite being neither members of the class nor
otherwise connected to the Agreement. Meanwhile, the Great Plains
Claimants desire to propose an entirely different modification.
They would remove the cy pres provisions altogether and distribute
the leftover funds to class members who have already completed the
claims process and received monetary awards.

In a memorandum opinion dated November 7, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/0wICvXfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Emmet G. Sullivan held that the Choctaw Movants lack legal rights
under the Agreement, which in no way expressed or implied an
intent to benefit them or a class to which they belong.
Meanwhile, the Great Plains Claimants do not have a legally
protected interest in the leftover funds. By failing to object to
the cy pres provisions or otherwise appeal the approval of the
Agreement, and then participating in the claims process, they
settled their legal claims, said Judge Sullivan. Accordingly, the
Court cannot find that they retain a legal interest giving them
standing to intervene.

Against this backdrop, the Court denies the motions to intervene.

GEORGE B. KEEPS EAGLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK
LLP, Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C. & David Joseph
Frantz, CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN, LLP.

LUTHER CRASCO, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JOHN FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

GENE CADOTTE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

BASIL ALKIRE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated including, but not limited to the following plaintiffs,
Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP,
Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C.,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JEROME K. ALKIRE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

LEROY J. AMES, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JAMES ANDERSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

SIDNEY BAILEY, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

BARB H. BAKER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JAMES L. BAKER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DELPHINE BAKER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JEFFERSON B. BAKER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

KYLE BAKER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

CAROL T. BALLEW, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

CHARLIE BEAR, III, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

LEONARD BEAR KING, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK
LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. GOODMAN, JR.
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

GEORGE BELL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

GEORGE B. BELL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

HARRY BENALLY, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

CLARICE BENDER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

LEANN BENDER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

CHANNON D. BIGHORN, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ERNEST C. BIGHORN, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ROGER M. BIRD BEAR, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JAMES BIRDTAIL, III, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

THOMAS BLACK HAWK, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

GABE E. BLACK MOON, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

RONALD C. BROWNOTTER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

KOTY BRUGH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ROBIN BURRITT, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

MARGARETT CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

MAUREEN E. CARSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

THERESA CHARGING, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

GEORGE DUANE CHARGING, Deceased, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie
F Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

STANLEY CHARGING, Son, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

KENNETH CHARGING, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

BRENT LONG CHASE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

CHARLES CLAMPITT, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

CLAY CHARLES CLAYMORE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

MIKE CLAYMORE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

SAMUEL CLAYMORE, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

LEONARD M. COOK, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

MARVIN COTA, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

GLEN CUDMORE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

CLAYTON DANKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

CURTIS DANKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

CYNTHIA F. DANKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

LYLE C. DANKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

RHONDA J. DANKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

RICHARD DANKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

EDWARD S. DANKS, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N. Francis,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK
LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. GOODMAN, JR.
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

EDWARD S. DANKS, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N. Francis,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK
LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT E. GOODMAN, JR.
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ADELINA DEFENDER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

PALMER DEFENDER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

STEVE DEFENDER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

LOUIS DUBRAY, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ALLEN DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DARREN C. DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ED DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ERNEST LYLE DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

FRANK DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JESS DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

LARRY DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

LILLIAN LYNN DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

MAYNARD J. DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

MELVIN R. DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

RICHARD R. DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ROMAN DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

RONNIE DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

THOMAS DUCHENEAUX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DWAYNE J. EAGLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

BEVIN CIRCLE EAGLE, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

MARSHA ELK, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JERRY ROBERT FARLEE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

EDWARD J. FILESTEEL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

GLORIA FISCHER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

MELISSA R. FISCHER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

TERRANCE FISCHE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

THOMAS W. FISCHER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JOHN LUKE FLYINGHORSE, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F
Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ADRIAN FOOT, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ANTHONY B. FOX, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

GLEN CHARLES FOX, JR., Estate, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F
Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

EDWARD C. FOX, Son, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

PAULA DANKS, Daughter, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

BILLY J. FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ELMER FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JUDY FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JUSTIN FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

LOREN FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

PAT FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

PAUL J. FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

PETE E. FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

TERRANCE E. FREDERICKS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

KENNETH L. FREDERICKS, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F
Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ROMEY A. GARREAU, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JAMES J. GARRETT, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ZANE GIPP, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JOE GOOD ELK, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

KAY GULLICKSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

PHYLLIS GUNVILLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ROMAN GUNVILLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

WILLIAM WARD GUNVILLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

CASEY ED HALL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ESTHER M. HALL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ETHAN HALL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

LELAND HALL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

MERVEL HALL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

TODD HALL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

CATHERINE HALVER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DAVID J. HANLEY, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ALECIA HANSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

HENRY G. HARRISON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JAMES E. HARRISON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JOE HARRISON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

LENORA HARRISON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DAVID D. HARRISON, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DAVID HAWLEY, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DAVID J. HAWLEY, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

EDGAR HEART, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DORA HELGESON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

GENE HELGESON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

KENNETH HELGESON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

RAY HELGESON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DANILE HENRY, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

FRANK HENRY, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DENNIS HUBER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

MICHAEL HUBER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

MARGIE HUNTS ALONG, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

EDWARD S. IRON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DEIDRE L. IRON CLOUD, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

FAITH IRON CLOUD, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

RALPH K. IRON, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JOHN L. JAMES, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

RAYMOND JETTY, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JAMES G. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR., Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C. &
Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C..

MARCIE KAHL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

WADE KEEPSEAGLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ADELLA J. KILLS PRETTY ENEMY, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F
Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

TED KNIFE, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

EDITH P. KNIGHT, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

STORMY KOSEL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

BARBARA LANDE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JEANNE R. LANDE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

PAUL A. LANDE, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

PAUL A. LANDE, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ROSS LAWRENCE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DAISY LECOMPTE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

NICK LEINGANG, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ARBY LITTLE SOLDIER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

COBY LITTLE SOLDIER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DALE LITTLE SOLDIER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

NATHAN F. LITTLE SOLDIER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F
Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ROSELLA LITTLE SOLDIER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

NEWLYN LITTLE SWALLOW, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ERNEST LIZOTTE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

RONNIE LONG, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

RICHARD ANTHONY LONG FEATHER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F
Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..
ADAM T. MANDAN, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

KEITH MANDAN, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

FLORENCE MATTE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

WARREN MATTE, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

KEN MAXON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

WAYNE E. MAXON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DONALD MCGHEE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

PATT MCLAUGHLIN, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

FAY A. MOBERG, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

CELINA Y.B. MOSSETT, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

WILLIAM T. MULLENBERG, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JOAN M. NETTERVILLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

KURT P. NETTERVILLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

SAMUEL J. NETTERVILLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DELLA NO HEART, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

GEORGIE H. PARENTEAU, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

WILLIAM P. PEASE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DONNA RAE PETERSEN, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JAMES D. PICOTTE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JOHN J. RABBITHEAD, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

MICHAEL REDSTONE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ROSELYN SAND, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DARREL H. SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DUANE A. SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

FARRELL SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

HOWARD B. SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

RODNEY J. SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

TERRY M. SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

TOM SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

VINA SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

WILLIAM SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ROBERT DARREL SMITH, III, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F
Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD
STREET, LLP, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ROBERT D. SMITH, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

GLASCO R. SPRIGGS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DOUG STANGEL, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

PHILOMENA STONE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

RICHARD P. STONE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

FRANK D. THOMPSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

LLOYD THOMPSON, SR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

SAMANTHA THUNDERHAWK, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ALBERT R. TWO BEARS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

KAROL TWO BEARS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

G. PATTY VALANDRA, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ARNOLD WALKER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

MARTIN WALKER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

CLIFF WALKING ELK, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

SCOTT WALTERS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

LORETTA WALTON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

PATRICK WALTON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

STEPHEN WALTON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

T. ED WALTON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

MARLENE WHIPPLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

STANLEY WHIPPLE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

RICHARD A. WHITE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

FRANK WHITECALFE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR., Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C. &
Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C..

LARRY D. WHITEMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

LYMAN M. YOUNG, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Phillip L. Fraas, STINSON LEONARD STREET, LLP, Jessica
Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ALL PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, David Joseph Frantz, CONLON, FRANTZ & PHELAN, LLP,
Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Richard L.
Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., Christine E. Webber, COHEN,
MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Michael T. Brody, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Peter Romer-Friedman, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, Ryan K. Harding, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH
VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C. & Victoria S. Nugent, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
HAUSFELD & TOLL, P.L.L.C..

ALVA ROSE HALL, individaully, as successor to Ernest and Mollie
Wilkinson, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

VIRGIL WILKINSON, individually,l as heir and successor to Ernest
and Mollie Wilkenson, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

CHARLES WILKINSON, individually, as heir and successor to Ernest
and Mollie Wilkinson, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

WILBUR D. WILKINSON, individually, as heir and successor to Ernest
and Mollie Wilkenson, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

DENNIS SNOW, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

ALFRED DRIVER, JR., individually, as heir and successor to Alfred
Driver, Sr, and Charlotte Driver, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie
F Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL,
P.C., James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP,
Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March
Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF
ROBERT E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM,
P.C..

GERALD DRIVER, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

LESTER CROWS HEART, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

TOM CROWS HEART, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER
& BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

EDGAR CROWS HEART, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

SUSAN HALL, individually, as heir and successor to John Sitting
Crow, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER & BLOCK
LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

IVAN JOHNSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C., James N.
Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

FRANK WHITE CALFE, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JAMES JOHNSON, JR., Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP
& Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

JOHN JACK RABBITHEAD, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

THEODORE LONE FIGHT, as heir and successor to Theodore Lone Fight,
and Maybelle Lone Fight, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

MELVIN J. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS
& TOLL, P.L.L.C., Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C.,
James N. Francis, Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph
M. Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Robert E. Goodman, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT
E. GOODMAN, JR. & Sarah M. Vogel, SARAH VOGEL LAW FIRM, P.C..

CLARYCA MANDAN, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, including, but not limited to the following individual
plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Carrie F Apfel, JENNER &
BLOCK LLP, Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL,
P.L.L.C., Jessica Ring Amunson, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Joseph M.
Sellers, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC & Paul March Smith,
JENNER & BLOCK LLP.

ALL PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff, represented by Christine E. Webber,
COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Joseph M. Sellers,
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Peter Romer-Friedman, COHEN,
MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL & Paul March Smith, JENNER & BLOCK LLP.
TIMOTHY LABATTE, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Erick G.
Kaardal, MOHRMAN, KAARDAL, & ERICKSON, P.A. & Erick G. Kaardal,
MOHRMAN, KAARDAL, & ERICKSON, P.A..

RHONDA LESMEISTER, 2255, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ANN M. VENEMAN, Secretary of Agriculture, Defendant, represented
by Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C.
& Amy E. Powell, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

MIKE JOHANNS, The United States Department of Agriculture,
Defendant, represented by Christine E. Webber, COHEN, MILSTEIN,
SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C., Kenneth Elliot Sealls, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, Amy E. Powell, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Eric J.
Soskin, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Jean-Michel Voltaire, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THOMAS J. VILSACK, Secretary of Agriculture, Defendant,
represented by Amy E. Powell, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Eric J.
Soskin, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Joseph M. Sellers, COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC & Justin Michael Sandberg, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

CANDACE M. ODOM, Interested Party, Pro Se.

PHIL GIVENS, Movant, Pro Se.

PHIL GIVENS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C..

RICHARD L. HOWELL, All intervenor plaintiffs associated with
Document No. 230, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C..

JOE BYRD, Chief, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C..

KIP CULLERS, Movant, represented by Christine E. Webber, COHEN,
MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C. & Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C..

CATHY ELLISON, Movant, represented by Christine E. Webber, COHEN,
MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, P.L.L.C. & Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C..

CLYDE HINDS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C..

MARY HINDS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C..

LUCILLE HINDS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C..

PAULA HOBBS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C..

VIRGINA ANN HODGE, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C..

BURNADEAN HUTCHINS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C..

ALMA HUTCHINS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C..

DALE HUTCHINS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C..

RANDELL G. HUTCHINS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C..

DICK E. LAY, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C..

BOB J. ROBERTSON, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C..

BOBBY G. ROBERTSON, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C..

TANDI M. ROBERTSON, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C..

HASTINGS SHADE, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C..

LORETTA SHADE, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C..

BILLY D. SIMPSON, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C..

REX EARL STARR, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C..

ALAN STARR, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD L.
HOWELL, P.C..

MARY MARGARET STARR, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell,
RICHARD L. HOWELL, P.C..

JAMES WALTERS, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C..

REGENIA WINKLE, Movant, represented by Richard L. Howell, RICHARD
L. HOWELL, P.C..

TIMOTHY LABATTE, Movant, represented by Erick G. Kaardal, MOHRMAN,
KAARDAL, & ERICKSON, P.A..

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA, Movant, represented by Steven D.
Gordon, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP.

