CAR_Public/150814.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, August 14, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 162


                            Headlines


1047 BEDFORD: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
701 W. 135TH: Faces "Mendez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AFNI INC: Faces "Witkes" Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Cleveland" Suit Alleges Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Cumming" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Howard Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Jain" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "McEnerney" Suit Alleges Ticket Price-Fixing
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judge Rejects Class Action Settlement
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Fisse" Suit Arising From Data Security Breach

ANTHEM INC: Removes "Yarber" Class Suit to Indiana District Court
ANTHEM INC: "Powell" Suit Included in Data Security Breach MDL
APPLE INC: iMessage Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
APPLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Android Wiretapping Case
ASCENSION: Settles Pension Class Action for $8 Million

AUTOMATION PLASTICS: Accused of Treating Older Staff Differently
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
BAYER: To Establish $56.9MM Program to Settle Yaz & Yasmin Claims
BED BATH: Faces "Louie" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BOB EVANS: Faces Suit Alleging Age & Disabilities Discrimination

BOUYGUES CIVIL: "Barzey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Appel" Suit for FDCPA Violation
CASCABEL HOSPITALITY: Faces "Corona" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CASTLE SERVICES: Faces "Puentes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CHICAGO, IL: Police Department to Allow Stop-and-Frisk Evaluations

CHICAGO, IL: Romanucci & Blandin Files Stop-and-Frisk Class Suit
CMRE FINANCIAL: Invaded Class Member's Privacy, "Zuniga" Claims
COLLEGE ASSIST: Faces "Brockerman" Suit Over