JONES ACADEMY FOUNDATION, Movant, represented by Steven D. Gordon,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP.

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA, Movant, represented by Steven D.
Gordon, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP.

JONES ACADEMY FOUNDATION, Movant, represented by Steven D. Gordon,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP.

TERENCE ARPAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,

OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DAN BIRD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON

FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LEO BIRD, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,

OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SAMPSON BIRD, III, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JESS BLACKMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DALE FENNER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

EMERALD GRANT, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DALE GRAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BOYD GOURNEAU, P.O. Box 303 Lower Brule, SD 57548 605-730-1986,
Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA
TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TRUMAN LEE HALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TIMOTHY HESSERT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CARMELITA B. HOYT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TED HOYT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MICHAEL B. JANDREAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MYRA KNOPFLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

WILLIAM LONG TURKEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

FRANCIS LORING, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MICHAEL LORING, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ALVIN LUNAK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GALEN MEANS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DONNA RAE PETERSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BIRD SAMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LYLE ST GODDARD, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JUNE B. TATSEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

KEITH TATSEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GERALD WHITEMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JAMES D. WILLIAMS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARLA HALL WILLIAMS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RAMONA WILLIAMS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JEROME K. ALKIRE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DONNA ANDERSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARY JANE ANDERSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

KIMBERLY MICHELE ANNIS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JOHN ARCHAMBEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

STANTON ARCHAMBEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CHRISTOPHER ARPAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ROSALYN ARPAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ALBERT ARPAN, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ALBERT C. ARPAN, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

REBECCA AVERY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ANTHONY AFRAID OF HAW, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JANICE AFRAID OF HAWK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JOHN AFRAID OF HAWK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARLIS AFRAID OF HAWK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TERRI JO AFRAID OF HAWK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

HELEN ALKIRE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BOBBY AMIOTTI, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LYLE ANDERSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

HOLLY BAILEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SIDNEY BAILEY, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SIDNEY BAILEY, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

IRIS BEARHEELS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LELAND BEARHEELS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LORILYNN BEESON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CLARICE BENDER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LE'ANN BENDER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JACQUELINE BIGGER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DAN BIRD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SAMPSON BIRD III, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LEO BIRD, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GABE BLACK MOON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JESS BLACKMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

IRA BLUE COAT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

NORMAN BLUE COAT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

PHILIP BLUE COAT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JEFFREY BOWKER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARLENE BOWKER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BRUCE BROWNWOIT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DOUGLAS BURGEE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TYRONE CADOTTE, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JENELLE CANYON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

PAT CARLOU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MICHAEL CARLOU, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RICHARD CHARGING EAGLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

STEPHANIE CHARGING EAGLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BERTINA CHASE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DALE CHRISTENSEN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MAGDELINE CECILIA CIRCLE EAGLE, Movant, represented by Stewart
Douglas Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BEVERLY CIRCLE EAGLE CLOWN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BEVIN CIRCLE EAGLE, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DENNIS CLAW, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARY CLELAND, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CHANCE COLOMBE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CHARLES COLOMBE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JAMES COLOMBE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JO A. COLOMBE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LISA COLOMBE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RICHARD COLOMBE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

WAYNE COLOMBE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TERRY COMEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GERALDINE R. CONDON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CHAD J. CONNOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DUSTIN CONNOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARY ANN CONNOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ANDY C. COOK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GLEN CUDMORE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

NICHOLAS CUMMINGS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BERNARD CUNY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BLANE CUNY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BRYAN CUNY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

FRANCIS CUNY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CLEMENTINE DAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BRYAN DEANS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ILENE DECENTI, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

PAULMER DEFENDER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SHIRLEY DOG EAGLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

STU DOLPHUS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DONALD DOLPHUS, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BETSY DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CARLYLE DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CLINT DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DARREN DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

EDWARD DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

FRANK DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

HILDA DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JOANN DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LILLIAN LYNN DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

PETE DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ROBERT DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RONALD DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SAMMI DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

STEPHANIE DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

THOMAS DUCHENEAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ROBIN DUNN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARIE DUNN-CLAYMORE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BERNADINE DUPRIS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

EDWARD R. DUPRIS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GARY R. DUPRIS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MIKE FAITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

FREDERICK FARLEE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JUDY FARLEE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RITA FARLEE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

EDDIE FARMER, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LARRY FASTHORSE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LARSON FASTHORSE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DALE FENNER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

FRANCIS FERGUSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GARY FERGUSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LEONARD FERGUSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TERRANCE FISCHER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CODY WAYNE FOOTE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LORMAN BLAINE FOOTE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MICK FRANK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

HAROLD FRAZIER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BARBARA GARNENEZ, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TIMOTHY GARNENEZ, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

E. WAYNE GARREAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARION GARROW, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GREG GESINGER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

KEITH GESINGER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARY GESINGER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

STEVE GESINGER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LINDA GHOST BEAR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DIANNE GIESICK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ARDELLA GOOD LEFT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BOYD GOURNEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

PATTI GOURNEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

EMERALD GRANT, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ALFRED GRASS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CATHY GRAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DALE GRAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARY GROPPER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ALEX GUERRERO, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DUSTIN GUNVILLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GEORGIA A. GUNVILLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ROMAN GUNVILLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ROMNEY GUNVILLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

WILLIAM GUNVILLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

HARLAN GUNVILLE, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ETHAN HALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TRUMAN LEE HALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

NINA HANSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

HENRY HARRISON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MIKE HEATHERSHAW, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JAMES HENIO, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TERESA HENIO, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

HOWARD HERMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DELBERT HICKS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

HARVEY HICKS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARVA HICKS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MERLE HICKS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

WILLIAM HIGH BEAR SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JOHANNA HIGH BEAR, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CODI HIGH ELK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JOYCE HILL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ARLAND HODGKISS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

PEARL HOLLOW HORN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

VELDON HOLLOW HORN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

VERDELL HORSEHOOKING, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CARMELITA HOYT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TED HOYT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GENE HUNT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JEFF HUNT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

FRANK HUNTER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

PAUL D. IRON CLOUD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

PAUL JOHN IRON CLOUD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

PAULETTE IRON CLOUD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JIM JACOBS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TIM JACOBS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

WESLEY JACOBS, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JOHN JAMES, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

FAY JANDREAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARTY JANDREAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C. & Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MICHAEL JANDREAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TIM JANDREAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ALBERT JEWETT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

IYONNE JEWETT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

KATHERINE JEWETT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LOUIS JEWETT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARY JEWETT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SANDY JEWETT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CAROL JOHNSTON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CHARLES JOHNSTON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ARNOLD JORDAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

PAUL JOSEPH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARILYN KARY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JANET KECKLER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

EUNICE KEEPSEAGLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DAVID KEESTER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SHARON KELLER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

AH-KOO-EEN-STA-MEE KIPP, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

PEGGY KNIFE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RANDALL KNIFE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

WENDELL KNIFE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CONNIE KNIGHT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DEB KNIGHT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

EDITH KNIGHT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LUCY M. KNIGHT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARK KNIGHT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

NICK KNIGHT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

PATRICIA KNIGHT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MYRA KNOPFLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DELEEN KOUGL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

WICTOR KROSCH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DALE LA COMPTE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JOHN LAFFERTY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DELBERT LAMB, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GLORIA LANDREAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SCOTT LANDREAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GLORIA LAUNDREAUX, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JENNY LAWRENCE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JUSTIN LAWRENCE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

KIM LAWRENCE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ROSS LAWRENCE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TODD JAMES LAWRENCE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

WAYDE LAWRENCE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CHERYL LE COMPTE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DIXIE LE COMPTE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

IVAN LE COMPTE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LC LE COMPTE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DENISE LEBEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARK LEBEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JOSEPH LEBEAU, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JOSEPH LEBEAU, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LINDA LEBEAU-GHOST BEAR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

NICK LEINGANG, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..
BRENDA LEMMON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARCELLINE J. LESMEISTER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RHONDA LESMEISTER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ELDON LESSERT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TIMOTHY LESSERT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GILBERT LIND, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MICHAEL LIVERMOIUT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LILA LONG, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RONNIE LONG, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RICHARD LONG FEATHER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

VIRGINIA LONG FEATHER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

WILLIAM LONG TURKEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DELBERT F. LONGBRAKE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DELBERT W. LONGBRAKE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

EMMETT LONGBRAKE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JESSE LONGBRAKE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

FRANCIS LORING, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MICHAEL LORING, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ALVIN LUNAK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TERRY MAIER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..
JANICE MANDAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ANTHONY MARSHALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GILBERT L. MARSHALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JOHNNY MARSHALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JULIE MARSHALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

KIP MARSHALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LLOYD MARSHALL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MATTIE LOU MARSHALL DOAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CLIFFORD MARSHALL III, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CLIFFORD MARSHALL, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

KENNETH MARSHALL, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MOLBAY MARTINEZ, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

NITA MARIE MATT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

EVRY MAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JOHN MAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LENI MAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DONALD MCGHEE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CECIL MEANS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GALEN MEANS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GERMAINE E. MEANS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DUANE MEDNANSKY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JUSTIN MEDNANSKY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

OLETA MEDNANSKY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RICHARD MEDNANSKY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

THEODORE MINER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MICHELLE MITCHELL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARY REEVES MITZEL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SO LON MOCCASIN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DONNIE MOORE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ORIS MORRISON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CHARLES MURPHY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARJORIE BIRD NECKLACE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DAVID NELSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BART NESS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LARRY NESS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DARIN NEWBROUGH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DELLA NO HEART, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TODD O'BRYAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CARMEN O'LEARY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TIM O'LEARY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BRADY O'ROURKE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LYLE O'ROURKE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TOM O'ROURKE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BARBARA JEAN PALCZEWSKI, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DAWN PARKER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BARRY PATENEAUDE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

KAREN PEARMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RUSSELL PEARMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DONNA RAE PETERSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DAVID POURIER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DELBERT POURIER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DONALD POURIER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ROBERT POURIER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

WARREN POURIER, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LOLA PRITZKAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CURTIS REAL BIRD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

EMMA LU REEVES, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

FAYE REEVES, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JIMMY REEVES, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RYAN REICHARDT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ROBERT RIDES AT THE DOOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ALOYSIUS H. ROMERO, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ALOYSIUS T. ROMERO, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

PHILOMINE FAYE ROUSSEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RICHARD ROUSSEAU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

PAULETTE ROWLEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARILYN SANDLAND, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MICHAEL SANDLAND, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JENNIFER SCHOELERMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CLAUDE SHARP, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DENNIS SHARP, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CLYDE SHARP, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

IAN SHERWOOD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARY SHIRLEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ARTHUR SIEGLOCK, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RAMONA SIMON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ROGER SIMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LISA SKYE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARION SKYE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DOUGLAS SKYE, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BERNADETTE SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

FLOYD SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GLORIA SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JAE SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

REBEKAH SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RHEA SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SHARON SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TOM SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

VIVIAN SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

WARREN SMITH, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ROBERT D. SMITH, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GERALD SPOTTED TAIL, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LYLE ST GODDARD, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RUTH STEELE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CLAUDE SULLY, III, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RICHARD SWAIN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RHONDA RAE TAKES THE KNIFE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JUNE TATSEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

KEITH TATSEY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ANGELINE TAYLOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BRADLEY TAYLOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JERRY TAYLOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TED TAYLOR, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DARREL TERKILDSEN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BERNADINE THOMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

FRANK THOMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RODDY THOMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TATE THOMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TRAVIS THOMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TYLER THOMPSON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ANDREW TRAVERSIE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CAROL TRAVERSIE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

HUGH DELBERT TRAVERSIE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SHAWN TRAVERSIE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARLENE TRAXINGER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TONY TWO BEARS, SR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RAYMOND USES THE KNIFE, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart
Douglas Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TERI VAN DUSEN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BRENDA VEIT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CAROL VEIT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

FRANKIE VEIT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DALE VOCU, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TOM VROOMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RUSSELL SCOTT WAGNER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ARNOLD WALKER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARTIN F. WALKER, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ANNA WALN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BEVERLY WALN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DOLORES WALN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARIE WALN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARY WALN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SAMMIE WALN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SONNIE WALN-JESSEN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ELAINE WARD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

KELLY WARD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MORGAN WARD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RICHARD WARD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SANDRA WARD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

WADE WARD, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

LARRY WELLS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CARMEN E. WESTON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

EVELYN WESTON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

FARRELL WESTON, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ROBERT WHIPPLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

STANLEY WHIPPLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

WILLIAM WHIPPLE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

CONNIE WHIRLWINDHORSE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas
Fried, OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

HELEN WHITE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JAMES WHITE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JAYME A. WHITE EYES, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARIAN WHITE MOUSE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

BURTIS WHITE WOLF, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

KIMBERLY WHITE WOLF, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

SULLIVAN WHITE WOLF, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

FRANCIS WHITECLAY, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

GERALD WHITEMAN, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

EDWARD WIDOW, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

NORRIS WIDOW, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

J.D. WILLIAMS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

MARLA HALL WILLIAMS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RAMONA WILLIAMS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

PAUL WILLIAMS, JR., Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

JOHN WOODEN KNIFE, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

RAYMOND WRIGHT, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

TIMOTHY YELLOW, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

DEAN YELLOW HAWK, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried,
OLSSON FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..

ALL MOVANTS, Movant, represented by Stewart Douglas Fried, OLSSON
FRANK WEEDA TERMAN MATZ P.C..


UNITED STATES: Customs' Efforts to Introduce Evidence Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul D. Borman of U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan granted plaintiff's motion in the
case LESLIE INGRATTA, Plaintiff, v. TIFFANY EASLEY and ROSIE
MACKENZIE, agents of the United States Customs and Border
Protection, in their individual capacities and the jointly and
severally, Defendants., Case No. 12-CV-11104 (E.D. Mich.)

Plaintiff Leslie Ingratta, a Canadian citizen was subjected to an
unreasonable search of her person by the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) agents Tiffany Easley and Rosie Mackenzie, when
she attempted to cross the border from Windsor to Detroit to shop
at plaza Woodward Avenue. In pursuing against the CBP, plaintiff
testified at her deposition that she was shaking and crying after
the search, but admitted that at that point the she thought the
search was a border control thing. Although the experience left
her hysterical and sobbing, she just wanted to go home afterward.
She testified that it wasn't until the next day at work, when co-
workers told her that the search sounded like an assault and she
should sue, that legal action against the CBP crossed her mind. It
wasn't until two weeks later when a co-worker drew her attention
to an article in the newspaper about similar allegations having
been made in the Van Beek case, that Plaintiff realized she was
"not alone in this big, huge fight," and decided to contact her
current counsel, Mr. Wienner, who also represented the plaintiff
Van Beek.

Defendants made efforts to introduce into evidence the verdict
form and judgment in an unrelated border search case, Van Beek v.
Robinson, et al., where similar allegations were made against
different CBP agents. The Van Beek case was tried before Judge
Zatkoff of the Eastern District of Michigan and resulted in a jury
verdict for the defendant CBP agents.

The Defendants argue that the Van Beek case is relevant to this
case because Ms. Ingratta testified at her deposition that she
only decided to file this suit after reading in the newspaper
about the similar claims made in Van Beek.  The Defendants argue
that this goes to demonstrate Plaintiff's motive in filing suit
"as well as her credibility." The Defendants further argue that
the verdict form and judgment in favor of the CBP officers in Van
Beek must be introduced in this case to prevent the prejudicial
inference that other CBP officers have been found guilty of
engaging in similar conduct.

In granting plaintiff's Motion In Limine to exclude defendants'
proposed exhibit, Judge Borman expresses that the testimony of
plaintiff does not reasonably suggest an improper motive or a lack
of credibility. What the Defendants really want to get before the
jury in this case is the outcome of the Van Beek case, a favorable
verdict for the CBP agents, which would tend to suggest that a
similar conclusion should be reached as to the conduct of the CBP
agents in this case -- definitely suggesting a decision on an
improper basis and creating unfair prejudice under Rule 403.
Certainly if the verdict in Van Beek had been for the plaintiff,
the Defendants would not be trying to introduce evidence of that
case, and the unfavorable judgment, to support a suggestion that
Plaintiff was improperly motivated to file this action. The court
further precludes the Defendants from soliciting testimony or
introducing at the trial in this case any evidence of the
favorable defense verdict in Van Beek.

A copy of Judge Borman's order dated November 4, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/RNgO1W- from Leagle.com.

United States of America, Defendant, represented by Derri T.
Thomas, Esq., Lynn Marie Dodge, Esq., and Zak Toomey, Esq., at
U.S. Attorney's Office.


WYETH LLC: Plaintiffs' Expert Testimony Falls Short
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Harvey Bartle, III of U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted defendant's motion in the
case Liza Valido-Shade, et al., v. WYETH LLC, et al., Docket No.
1203, Civil Action No. 12-20003 (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiffs Liza Valido-Shade and her husband Tim Shade have sued
defendant Wyeth for damages they have allegedly sustained as a
result of her ingestion of Wyeth's diet drugs known as Pondimin(R)
and Redux(TM).  Plaintiff took the drugs for a number of months in
1996 to 1997 and was diagnosed in 2010 with pulmonary arterial
hypertension or PAH. Case-specific expert Lewis Rubin, M.D. and
Laurence A. Berarducci, M.D. made an expert testimony on behalf of
the plaintiff. Dr. Rubin's case-specific testimony ties the 2010
diagnosis of Valido-Shade's PAH to her ingestion of Wyeth's diet
drugs many years earlier in 1996 and 1997. He testified that the
likelihood of the diet drugs causing Valido-Shade's disease was
only 51% versus a 49% probability of an idiopathic cause. He
specifically equated beyond a reasonable degree of medical
probability with a 51% likelihood.

Wyeth filed a Daubert motion and a motion for summary judgment.
Wyeth argues that the testimony of plaintiffs' case-specific
causation experts, Lewis Rubin, M.D. and Laurence A. Berarducci,
M.D. should be excluded and that without this testimony Wyeth is
entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Judge Bartle granted defendant's request for summary judgment,
explaining that the substance of the testimony taken as a whole
simply does not meet Pennsylvania's requisite level of certitude
that the diet drugs caused plaintiff's pulmonary arterial
hypertension. The court did not touch on the question raised by
Wyeth as to whether plaintiffs meet the admissibility requirements
with respect to expert testimony under Daubert or Rule 702 of the
Federal Rules of Evidence.

A copy of Judge Bartle's memorandum dated November 3, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/i8ORU1from Leagle.com.

WYETH-AYERST INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, represented by ROBERT
A. LIMBACHER -- rlimbacher@gdldlaw.com -- BRANDON L. GOODMAN --
bgoodman@gdldlaw.com -- JAMES A. FREDERICK -- jaf@gdldlaw.com --
at Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann, LLP -- ERIC K. BLUMENFELD --
eric.blumenfeld@hugheshubbard.com -- MICHAEL D. TIGER --
Michael.tiger@hugheshubbard.com -- at HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP --
ANAND AGNESHWAR -- Anad.Agneshwar@aporter.com -- KEVIN A. CLINE --
Kevin.Cline@aporter.com -- at ARNOLD & PORTER LLP


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Reserved $103MM for PI Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation disclosed that one of its subsidiary reserved
approximately $103 million in total for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014.

Exelon Generation Company, LLC, maintains a reserve for claims
associated with asbestos-related personal injury actions in
certain facilities that are currently owned by Generation or were
previously owned by Commonwealth Edison Company and PECO Energy
Company. The reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis and
excludes the estimated legal costs associated with handling these
matters, which could be material.

At September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, Generation had
reserved approximately $103 million and $90 million, respectively,
in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of
September 30, 2014, approximately $22 million of this amount
related to 265 open claims presented to Generation, while the
remaining $81 million of the reserve is for estimated future
asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through
2050, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are
updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, Generation
monitors actual experience against the number of forecasted claims
to be received and expected claim payments and evaluates whether
an adjustment to the reserve is necessary. During the second
quarter of 2014, Generation increased its reserve by approximately
$15 million, primarily due to increased actual and projected
number and severity of claims.

On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that
the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an
employee's disability or death resulting from occupational
disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which
manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's last
employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity
provision of the Act does not preclude such employee from suing
his or her employer in court. The Supreme Court's ruling reverses
previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding
current and former employees from suing their employers in court,
despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for
workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than
300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure to
asbestos. Currently, Exelon, Generation and PECO are unable to
predict whether and to what extent they may experience additional
claims in the future as a result of this ruling; as such no
increase to the asbestos-related bodily injury liability has been
recorded as of September 30, 2014. Increased claims activity
resulting from this ruling could have a material adverse effect on
Exelon's, Generation's and PECO's future results of operations and
cash flows.

BGE.  Since 1993, BGE and certain Constellation (now Generation)
subsidiaries have been involved in several actions concerning
asbestos. The actions are based upon the theory of "premises
liability," alleging that BGE and Generation knew of and exposed
individuals to an asbestos hazard. In addition to BGE and
Generation, numerous other parties are defendants in these cases.

Approximately 486 individuals who were never employees of BGE or
certain Constellation subsidiaries have pending claims each
seeking several million dollars in compensatory and punitive
damages. Cross-claims and third-party claims brought by other
defendants may also be filed against BGE and certain Constellation
subsidiaries in these actions. To date, most asbestos claims which
have been resolved have been dismissed or resolved without any
payment by BGE or certain Constellation subsidiaries and a small
minority of these cases has been resolved for amounts that were
not material to BGE or Generation's financial results.

Discovery begins in these cases after they are placed on the trial
docket. At present, only two of the pending cases are set for
trial. Given the limited discovery in these cases, BGE and
Generation do not know the specific facts that are necessary to
provide an estimate of the reasonably possible loss relating to
these claims; as such, no accrual has been made and a range of
loss is not estimable. The specific facts not known include:

* the identity of the facilities at which the plaintiffs allegedly
worked as contractors;

* the names of the plaintiffs' employers;

* the dates on which and the places where the exposure allegedly
occurred; and

* the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged exposure.

Insurance and hold harmless agreements from contractors who
employed the plaintiffs may cover a portion of any awards in the
actions.

Exelon Corporation (Exelon) is an energy provider and holding
company for several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the
energy generation business through its Exelon Generation Company,
LLC (Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales
through its Constellation business unit, and the energy delivery
business through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE),
Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO)
subsidiaries. It operates in 47 states, the District of Columbia
and Canada. Exelon Generation has approximately 35,000 megawatts
of owned capacity. Constellation provides energy products and
services to approximately 100,000 business and public sector
customers and approximately 1 million residential customers.
Exelon's utilities deliver electricity and natural gas to more
than 6.6 million customers in central Maryland, northern Illinois
and southeastern Pennsylvania. On March 12, 2012, Constellation
Energy Group, Inc. merged into Exelon.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: US Steel Has 830 Fibro Cases as of Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corporation was a defendant in approximately
830 active asbestos-related cases as of September 30, 2014,
according to the Company's  Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

As of September 30, 2014, U. S. Steel was a defendant in
approximately 830 active cases involving approximately 3,460
plaintiffs. Many of these cases involve multiple defendants
(typically from fifty to more than one hundred). About 2,630, or
approximately 76 percent, of these plaintiff claims are currently
pending in jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers
of plaintiffs. Based upon U. S. Steel's experience in such cases,
it believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately
assert claims against U. S. Steel will likely be a small fraction
of the total number of plaintiffs. During the nine months ended
September 30, 2014, U. S. Steel paid approximately $5 million in
settlements. These settlements and other dispositions resolved
approximately 110 claims. New case filings in the first nine
months of 2014 added approximately 250 claims. At December 31,
2013, U. S. Steel was a defendant in approximately 720 active
cases involving approximately 3,320 plaintiffs. During 2013, U. S.
Steel paid approximately $11 million in settlements. These
settlements and other dispositions resolved approximately 250
claims. New case filings in the year ended December 31, 2013 added
approximately 240 claims. Most claims filed in 2014 and 2013
involved individual or small groups of claimants as many
jurisdictions no longer permit the filing of mass complaints.

Historically, these claims against U. S. Steel fall into three
major groups: (1) claims made by persons who allegedly were
exposed to asbestos at U. S. Steel facilities (referred to as
"premises claims"); (2) claims made by industrial workers
allegedly exposed to products manufactured by U. S. Steel; and (3)
claims made under certain federal and general maritime laws by
employees of former operations of U. S. Steel. In general, the
only insurance available to U. S. Steel with respect to asbestos
claims is excess casualty insurance, which has multi-million
dollar retentions. To date, U. S. Steel has received payments for
a certain minority of asbestos claims.

These asbestos cases allege a variety of respiratory and other
diseases based on alleged exposure to asbestos. U. S. Steel is
currently a defendant in cases in which a total of approximately
270 plaintiffs allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.
The potential for damages against defendants may be greater in
cases where the plaintiffs can prove mesothelioma.

In many cases in which claims have been asserted against U. S.
Steel, the plaintiffs have been unable to establish any causal
relationship to U. S. Steel or our products or premises; however,
with the decline in mass plaintiff cases, the incidence of
claimants actually alleging a claim against U. S. Steel is
increasing. In addition, in many asbestos cases, the plaintiffs
have been unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any
identifiable injury or compensable loss at all; that any injuries
that they have incurred did in fact result from alleged exposure
to asbestos; or that such alleged exposure was in any way related
to U. S. Steel or our products or premises.

The amount U. S. Steel has accrued for pending asbestos claims is
not material to U. S. Steel's financial position. U. S. Steel does
not accrue for unasserted asbestos claims because it is not
possible to determine whether any loss is probable with respect to
such claims or even to estimate the amount or range of any
possible losses. The vast majority of pending claims against U. S.
Steel allege so-called "premises" liability-based alleged exposure
on U. S. Steel's current or former premises. These claims are made
by an indeterminable number of people such as truck drivers,
railroad workers, salespersons, contractors and their employees,
government inspectors, customers, visitors and even trespassers.
In most cases, the claimant also was exposed to asbestos in non-U.
S. Steel settings; the relative periods of exposure between U. S.
Steel and non-U. S. Steel settings vary with each claimant; and
the strength or weakness of the causal link between U. S. Steel
exposure and any injury vary widely as do the nature and severity
of the injury claimed.

U. S. Steel is unable to estimate the ultimate outcome of
asbestos-related lawsuits, claims and proceedings due to the
unpredictable nature of personal injury litigation. Despite this
uncertainty, management believes that the ultimate resolution of
these matters will not have a material adverse effect on U. S.
Steel's financial condition, although the resolution of such
matters could significantly impact results of operations for a
particular quarter. Among the factors considered in reaching this
conclusion are: (1) it has been many years since U. S. Steel
employed maritime workers or manufactured or sold asbestos
containing products, (2) most asbestos containing material was
removed or remediated at U. S. Steel facilities many years ago,
and (3) U. S. Steel's history of trial outcomes, settlements and
dismissals.

United States Steel Corporation (U.S. Steel) is an integrated
steel producer of flat-rolled and tubular products with production
ope. S. Steel is also engaged in other business activities
consisting primarily of transportation services (railroad and
barge operations) and real estate operations. rations in North
America and Europe. The Company operates in three segments: Flat-
rolled Products (Flat-rolled), U. S. Steel Europe (USSE) and
Tubular Products (Tubular). U. S. Steel owns, develops and manages
various real estate assets, which include approximately 200,000
acres of surface rights primarily in Alabama, Illinois, Maryland,
Michigan, Minnesota and Pennsylvania. In addition, U. S. Steel
participates in joint ventures that are developing real estate
projects in Alabama, Maryland and Illinois. U. S. Steel also owns
approximately 4,000 acres of land in Ontario, Canada.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Has 9,700 Corhart Fibro Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
There were 9,700 cases alleging injuries from asbestos related to
Corning Incorporated's Corhart business, according to the
Company's  Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

Corning and PPG Industries, Inc. ("PPG") each own 50% of the
capital stock of Pittsburgh Corning Corporation ("PCC"). Over a
period of more than two decades, PCC and several other defendants
were named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos. On April 16, 2000, PCC filed for
Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania. At the time PCC filed for
bankruptcy protection, there were approximately 11,800 claims
pending against Corning in state court lawsuits alleging various
theories of liability based on exposure to PCC's asbestos products
and typically requesting monetary damages in excess of one million
dollars per claim. Corning has defended those claims on the basis
of the separate corporate status of PCC and the absence of any
facts supporting claims of direct liability arising from PCC's
asbestos products.

Corning, with other relevant parties, has been involved in ongoing
efforts to develop a Plan of Reorganization that would resolve the
concerns and objections of the relevant courts and parties. On
November 12, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision
confirming an Amended PCC Plan of Reorganization (the "Amended PCC
Plan"). On September 30, 2014, the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the "District Court")
affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision confirming the Amended
PCC Plan. The lone objector may appeal that decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. If that occurs, it
would likely take many months for the confirmation of the Amended
PCC Plan to be finally affirmed.

Under the Amended PCC Plan, Corning is required to contribute its
equity interests in PCC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V.
("PCE"), a Belgian corporation, and to contribute $290 million in
a fixed series of payments, recorded at present value. Corning has
the option to use its shares rather than cash to make these
payments, but the liability is fixed by dollar value and not the
number of shares. The Amended PCC Plan requires Corning to make:
1) one payment of $70 million one year from the date the Amended
PCC Plan becomes effective and certain conditions are met; and 2)
five additional payments of $35 million, $50 million, $35 million,
$50 million, and $50 million, respectively, on each of the five
subsequent anniversaries of the first payment, the final payment
of which is subject to reduction based on the application of
credits under certain circumstances.

In addition to the claims against Corning related to its ownership
interest in PCC, Corning is also the defendant in approximately
9,700 other cases (approximately 37,400 claims) alleging injuries
from asbestos related to its Corhart business and similar amounts
of monetary damages per case. When PCC filed for bankruptcy
protection, the Bankruptcy Court granted a preliminary injunction
to suspend all asbestos cases against PCC, PPG and Corning --
including these non-PCC asbestos cases (the "stay"). The stay
remains in place as of the date of this filing. Under the
Bankruptcy Court's order confirming the Amended PCC Plan, the stay
will remain in place until the Amended PCC Plan is finally
affirmed. These non-PCC asbestos cases have been covered by
insurance without material impact to Corning to date. As of
September 30, 2014, Corning had received for these cases
approximately $19 million in insurance payments related to those
claims. If and when the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of the
Amended PCC Plan is finally affirmed, these non-PCC asbestos
claims would be allowed to proceed against Corning. Corning has
recorded in its estimated asbestos litigation liability an
additional $150 million for these and any future non-PCC asbestos
cases.

The liability for the Amended PCC Plan and the other asbestos
litigation was estimated to be $701 million at September 30, 2014,
compared with an estimate of liability of $690 million at December
31, 2013. This $701 million liability is comprised of $261 million
of the fair value of PCE, $290 million for the fixed series of
payments, and $150 million for the non-PCC asbestos litigation,
all referenced in the preceding paragraphs. With respect to the
PCE liability, at September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, the
fair value of $261 million of our interest in PCE significantly
exceeded its carrying value of $164 million and $167 million,
respectively. There have been no impairment indicators for our
investment in PCE and we continue to recognize equity earnings of
this affiliate. At the time Corning recorded this liability, it
determined it lacked the ability to recover the carrying amount of
its investment in PCC and its investment was other than
temporarily impaired. As a result, we reduced our investment in
PCC to zero. As the fair value in PCE is significantly higher than
book value, management believes that the risk of an additional
loss in an amount materially higher than the fair value of the
liability is remote. With respect to the liability for other
asbestos litigation, the liability for non-PCC claims was
estimated based upon industry data for asbestos claims since
Corning does not have recent claim history due to the injunction
issued by the Bankruptcy Court. The estimated liability represents
the undiscounted projection of claims and related legal fees over
the next 20 years. The amount may need to be adjusted in future
periods as more data becomes available; however, we cannot
estimate any additional losses at this time. The entire obligation
is classified as a non-current liability as installment payments
for the cash portion of the obligation under the Amended PCC Plan
are not scheduled to commence until more than 12 months after the
Plan becomes effective and the PCE portion of the obligation will
be fulfilled through the direct contribution of Corning's
investment in PCE (currently recorded as a non-current other
equity method investment).

Corning Incorporated (Corning), is a global, technology-based
corporation. The Company operates in five segments: Display
Technologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies,
Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, an
environmentally friendly, display glass developed to enable
technologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD).
Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturing
processes of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portable
devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers.
During the year ended December 31, 2011, Corning introduced
Corning Gorilla Glass 2, the next generation in its Corning
Gorilla Glass suite of products. In May 2014, Mitsui Chemicals Inc
announced the acquisition of Corning Inc's SunSensors operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Corning Inc. Continues to Defend Insurance Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corning Incorporated continues to defend itself against litigation
commenced by insurers, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014.

Several of Corning's insurers have commenced litigation in state
courts for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the
parties under insurance policies affecting the non-PCC asbestos
cases, including rights that may be affected by the potential
resolutions described above. Corning is vigorously contesting
these cases, and management is unable to predict the outcome of
the litigation.

Corning Incorporated (Corning), is a global, technology-based
corporation. The Company operates in five segments: Display
Technologies, Telecommunications, Environmental Technologies,
Specialty Materials and Life Sciences. During the year ended
December 31, 2011, Corning launched Corning Lotus Glass, an
environmentally friendly, display glass developed to enable
technologies, including organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
displays and next generation liquid crystal displays (LCD).
Corning Lotus Glass helps support the demanding manufacturing
processes of both OLED and liquid crystal displays for portable
devices, such as smart phones, tablets, and notebook computers.
During the year ended December 31, 2011, Corning introduced
Corning Gorilla Glass 2, the next generation in its Corning
Gorilla Glass suite of products. In May 2014, Mitsui Chemicals Inc
announced the acquisition of Corning Inc's SunSensors operations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Had $451-Mil. Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
The sum of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's accrued asbestos-
related liability and gross payments, including legal costs,
totaled approximately $451 million, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We have recorded liabilities totaling $323
million and $305 million, including related legal fees expected to
be incurred, for potential product liability and other tort
claims, including asbestos claims, at September 30, 2014 and
December 31, 2013, respectively. Of these amounts, $41 million and
$45 million were included in Other Current Liabilities at
September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively. The
amounts recorded were estimated based on an assessment of
potential liability using an analysis of available information
with respect to pending claims, historical experience and, where
available, recent and current trends. Based upon that assessment,
at September 30, 2014, we do not believe that estimated reasonably
possible losses associated with general and product liability
claims in excess of the amounts recorded will have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, cash flows or results of
operations. However, the amount of our ultimate liability in
respect of these matters may differ from these estimates.

"We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various
asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from
alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by
us or present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these
lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state
and Federal courts. As of September 30, 2014, we have disposed of
approximately 109,000 claims by defending and obtaining the
dismissal thereof or by entering into a settlement. The sum of our
accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date,
including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled
approximately $451 million through September 30, 2014 and $432
million through December 31, 2013.

"Because claims are often filed and disposed of by dismissal or
settlement in large numbers, the amount and timing of settlements
and the number of open claims during a particular period can
fluctuate significantly.

"We periodically, and at least annually, review our existing
reserves for pending claims, including a reasonable estimate of
the liability associated with unasserted asbestos claims, and
estimate our receivables from probable insurance recoveries. We
had recorded gross liabilities for both asserted and unasserted
claims, inclusive of defense costs, totaling $150 million and $145
million at September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively.

"We recorded a receivable related to asbestos claims of $70
million and $75 million as of September 30, 2014 and December 31,
2013, respectively. We expect that approximately 50% of asbestos
claim related losses will be recoverable through insurance during
the ten-year period covered by the estimated liability. Of these
amounts, $11 million were included in Current Assets as part of
Accounts Receivable at both September 30, 2014 and December 31,
2013. The recorded receivable consists of an amount we expect to
collect under coverage-in-place agreements with certain primary
carriers as well as an amount we believe is probable of recovery
from certain of our excess coverage insurance carriers.

"We believe that, at September 30, 2014, we had approximately $160
million in limits of excess level policies potentially applicable
to indemnity and defense costs for asbestos products claims. We
also had coverage under certain primary policies for indemnity and
defense costs for asbestos products claims under remaining
aggregate limits, as well as coverage for indemnity and defense
costs for asbestos premises claims on a per occurrence basis
pursuant to a coverage-in-place agreement.

"With respect to both asserted and unasserted claims, it is
reasonably possible that we may incur a material amount of cost in
excess of the current reserve; however, such amounts cannot be
reasonably estimated. Coverage under insurance policies is subject
to varying characteristics of asbestos claims including, but not
limited to, the type of claim (premise vs. product exposure),
alleged date of first exposure to our products or premises and
disease alleged. Depending upon the nature of these
characteristics, as well as the resolution of certain legal
issues, some portion of the insurance may not be accessible by
us."

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is a manufacturer of tires. The
Company, together with subsidiaries and joint ventures, develops,
manufactures, markets and distributes tires for a range of
applications. The Company also manufactures and markets rubber-
related chemicals for various applications. The Company is an
operator of commercial truck service and tire retreading centers.
The Company operates approximately 1,300 tire and auto service
center outlets where it offered its products for retail sale and
provided automotive repair and other services. The Company
manufactures its products in 52 manufacturing facilities in 22
countries, including the United States. It operates through four
operating segments representing its regional tire businesses:
North American Tire; Europe, Middle East and Africa Tire (EMEA);
Latin American Tire, and Asia Pacific Tire.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens-Illinois Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens-Illinois Group, Inc., continues to defend itself against
numerous asbestos lawsuits and claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

OI Inc. is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging bodily injury
and death as a result of exposure to asbestos dust. From 1948 to
1958, one of OI Inc.'s former business units commercially produced
and sold approximately $40 million of a high-temperature, calcium-
silicate based pipe and block insulation material containing
asbestos. OI Inc. exited the pipe and block insulation business in
April 1958. The typical asbestos personal injury lawsuit alleges
various theories of liability, including negligence, gross
negligence and strict liability and seeks compensatory and in some
cases, punitive damages in various amounts.

As of September 30, 2014, the OI Inc. has determined that it is a
named defendant in asbestos lawsuits and claims involving
approximately 2,500 plaintiffs and claimants. Based on an analysis
of the lawsuits pending as of December 31, 2013, approximately 80%
of plaintiffs either do not specify the monetary damages sought,
or in the case of court filings, claim an amount sufficient to
invoke the jurisdictional minimum of the trial court.
Approximately 16% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages above
the jurisdictional minimum up to, and including, $15 million or
less, and 3% of plaintiffs specifically plead damages greater than
$15 million but less than $100 million. Fewer than 1% of
plaintiffs specifically plead damages equal to or greater than
$100 million.

Current pleading practice permits considerable variation in the
assertion of monetary damages. OI Inc.'s experience resolving
hundreds of thousands of asbestos claims and lawsuits over an
extended period demonstrates that the monetary relief that may be
alleged in a complaint bears little relevance to a claim's merits
or disposition value. Rather, the amount potentially recoverable
is determined by such factors as the severity of the plaintiff's
asbestos disease, the product identification evidence against OI
Inc. and other defendants, the defenses available to OI Inc. and
other defendants, the specific jurisdiction in which the claim is
made, and the plaintiff's medical history and exposure to other
disease-causing agents.

In addition to the pending claims, the OI Inc. has claims-handling
agreements in place with many plaintiffs' counsel throughout the
country. These agreements require evaluation and negotiation
regarding whether particular claimants qualify under the criteria
established by such agreements. The criteria for such claims
include verification of a compensable illness and a reasonable
probability of exposure to a product manufactured by OI Inc.'s
former business unit during its manufacturing period ending in
1958.

OI Inc. has also been a defendant in other asbestos-related
lawsuits or claims involving maritime workers, medical monitoring
claimants, co-defendants and property damage claimants. Based upon
its past experience, OI Inc. believes that these categories of
lawsuits and claims will not involve any material liability and
they are not included in the above description of pending matters
or in the following description of disposed matters.

Since receiving its first asbestos claim, OI Inc. as of September
30, 2014, has disposed of the asbestos claims of approximately
394,000 plaintiffs and claimants at an average indemnity payment
per claim of approximately $8,800. Certain of these dispositions
have included deferred amounts payable over a number of years.
Deferred amounts payable totaled approximately $19 million at
September 30, 2014 ($12 million at December 31, 2013) and are
included in the foregoing average indemnity payment per claim. OI
Inc.'s asbestos indemnity payments have varied on a per claim
basis, and are expected to continue to vary considerably over
time. As discussed above, a part of the OI Inc.'s objective is to
achieve, where possible, resolution of asbestos claims pursuant to
claims-handling agreements. Failure of claimants to meet certain
medical and product exposure criteria in the OI Inc.'s
administrative claims handling agreements has generally reduced
the number of marginal or suspect claims that would otherwise have
been received. In addition, certain courts and legislatures have
reduced or eliminated the number of marginal or suspect claims
that the OI Inc. otherwise would have received. These developments
generally have had the effect of increasing the OI Inc.'s per-
claim average indemnity payment over time.

OI Inc. believes that its ultimate asbestos-related liability
(i.e., its indemnity payments or other claim disposition costs
plus related legal fees) cannot reasonably be estimated. Beginning
with the initial liability of $975 million established in 1993, OI
Inc. has accrued a total of approximately $4.3 billion through
2013, before insurance recoveries, for its asbestos-related
liability. OI Inc.'s ability to reasonably estimate its liability
has been significantly affected by, among other factors, the
volatility of asbestos-related litigation in the United States,
the significant number of co-defendants that have filed for
bankruptcy, the magnitude and timing of co-defendant bankruptcy
trust payments, the inherent uncertainty of future disease
incidence and claiming patterns against OI Inc., and the success
of efforts by co-defendants to restrict or eliminate their
liability in the litigation.

OI Inc. has continued to monitor trends that may affect its
ultimate liability and has continued to analyze the developments
and variables affecting or likely to affect the resolution of
pending and future asbestos claims against OI Inc. The material
components of the OI Inc.'s accrued liability are based on amounts
determined by the OI Inc. in connection with its annual
comprehensive review and consist of the following estimates, to
the extent it is probable that such liabilities have been incurred
and can be reasonably estimated: (i) the liability for asbestos
claims already asserted against OI Inc.; (ii) the liability for
asbestos claims not yet asserted against OI Inc., but which OI
Inc. believes will be asserted in the next several years; and
(iii) the legal defense costs likely to be incurred in connection
with the foregoing types of claims.

The significant assumptions underlying the material components of
OI Inc.'s accrual are:

a) the extent to which settlements are limited to claimants who
were exposed to OI Inc.'s asbestos-containing insulation prior to
its exit from that business in 1958;

b) the extent to which claims are resolved under OI Inc.'s
administrative claims agreements or on terms comparable to those
set forth in those agreements;

c) the extent of decrease or increase in the incidence of serious
disease cases and claiming patterns for such cases;

d) the extent to which OI Inc. is able to defend itself
successfully at trial or on appeal;

e) the number and timing of additional co-defendant bankruptcies;
and

f) the extent to which co-defendants with substantial resources
and assets continue to participate significantly in the resolution
of future asbestos lawsuits and claims.

OI Inc. conducts a comprehensive review of its asbestos-related
liabilities and costs annually in connection with finalizing and
reporting its annual results of operations, unless significant
changes in trends or new developments warrant an earlier review.
If the results of an annual comprehensive review indicate that the
existing amount of the accrued liability is insufficient to cover
its estimated future asbestos-related costs, then OI Inc. will
record an appropriate charge to increase the accrued liability. OI
Inc. believes that a reasonable estimation of the probable amount
of the liability for claims not yet asserted against OI Inc. is
not possible beyond a period of several years. Therefore, while
the results of future annual comprehensive reviews cannot be
determined, OI Inc. expects the addition of one year to the
estimation period will result in an annual charge.

OI Inc.'s reported results of operations for 2013 were materially
affected by the $145 million fourth quarter charge for asbestos-
related costs and asbestos-related payments continue to be
substantial. Any future additional charge would likewise
materially affect the Company's results of operations for the
period in which it is recorded. Also, the continued use of
significant amounts of cash for asbestos-related costs has
affected and may continue to affect the Company's and OI Inc.'s
cost of borrowing and its ability to pursue global or domestic
acquisitions. However, the Company believes that OI Inc.'s
operating cash flows and other sources of liquidity will be
sufficient to pay its obligations for asbestos-related costs and
to fund OI Inc.'s working capital and capital expenditure
requirements on a short-term and long-term basis.

Owens-Illinois, Inc. is a glass container manufacturer. The
Company is also a preferred partner for various food and beverage
brands. It provides glass packaging for beer, wine, spirits, food,
non-alcoholic beverages, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. It also
produces tableware and stemware for household use. The Company
manufactures glass containers in a range of sizes, shapes and
colors. It has 77 glass manufacturing plants in 21 countries. The
Company has four reportable segments based on its geographic
locations: Europe, North America, South America and Asia Pacific.
Its customers include Anheuser-Busch InBev, Brown Forman,
Carlsberg, Coca-Cola, Constellation, Diageo, Heineken, Kirin,
MillerCoors, Nestle, PepsiCo, Pernod Ricard, SABMiller, and Saxco
International. The Company has 35 glass container manufacturing
plants located in the Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany,
Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United
Kingdom.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Allstate Corp. Had $1.05B Fibro Claims Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation's reserves for asbestos claims were $1.05
billion, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

Allstate's reserves for asbestos claims were $1.05 billion and
$1.02 billion, net of reinsurance recoverables of $494 million and
$478 million, as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013,
respectively. Reserves for environmental claims were $211 million
and $208 million, net of reinsurance recoverables of $66 million
and $60 million, as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013,
respectively. Approximately 57% and 55% of the total net asbestos
and environmental reserves as of September 30, 2014 and December
31, 2013, respectively, were for incurred but not reported
estimated losses.

Management believes its net loss reserves for asbestos,
environmental and other discontinued lines exposures are
appropriately established based on available facts, technology,
laws and regulations. However, establishing net loss reserves for
asbestos, environmental and other discontinued lines claims is
subject to uncertainties that are much greater than those
presented by other types of claims. The ultimate cost of losses
may vary materially from recorded amounts, which are based on
management's best estimate. Among the complications are lack of
historical data, long reporting delays, uncertainty as to the
number and identity of insureds with potential exposure and
unresolved legal issues regarding policy coverage; unresolved
legal issues regarding the determination, availability and timing
of exhaustion of policy limits; plaintiffs' evolving and expanding
theories of liability; availability and collectability of
recoveries from reinsurance; retrospectively determined premiums
and other contractual agreements; estimates of the extent and
timing of any contractual liability; the impact of bankruptcy
protection sought by various asbestos producers and other asbestos
defendants; and other uncertainties. There are also complex legal
issues concerning the interpretation of various insurance policy
provisions and whether those losses are covered, or were ever
intended to be covered, and could be recoverable through
retrospectively determined premium, reinsurance or other
contractual agreements. Courts have reached different and
sometimes inconsistent conclusions as to when losses are deemed to
have occurred and which policies provide coverage; what types of
losses are covered; whether there is an insurer obligation to
defend; how policy limits are determined; how policy exclusions
and conditions are applied and interpreted; and whether clean-up
costs represent insured property damage. Management believes these
issues are not likely to be resolved in the near future, and the
ultimate costs may vary materially from the amounts currently
recorded resulting in material changes in loss reserves. In
addition, while the Company believes that improved actuarial
techniques and databases have assisted in its ability to estimate
asbestos, environmental, and other discontinued lines net loss
reserves, these refinements may subsequently prove to be
inadequate indicators of the extent of probable losses. Due to the
uncertainties and factors described above, management believes it
is not practicable to develop a meaningful range for any such
additional net loss reserves that may be required.

The Allstate Corporation (Allstate) is a holding company for
Allstate Insurance Company. The Company's business is conducted
principally through Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Life
Insurance Company and their affiliates. It is engaged, principally
in the United States, in the property-liability insurance, life
insurance, retirement and investment product business. Allstate's
primary business is the sale of private passenger auto and
homeowners insurance. The Company also sells several other
personal property and casualty insurance products, select
commercial property and casualty coverages, life insurance,
annuities, voluntary accident and health insurance and funding
agreements. Allstate primarily distributes its products through
exclusive agencies, financial specialists, independent agencies,
call centers and the Internet. In April 2014, Allstate completed
sale of Lincoln Benefit Life company to Resolution Life Holdings
Inc.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Diamond Offshore Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc., continues to defend itself
against numerous asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We are one of several unrelated defendants in
lawsuits filed in Mississippi and Louisiana state courts alleging
that defendants manufactured, distributed or utilized drilling mud
containing asbestos and, in our case, allowed such drilling mud to
have been utilized aboard our offshore drilling rigs. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, an award of unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages. The manufacture and use of
asbestos-containing drilling mud had already ceased before we
acquired any of the drilling rigs addressed in these lawsuits. We
believe that we are not liable for the damages asserted and we
expect to receive complete defense and indemnity with respect to
many of the lawsuits from Murphy Exploration & Production Company
pursuant to the terms of our 1992 asset purchase agreement with
them. We also believe that we are not liable for the damages
asserted in the remaining lawsuits pursuant to the terms of our
1989 asset purchase agreement with Diamond M Corporation, and we
filed a declaratory judgment action in Texas state court against
NuStar Energy LP, or NuStar, and Kaneb Management Co., L.L.C., or
Kaneb, the successors to Diamond M Corporation, seeking a judicial
determination that we did not assume liability for these claims.
We obtained summary judgment from the Texas court on our claims in
the declaratory judgment action, but NuStar and Kaneb appealed the
Texas court's decision, and the appellate court has remanded the
case to the Texas court. We have filed an additional summary
judgment motion in the case, and it remains pending. We are unable
to estimate our potential exposure, if any, to these lawsuits at
this time but do not believe that our ultimate liability, if any,
resulting from this litigation will have a material effect on our
consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash
flows."

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. is a global offshore oil and gas
drilling contractor. The Company has a fleet of 44 offshore
drilling rigs, consisting of 32 semisubmersibles, seven jack-ups
and five dynamically positioned drillships, four of which are
under construction. The Company's jackups include Ocean King,
Ocean Nugget, Ocean Scepter, Ocean Spartan, Ocean Spur, Ocean
Summit and Ocean Titan. The Company's Deepwater Semisubmersibles
include Ocean Alliance, Ocean America, Ocean Apex, Ocean Onyx,
Ocean Valiant, and Ocean Star. Ultra-Deepwater Semisubmersibles
include Ocean Valor, Ocean Courage, Ocean Monarch, Ocean Baroness,
and Ocean Confidence. Ultra-Deepwater Drillships include Ocean
BlackLion, Ocean BlackRhino, Ocean BlackHornet, and Ocean Clipper.
Mid-Water Semisubmersibles includes Ocean Winner, Ocean Quest,
Ocean Concord, Ocean Guardian, Ocean Whittington, and Ocean
Yorktown.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal Water Applies for Fibro Suits Costs Memo
-------------------------------------------------------------
California Water Service Group filed an application with the
California Public Utilities Commission requesting an asbestos
litigation memorandum account to record costs associated with
current and future asbestos lawsuits against the Company,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

On September 3, 2014, Cal Water Filed an application with the CPUC
requesting an asbestos litigation memorandum account to record
costs associated with current and future asbestos lawsuits against
Cal Water. Cal Water's application has been accepted by the CPUC
with the preliminary determination that the case is a rate-setting
proceeding that will not require evidentiary hearings. No
procedural schedule has yet been established for the proceeding.

California Water Service Group is a holding company. The Company
operates California Water Service Company (Cal Water), New Mexico
Water Service Company (New Mexico Water), Washington Water Service
Company (Washington Water), Hawaii Water Service Company, Inc.
(Hawaii Water), and CWS Utility Services and HWS Utility Services
LLC are collectively called Utility Services. Cal Water, New
Mexico Water, Washington Water, and Hawaii Water are regulated
public utilities. Utility Services provides non-regulated services
to private companies and municipalities. The Company's business is
conducted through its operating subsidiaries. Its bulk business
consists of the production, purchase, storage, treatment, testing,
distribution and sale of water for domestic, industrial, public
and irrigation uses, and for fire protection. It also provides
non-regulated water-related services under agreements with
municipalities and other private companies.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Power Continues to Defend PI Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
A former operating unit of Global Power Equipment Group Inc.
continues to defend itself against a number of asbestos personal
injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 28, 2014.

The Company states: "A former operating unit of Global Power has
been named as a defendant in a limited number of asbestos personal
injury lawsuits. Neither we nor our predecessors ever mined,
manufactured, produced or distributed asbestos fiber, the material
that allegedly caused the injury underlying these actions. The
bankruptcy court's discharge order issued upon emergence from
bankruptcy extinguished the claims made by all plaintiffs who had
filed asbestos claims against us before that time. We also believe
the bankruptcy court's discharge order should serve as a bar
against any later claim filed against us, including any of our
subsidiaries, based on alleged injury from asbestos at any time
before emergence from bankruptcy. In any event, in all of the
asbestos cases finalized post-bankruptcy, we have been successful
in having such cases dismissed without liability. Moreover, during
2012, we secured insurance coverage that will help to reimburse
the defense costs and potential indemnity obligations of our
former operating unit relating to these claims. We intend to
vigorously defend all currently active actions, just as we
defended the other actions that have since been dismissed, all
without liability, and we do not anticipate that any of these
actions will have a material adverse effect on our financial
position, results of operations or liquidity. However, the
outcomes of any legal action cannot be predicted and, therefore,
there can be no assurance that this will be the case."

Global Power Equipment Group Inc. is a provider of power
generation equipment and maintenance services for customers in the
domestic and international energy, power infrastructure and
service industries. The Company, along with its subsidiaries,
designs, engineers and manufactures heat recovery and auxiliary
power equipment primarily used in the operation of gas turbine
power plants, as well as for other industrial and power-related
applications. The Company operates in two segments. Its Products
Division designs, engineers and manufactures products worldwide
for the gas turbine power generation, energy and process
industries. Its Services Division provides industrial services,
focusing on specialty services, outage management and overhaul of
nuclear power facilities and other heavy industrial plants. In May
2013, the Company acquired Hetsco, Inc. In July 2013, Global Power
Equipment Group Inc. announced that it has acquired privately-
owned IBI, LLC (IBI Power).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Continues to Defend PI Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Curtiss-Wright Corporation continues to defend itself against a
number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We or our subsidiaries have been named in a
number of lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos.
As of September 30, 2014, neither we nor our subsidiaries have
been found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement
in any case. We believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our
past and current operations and the relatively non-friable
condition of asbestos in our products makes it unlikely that we
will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether
individually or in the aggregate. We maintain insurance coverage
for these potential liabilities and believe adequate coverage
exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability."

Curtiss-Wright Corporation is a diversified, multinational
provider of engineered, technologically advanced products and
services. The Company designs and manufactures engineered,
advanced technologies that perform critical functions in demanding
conditions in the defense, power generation, oil and gas,
commercial aerospace, and general industrial markets. The Company
operates through three segments: Flow Control, Motion Control, and
Metal Treatment. Its principal manufacturing facilities are
located in the United States in California, New York, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas, and internationally in Canada
and the United Kingdom. In July 2014, the Company sold its
Benshaw, Inc. business to Regal-Beloit Corporation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ensco plc Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Ensco plc continues to defend itself against a number of lawsuits
alleging personal injury or death arising from exposure to
asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "We and certain subsidiaries have been named
as defendants, along with numerous third-party companies as co-
defendants, in multi-party lawsuits filed in Illinois,
Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana and the UK by approximately 125
plaintiffs. The lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages on behalf of individuals alleging personal injury or
death, primarily under the Jones Act, purportedly resulting from
exposure to asbestos on drilling rigs and associated facilities
during the 1960s through the 1980s.

"During 2013, we reached an agreement in principle with 58 of the
plaintiffs to settle lawsuits filed in Mississippi for a nominal
amount. While we believe the settlement will be approved by the
Court, there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims and
have filed responsive pleadings preserving all defenses and
challenges to jurisdiction and venue. However, discovery is still
ongoing and, therefore, available information regarding the nature
of all pending claims is limited. At present, we cannot reasonably
determine how many of the claimants may have valid claims under
the Jones Act or estimate a range of potential liability exposure,
if any.

"In addition to the pending cases in Mississippi and Louisiana, we
have other asbestos or lung injury claims pending against us in
litigation in other jurisdictions. Although we do not expect final
disposition of these asbestos or lung injury lawsuits to have a
material adverse effect upon our financial position, operating
results or cash flows, there can be no assurances as to the
ultimate outcome of the lawsuits."

Ensco plc (Ensco) is a global provider of offshore drilling
services to the petroleum industry. The Company has a presence in
the offshore basins across six continents. Ensco owns and operates
an offshore drilling rig fleet of 70 rigs, including seven rigs
under construction, spanning most of the strategic markets
worldwide. Ensco's fleet includes 10 drillships, 11
semisubmersible rigs, three moored rigs and 46 jackup rigs. The
Company's business consists of three operating segments: Floaters,
which includes its drillships and semisubmersible rigs; Jackups,
and Other, which consists of management services on rigs owned by
third-parties. Ensco's two reportable segments, Floaters and
Jackups, provide one service, contract drilling.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: FMC Corp. Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation continues to defend itself against asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

Like hundreds of other industrial companies, the Company has been
named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal
injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personal injury or
death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of FMC or to
asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or equipment
manufactured or sold by businesses classified as discontinued
operations. The Company intends to continue managing these cases
in accordance with its historical experience.  The Company has
established a reserve for this litigation within its discontinued
operations and is unable to develop a reasonable estimate of any
exposure of a loss in excess of the established reserve. The
Company's experience has been that the overall trends in terms of
the rate of filing of asbestos-related claims with respect to all
potential defendants has changed over time, and that filing rates
as to the Company in particular have varied significantly over the
last several years. The Company is a peripheral defendant - that
is, it has never manufactured asbestos or asbestos-containing
components. As a result, claim filing rates against it has yet to
form a predictable pattern, and it is unable to project a
reasonably accurate future filing rate and thus, it is presently
unable to reasonably estimate its asbestos liability with respect
to claims that may be filed in the future.

FMC Corporation (FMC) is a diversified chemical company. The
Company operates in three business segments: Agricultural
Products, Specialty Chemicals and Industrial Chemicals. Its
Agricultural Products segment develops, markets and sells all
three classes of crop protection chemicals, such as insecticides,
herbicides, and fungicides, with particular strength in
insecticides and herbicides. Specialty Chemicals consists of its
BioPolymer and lithium businesses and focuses on food ingredients
that are used to enhance texture, color, structure and physical
stability, and lithium for energy storage, specialty polymers and
pharmaceutical synthesis. Its Industrial Chemicals segment
manufactures a range of inorganic materials. In March 2014, the
Company announced that it has completed the sale of its Peroxygens
business to affiliates of One Equity Partners. In May 2014, the
Company established new natural colors blending facility at its
Newark, Del., manufacturing site.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Electric Continues to Defend PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc., continues to defend itself
against cases alleging asbestos induced illness, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

At September 30, 2014, the Company was a co-defendant in cases
alleging asbestos induced illness involving claims by
approximately 14,758 plaintiffs, which is a net decrease of 42
claims from those previously reported. In each instance, the
Company is one of a large number of defendants. The asbestos
claimants seek compensatory and punitive damages, in most cases
for unspecified sums. Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been
a co-defendant in other similar cases that have been resolved as
follows: 42,133 of those claims were dismissed, 22 were tried to
defense verdicts, seven were tried to plaintiff verdicts (one of
which is being appealed), one was resolved by agreement for an
immaterial amount and 665 were decided in favor of the Company
following summary judgment motions.

Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. is a manufacturer of welding,
cutting and brazing products. Welding products include arc welding
power sources, wire feeding systems, robotic welding packages,
fume extraction equipment, consumable electrodes and fluxes. The
Company's product offering also includes computer numeric
controlled (CNC) plasma and oxy-fuel cutting systems and
regulators and torches used in oxy-fuel welding, cutting and
brazing. The Company operates in five segments: North America
Welding, Europe Welding, Asia Pacific Welding, South America
Welding and The Harris Products Group. On July 29, 2011, the
Company acquired Techalloy Company, Inc. and certain assets of its
parent company, Central Wire Industries Ltd. In January 2013, the
Company acquired Tennessee Rand, Inc. Effective November 18, 2013,
Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc acquired an undisclosed majority
interest in Burlington Automation Corp.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had 18,000 Claims as of Sept. 30
------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc., had 18,000 pending asbestos-related product
liability claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014.

Like many other industrial companies who have historically
operated in the U.S., the Company (or parties the Company is
obligated to indemnify) continues to be named as one of many
defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions. The
Company believes that its involvement is limited because, in
general, these claims relate to a few types of automotive friction
products that were manufactured many years ago and contained
encapsulated asbestos. The nature of the fibers, the encapsulation
and the manner of use lead the Company to believe that these
products are highly unlikely to cause harm. As of September 30,
2014 and December 31, 2013, the Company had approximately 18,000
and 17,000 pending asbestos-related product liability claims,
respectively. Of the approximately 18,000 outstanding claims at
September 30, 2014, approximately half were pending in
jurisdictions that have undergone significant tort and judicial
reform activities subsequent to the filing of these claims.

The Company's policy is to vigorously defend against these
lawsuits and the Company has been successful in obtaining
dismissal of many claims without any payment. The Company expects
that the vast majority of the pending asbestos-related product
liability claims where it is a defendant (or has an obligation to
indemnify a defendant) will result in no payment being made by the
Company or its insurers. In 2014, of the approximately 1,500
claims resolved, 299 (20%) resulted in payment being made to a
claimant by or on behalf of the Company. In the full year of 2013,
of the approximately 1,500 claims resolved, 297 (20%) resulted in
payment being made to a claimant by or on behalf of the Company.

Prior to June 2004, the settlement and defense costs associated
with all claims were paid by the Company's primary layer insurance
carriers under a series of funding arrangements. In addition to
the primary insurance available for asbestos-related claims, the
Company has substantial excess insurance coverage available for
potential future asbestos-related product claims. In June 2004,
primary layer insurance carriers notified the Company of the
alleged exhaustion of their policy limits.

Although it is impossible to predict the outcome of pending or
future claims or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be
enacted at the state or federal levels, due to the encapsulated
nature of the products, the Company's experience in vigorously
defending and resolving claims in the past, and the Company's
significant insurance coverage with solvent carriers as of the
date of this filing, management does not believe that asbestos-
related product liability claims are likely to have a material
adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, financial
position or cash flows.

BorgWarner Inc., is a global supplier of engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The
Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily
to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-
trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of
commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and
buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction
machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells
its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and
into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway
vehicles. Effective February 28, 2014, BorgWarner Inc acquired the
entire share capital of Gustav Wahler GmbH u Co KG.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Continues to Defend Insurance Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc., continues to defend itself in an asbestos-related
declaratory judgment action filed by certain insurers, according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.

A declaratory judgment action was filed in January 2004 in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, by Continental Casualty
Company and related companies against the Company and certain of
its historical general liability insurers. The court has issued a
number of interim rulings and discovery is continuing. The Company
has entered into settlement agreements with some of its insurance
carriers, resolving their coverage disputes by agreeing to pay
specified amounts to the Company. The Company is vigorously
pursuing the litigation against the remaining insurers.

BorgWarner Inc., is a global supplier of engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The
Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily
to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-
trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of
commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and
buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction
machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells
its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and
into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway
vehicles. Effective February 28, 2014, BorgWarner Inc acquired the
entire share capital of Gustav Wahler GmbH u Co KG.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit v. BorgWarner Remains Pending in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
An asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit against BorgWarner
Inc. remains pending in a California court, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

In August 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court entered a jury
verdict against the Company in an asbestos-related personal injury
action with damages of $35.0 million, $32.5 million of which was
non-compensatory and will not be recoverable through insurance if
the verdict is upheld. The Company has appealed this verdict. The
Company posted a surety bond of $55.0 million related to the
appeal. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this pending
litigation and therefore cannot reasonably estimate the amount of
possible loss, if any, that could result from this action.

BorgWarner Inc., is a global supplier of engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The
Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily
to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-
trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of
commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and
buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction
machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells
its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and
into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway
vehicles. Effective February 28, 2014, BorgWarner Inc acquired the
entire share capital of Gustav Wahler GmbH u Co KG.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BorgWarner Had $111.8-Mil. Fibro Liabilities
-------------------------------------------------------------
BorgWarner Inc. recorded $111.8 million total accrued liabilities
related to the estimated future settlement of existing asbestos
claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

As of September 30, 2014, the Company has paid and accrued $323.7
million in defense and indemnity in advance of insurers'
reimbursement and has received $124.9 million in cash and notes
from insurers. The net balance of $198.8 million, is expected to
be fully recovered. Timing of recovery is dependent on final
resolution of the declaratory judgment action previously mentioned
or additional negotiated settlements. At December 31, 2013,
insurers owed $153.6 million in association with these claims.

In addition to the $198.8 million net balance relating to past
settlements and defense costs, the Company has estimated a
liability of $111.8 million for claims asserted, but not yet
resolved and their related defense costs at September 30, 2014.
The Company also has a related asset of $111.8 million to
recognize proceeds from the insurance carriers, which is expected
to be fully recovered. Receipt of these proceeds is not expected
prior to the resolution of the declaratory judgment action
referred to above, which is expected to occur subsequent to
September 30, 2015. At December 31, 2013, the comparable value of
the accrued liability and associated insurance asset was $96.7
million.

As of September 30, 2014, the Company had $111.8 million total
accrued liabilities recorded in the Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets related to the estimated future settlement of existing
claims.

The 2014 increase in the accrued liability and associated
insurance asset is primarily due to an expected higher rate of
claim settlement based on recent litigation claim activity.

The Company cannot reasonably estimate possible losses, if any, in
excess of those for which it has accrued, because it cannot
predict how many additional claims may be brought against the
Company (or parties the Company has an obligation to indemnify) in
the future, the allegations in such claims, the possible outcomes,
or the impact of tort reform legislation that may be enacted at
the state or federal levels.

BorgWarner Inc., is a global supplier of engineered automotive
systems and components primarily for powertrain applications. The
Company's products are manufactured and sold worldwide, primarily
to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of light vehicles
(passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles (SUVs), vans and light-
trucks). The Company's products are also sold to other OEMs of
commercial vehicles (medium-duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks and
buses) and off-highway vehicles (agricultural and construction
machinery and marine applications). It also manufactures and sells
its products to certain Tier One vehicle systems suppliers and
into the aftermarket for light, commercial and off-highway
vehicles. Effective February 28, 2014, BorgWarner Inc acquired the
entire share capital of Gustav Wahler GmbH u Co KG.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Company Continues to Defend PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
3M Company continues to defend itself in numerous asbestos-related
lawsuits purporting to represent 2,230 individual claimants,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.

As of September 30, 2014, the Company is a named defendant, with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts
that purport to represent approximately 2,230 individual
claimants, compared to approximately 2,200 individual claimants
with actions pending at December 31, 2013.

The vast majority of the lawsuits and claims resolved by and
currently pending against the Company allege use of some of the
Company's mask and respirator products and seek damages from the
Company and other defendants for alleged personal injury from
workplace exposures to asbestos, silica, coal mine dust or other
occupational dusts found in products manufactured by other
defendants or generally in the workplace. A minority of the
lawsuits and claims resolved by and currently pending against the
Company generally allege personal injury from occupational
exposure to asbestos from products previously manufactured by the
Company, which are often unspecified, as well as products
manufactured by other defendants, or occasionally at Company
premises.

The Company's current volume of new and pending matters is
substantially lower than its historical experience. The Company
expects that filing of claims by unimpaired claimants in the
future will continue to be at much lower levels than in the past.
Accordingly, the number of claims alleging more serious injuries,
including mesothelioma and other malignancies, will represent a
greater percentage of total claims than in the past. The Company
has prevailed in all nine cases taken to trial, including seven of
the eight cases tried to verdict (such trials occurred in 1999,
2000, 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007), and an appellate reversal in
2005 of the 2001 jury verdict adverse to the Company. The ninth
case, tried in 2009, was dismissed by the Court at the close of
plaintiff's evidence, based on the Court's legal finding that the
plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a jury
verdict.

The Company has demonstrated in these past trial proceedings that
its respiratory protection products are effective as claimed when
used in the intended manner and in the intended circumstances.
Consequently the Company believes that claimants are unable to
establish that their medical conditions, even if significant, are
attributable to the Company's respiratory protection products.
Nonetheless the Company's litigation experience indicates that
claims of persons with malignant conditions are costlier to
resolve than the claims of unimpaired persons, and it therefore
believes the average cost of resolving pending and future claims
on a per-claim basis will continue to be higher than it
experienced in prior periods when the vast majority of claims were
asserted by the unimpaired.

The State of West Virginia, through its Attorney General, filed a
complaint in 2003 against the Company and two other manufacturers
of respiratory protection products in the Circuit Court of Lincoln
County, West Virginia and amended its complaint in 2005. The
amended complaint seeks substantial, but unspecified, compensatory
damages primarily for reimbursement of the costs allegedly
incurred by the State for worker's compensation and healthcare
benefits provided to all workers with occupational pneumoconiosis
and unspecified punitive damages. The case has been inactive since
the fourth quarter of 2007, other than a case management
conference in March 2011. In November 2013, the State filed a
motion to bifurcate the lawsuit into separate liability and
damages proceedings. A hearing on that motion may occur in the
first quarter of 2015. No liability has been recorded for this
matter because the Company believes that liability is not probable
and estimable at this time. In addition, the Company is not able
to estimate a possible loss or range of loss given the lack of any
meaningful discovery responses by the State of West Virginia, the
otherwise minimal activity in this case and the fact that the
complaint asserts claims against two other manufacturers where a
defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and
several liability and by the amount of fault, if any, a jury might
allocate to each defendant if the case is ultimately tried.

3M Company (3M), is a diversified technology company. The Company
operates in six segments: industrial and transportation;
healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; display and graphics, and electro and communications
businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution
channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers,
retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades
in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired
CodeRyte Inc. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne,
Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions. In
September 2014, 3M Co announced that it acquired, through Sumitomo
3M Ltd., of Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd.'s 25% interest in
Sumitomo 3M Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3M Co. Accrues $151-Mil. Fibro Liabilities
-----------------------------------------------------------
3M Company accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of
$151 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.

The Company estimates its respirator mask/asbestos liabilities,
including the cost to resolve the claims and defense costs, by
examining: (i) the Company's experience in resolving claims, (ii)
apparent trends, (iii) the apparent quality of claims (e.g.,
whether the claim has been asserted on behalf of asymptomatic
claimants), (iv) changes in the nature and mix of claims (e.g.,
the proportion of claims asserting usage of the Company's mask or
respirator products and alleging exposure to each of asbestos,
silica, coal or other occupational dusts, and claims pleading use
of asbestos-containing products allegedly manufactured by the
Company), (v) the number of current claims and a projection of the
number of future asbestos and other claims that may be filed
against the Company, (vi) the cost to resolve recently settled
claims, and (vii) an estimate of the cost to resolve and defend
against current and future claims.

Developments may occur that could affect the Company's estimate of
its liabilities. These developments include, but are not limited
to, significant changes in (i) the number of future claims, (ii)
the average cost of resolving claims, (iii) the legal costs of
defending these claims and in maintaining trial readiness, (iv)
changes in the mix and nature of claims received, (v) trial and
appellate outcomes, (vi) changes in the law and procedure
applicable to these claims, and (vii) the financial viability of
other co-defendants and insurers.

As a result of the Company's greater cost of resolving claims of
persons who claim more serious injuries, including mesothelioma
and other malignancies, the Company increased its accruals in the
first nine months of 2014 for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities
by $52 million, $31 million of which occurred in the third quarter
of 2014. In the first nine months of 2014, the Company made
payments for fees and settlements of $28 million related to the
respirator mask/asbestos litigation, $9 million of which occurred
in the third quarter of 2014. As of September 30, 2014, the
Company had accruals for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities of
$151 million (excluding Aearo accruals). The Company cannot
estimate the amount or range of amounts by which the liability may
exceed the accrual the Company has established because of the (i)
inherent difficulty in projecting the number of claims that have
not yet been asserted, (ii) the complaints nearly always assert
claims against multiple defendants where the damages alleged are
typically not attributed to individual defendants so that a
defendant's share of liability may turn on the law of joint and
several liability, which can vary by state, (iii) the multiple
factors described above that the Company considers in estimating
its liabilities, and (iv) the several possible developments
described above that may occur that could affect the Company's
estimate of liabilities.

As of September 30, 2014, the Company's receivable for insurance
recoveries related to the respirator mask/asbestos litigation was
$41 million. The Company estimates insurance receivables based on
an analysis of its policies, including their exclusions, pertinent
case law interpreting comparable policies, its experience with
similar claims, and assessment of the nature of each claim and
remaining coverage, and then records an amount it has concluded is
likely to be recovered. Various factors could affect the timing
and amount of recovery of this receivable, including (i) delays in
or avoidance of payment by insurers; (ii) the extent to which
insurers may become insolvent in the future, and (iii) the outcome
of negotiations with insurers and legal proceedings with respect
to respirator mask/asbestos liability insurance coverage.

3M Company (3M), is a diversified technology company. The Company
operates in six segments: industrial and transportation;
healthcare; consumer and office; safety, security and protection
services; display and graphics, and electro and communications
businesses. 3M products are sold through a number of distribution
channels, including directly to users and through wholesalers,
retailers, jobbers, distributors and dealers in a range of trades
in a number of countries worldwide. In April 2012, it acquired
CodeRyte Inc. On November 28, 2012, the Company acquired Ceradyne,
Inc. In April 2014, the Company acquired Treo Solutions. In
September 2014, 3M Co announced that it acquired, through Sumitomo
3M Ltd., of Sumitomo Electric Industries Ltd.'s 25% interest in
Sumitomo 3M Ltd.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Allows Inmate Suits to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard L. Arnold and Lynn Charles Beyett, inmates at San Quentin
State Prison, filed separate amended pro se civil rights
complaints, alleging that prison officials instructed them to
remove harmful materials, including asbestos, without providing
proper training or proper protective gear.  Judge Edward M. Chen
of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, ruled that the amended complaints state a cognizable
claim against individual defendants Joe Dobie, Philip Earley, Gary
Loredo, and Jeremy Young for a violation of the Plaintiff's Eighth
Amendment rights.

The first case is RICHARD L. ARNOLD, Plaintiff, v. BRAD SMITH; et
al., Defendants, NO. C-13-4456 EMC (PR)(N.D. Calif.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Chen's Decision dated Nov. 12, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/pceWm5from Leagle.com.

The second case is LYNN CHARLES BEYETT, Plaintiff, v. BRAD SMITH;
et al., Defendants, NO. C-14-3153 EMC (PR)(N.D. Calif.).  A full-
text copy of Judge Chen's Decision dated Nov. 12, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/8nGOy3from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Cir. Flips Remand Ruling in "Cuomo" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Cuomo, individually and on behalf of the estate of her late
husband Joseph Cuomo, brought state tort claims against Crane Co.
and approximately 25 other defendants in New York state court.
Cuomo alleged that Crane, a supplier of shipboard equipment to the
United States Navy, caused her husband to be exposed to asbestos
during his service from 1974 to 1980 by failing to affix adequate
asbestos warnings to the valves it supplied for the Navy's
vessels.  After Crane Co. removed the failure-to-warn suit on the
basis of the federal officer removal statute, Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted Cuomo's motion to remand the case to state court.
Crane Co. appealed.

Reviewing the evidence submitted by both parties, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that because the
evidence did not establish that the Navy either affirmatively
prohibited or dictated asbestos warnings on Crane's equipment,
Crane did not raise a colorable federal contractor defense.  The
Second Circuit reversed after concluding that Crane's proffered
evidence sufficed to assert a colorable federal defense at the
removal stage.

The appeals case is SUSAN CUOMO, individually and as administratix
for the Estate of Joseph Cuomo, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CRANE CO.,
Defendant-Appellant, AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as
successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., ATWOOD & MORILL
COMPANY, AURORA PUMP COMPANY, BLACKMER, BW/IP, INC., and its
wholly owned subsidiaries, BYRON JACKSON PUMPS, CBS CORPORATION,
successor by merger to CBS Corporation, FKA, Viacom Inc., FKA
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, CLEAVER BROOKS COMPANY, INC.,
FMC CORPORATION, AMERICA STANDARD INC., FOSTER WHEELER, L.L.C.,
GARDNER DENVER, INC., GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, GOULDS PUMPS,
INC., IMO INDUSTRIES, INC., INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, OWENS-
ILLINOIS, INCORPORATED, RAPID-AMERICAN CORPORATION, TRANE U.S.
INC., FKA American Standard Inc., U.S. RUBBER COMPANY (UNIROYAL),
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, WARREN PUMPS L.L.C., WEINMAN PUMP &
SUPPLY CO., YARWAY CORPORATION, AMCHEM, PRODUCTS, INC., now known
as Rhone Poulenc AG Company now known as Bayer Conscience, Inc.,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 13-4510-CV (2d. Cir.).  A full-text copy of
the Decision dated Nov. 13, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/7JLbEOfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in "June" Suit Deemed Withdrawn
-------------------------------------------------------
The appeal in IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
JUNE, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., MOTION NO. M-3910 (N.Y.
App. Div.), is deemed withdrawn, according to a Nov. 13, 2014,
decision by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New
York, First Department.  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/cQEG2kfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Granted in "Logan" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Logan worked at a Getty Oil refinery for thirty years where
he was exposed to asbestos on a regular basis.  The defendant,
Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, sold boilers used at the
refinery.  Mr. Logan developed mesothelioma, a cancer caused by
exposure to asbestos, which later caused his death.  His estate
and wife have sued a number of entities, contending that their
products and conduct caused Mr. Logan's mesothelioma.  Foster
Wheeler has moved for summary judgment.

Because the plaintiffs have not offered sufficient evidence to
prove that Mr. Logan was actually exposed to asbestos from a
Foster Wheeler product or that Foster Wheeler had a duty to warn
Mr. Logan about the risks of asbestos-containing replacement parts
in a Foster Wheeler product, Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina granted
the motion.

The case is JOSEPH LOGAN, Personal Representative of the Estate of
Ralph Logan, Deceased, and LOIS LOGAN, Plaintiffs, v. AIR PRODUCTS
AND CHEMICALS, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 1:12-CV-1353
(M.D.N.C.).  A full-text copy of Judge Eagles' Decision dated
Nov. 7, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/Hirrubfrom Leagle.com.

JOSEPH LOGAN, Plaintiff, represented by JANET WARD BLACK, WARD
BLACK LAW, JAY E. STUEMKE, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, PC,
KEVIN W. PAUL, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, PC & TIFFANY N.
DICKENSON, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, PC.

LOIS LOGAN, Plaintiff, represented by JANET WARD BLACK, WARD BLACK
LAW, JAY E. STUEMKE, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, PC, KEVIN
W. PAUL, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT PC & TIFFANY N.
DICKENSON, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, PC.

AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC., Defendant, represented by MARK
S. THOMAS, WILLIAMS MULLEN.

CRANE COMPANY (THE), Defendant, represented by TRACY E. TOMLIN,
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP & TRAVIS ANDREW
BUSTAMANTE, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP.

GARDNER DENVER, INC., Defendant, represented by AMY C. DRAYTON,
Esq. -- adrayton@deanandgibson.com -- at DEAN GIBSON HOFER &
NANCE, PLLC.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JENNIFER M.
TECHMAN, Esq. -- jmtechman@ewhlaw.com -- at EVERT WEATHERSBY
HOUFF.

JOHN CRANE, INC., Defendant, represented by STEPHEN B. WILLIAMSON,
Esq. -- swilliamson@vwlawfirm.com -- at Van Winkle, Buck, Wall,
Starnes & Davis, P.A..

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendant, represented by KEITH
E. COLTRAIN, Esq. -- Keith.Coltrain@WallTempleton.com -- at WALL
TEMPLETON & HALDRUP, P.A..

INGERSOLL-RAND COMPANY, Defendant, represented by TIMOTHY PECK,
Esq. -- tim.peck@smithmoorelaw.com -- at SMITH MOORE LEATHERWOOD
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Cir. Remands Fibro Criminal Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Government appeals a September 9, 2013, amended judgment
of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
New York sentencing Mark Desnoyers to five years' probation, with
six months' home confinement and 26 consecutive weekends of
intermittent confinement.  Desnoyers was convicted by a jury of
five counts arising from his malfeasance as an air monitor for
asbestos abatement projects.  This is the government's third
appeal in this case.

On appeal, the government argues that (1) the district court erred
in not applying the organizer enhancement, (2) Desnoyers's
sentence is substantively unreasonable, (3) the district court's
restitution order constituted an abuse of discretion, and (4) the
district judge should be removed from the case on remand.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, for the first
issue, ruled that the district court committed clear error in
failing to resolve the discrepancies between its factual findings
at sentencing and the facts in the presence report ("PSR").
Accordingly, the Second Circuit remanded the sentence for the
district court to resolve the discrepancies and, on the basis of
its findings, to make any adjustment.  The Second Circuit declined
to rule on the issue of substantive reasonableness at this time
because the sentence contains procedural error.

With respect to the third issue, the Second Circuit ruled that it
was an abuse of discretion for the district court to impose a
prorated share of the Count 1 restitution on Desnoyers as by doing
so, the district court elevated Desnoyers's interests over those
of his victims, requiring the victims, rather Desnoyers, to bear
the costs of his co-conspirator's failure to bear his share.

With respect to the fourth issue, the Second Circuit denied the
government's request to order that the case be reassigned to a new
judgment on remand as the errors do not reflect any bias on the
part of the district judge, and matters of judicial efficiency
counsel against reassignment.

The appeals case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. MARK
DESNOYERS, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-4060-CR (2d Cir.).  A full-
text copy of the Decision dated Nov. 12, 2014, is available at
http://is.gd/dYGVgwfrom Leagle.com.

RAJIT S. DOSANJH, Assistant United States Attorney (Craig A.
Benedict, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for
Richard S. Hartunian, United States Attorney for the Northern
District of New York, Syracuse, New York, for Appellant.

JOHN B. CASEY, Esq. -- jcasey@dreyerboyajian.com -- at Dreyer
Boyajian LLP, Albany, New York, for Defendant-Appellee.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Amends Order in "Gottschall" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two,
entered an order on Nov. 13, 2014, modifying the opinion filed on
Oct. 22, 2014, as follows:

   On page 8, the first sentence of the fourth paragraph shall be
modified to read: "Just last year the Pfeifer court made this even
clearer when it affirmed a substantial damage award to husband and
wife plaintiffs."

In the Oct. 22 Opinion, the California Court of Appeals reversed a
lower court's summary judgment order, holding that the federal
court's resolution of the issue was wrong under California law,
and thus collateral estoppel does not apply.  The appeal arose
from the heirs and family of decedent Robert Gottschall's lawsuit
against Crane Co. in connection with Robert's death from
mesothelioma, allegedly inflicted on him during his work in
shipyards and similar places.  Crane moved for summary judgment on
the basis that a Pennsylvania federal court's summary judgment in
favor of another manufacturer -- a judgment based on application
of the "sophisticated user" doctrine -- was collateral estoppel of
the San Francisco action.  The lower court agreed, and granted
summary judgment for Crane.

The Nov. 13 Order does not reflect a change in the judgment
rendered in the Oct. 22 Opinion.

The case is KIMBRA GOTTSCHALL et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v. CRANE CO., Defendant and Respondent, NO. A136516 (Cal. App.).
A full-text copy of the Nov. 13 Order is available at
http://is.gd/Im5mkWfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of the Oct. 22 Opinion is available at
http://is.gd/03DfCJfrom Leagle.com.

Brayton Purcell, Alan R. Brayton, Lloyd F. LeRoy, Richard M.
Grant, Attorney for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

K & L Gates, Michele C. Barnes, Daniel W. Fox, Michael J. Ross,
Attorneys for Defendant and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Suit Parties Ordered to Establish Citizenship
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On September 25, 2014, Frank Sales commenced an action against
Defendants Certain-Teed Corporation f/k/a/ Certain-Teed Products
Corporation, Honeywell International Inc., individually and/or
f/k/a AlliedSignal, Inc. as successor-in-interest to the Bendix
Corporation, and Union Carbide Corporation, in the Connecticut
Superior Court for the Judicial District of Fairfield at
Bridgeport.  In his Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks damages for
injuries he sustained from inhalation of carcinogenic asbestos
fibers allegedly placed in the stream of commerce by the
Defendants and/or their predecessors-in-interest.

On October 20, 2014, Union Carbide filed a Notice of Removal,
thereby removing the action on the basis of "diversity of
citizenship" subject matter jurisdiction.

Judge Charles S. Haight, Sr., of the United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut, issued an order on Nov. 13, 2014,
directing each party to establish, by affidavit, citizenship for
diversity purposes as of the date the action was commenced in
state court, September 25, 2014, and the date of removal to
federal court, October 20, 2014.

Judge Haight found that neither the Plaintiff in his state court
Complaint, nor the Defendant in its federal Notice of Removal has
pled sufficient facts to establish the citizenship of each party
for diversity purposes.  Moreover, Judge Haight said no
alternative "federal question" subject matter jurisdiction exists
under 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.  The Plaintiff's Complaint,
according to Judge Haight, sounds in common law or violations of
Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-572m, et seq., which
concerns product liability actions.  There are no facts or
circumstances alleged therein that potentially give rise to a
federal claim arising under the United States Constitution or a
federal statute, Judge Haight concluded.

The case is FRANK SALES, Plaintiff, v. CERTAIN-TEED CORPORATION
f/k/a CERTAIN-TEED PRODUCTS CORPORATION; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL
INC., individually and/or f/k/a AlliedSignal, Inc. as successor-
in-interest to the Bendix Corporation; UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION
Defendants, NO. 3:14-CV-01542 (CSH)(D. Conn.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Haight's Decision is available at http://is.gd/mAtu7r
from Leagle.com.

Frank Sales, Plaintiff, represented by Amity L. Arscott, Embry &
Neusner.

Certain-Teed Corp, Defendant, represented by Matthew Jason
Zamaloff, Esq. -- mzamaloff@cetllp.com -- at Cetrulo LLP & Ryan W
Hanofee, Esq. -- rhanofee@cetllp.com -- at Centrulo LLP.

Honeywell Intl Inc, Defendant, represented by Matthew Jason
Zamaloff, Cetrulo LLP & Ryan W Hanofee, Centrulo LLP.

Union Carbide Corp, Defendant, represented by Christopher E. H.
Sanetti, Esq., at Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio App. Flips Ruling in Fibro Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 24, 2013, the State of Ohio, represented by its Attorney
General, filed a Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Civil
Penalties with the Marion County Court of Common Pleas alleging
that 333 Joseph, LLC, and its member Stanley Rosenfeld, conducted
illegal demolition activities at a construction site at 333 Joseph
Street in Marion, Ohio.  The eight counts of the Complaint
included: air nuisance, statutory nuisance, failure to notify the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency of a demolition operation,
failure to remove asbestos-containing materials, shipping or
removing asbestos-containing material without an authorized
representative present at the operation, failure to keep all
regulated asbestos-containing material adequately wet, failure to
properly dispose of asbestos-containing waste material, and
failure to comply with the final orders of the Director of the
Ohio EPA.

After the hearing and additional briefing, a trial court
determined that the applicable standard of proof was the
preponderance of the evidence and found that this standard was
satisfied in this case and issued its judgment entry granting
preliminary injunction in favor of the Plaintiff.  333 Joseph
filed a timely appeal.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Marion County, on an
opinion dated Nov. 17, 2014, reversed the trial court's judgment,
after finding errors prejudicial to the Appellants.

The appeals case is STATE OF OHIO EX REL. MICHAEL DEWINE, OHIO
ATTORNEY GENERAL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. 333 JOSEPH, LLC, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, -and- ROBERT CENDOL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-
APPELLEES, NO. 9-13-71 (Ohio App.).  A full-text copy of the
Opinion is available at http://is.gd/bFa3Kcfrom Leagle.com.

Colin G. Skinner for Appellants.  Clint R. White for Appellee,
Michael DeWine, Ohio Attorney General.


                              *********

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.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2014. 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 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *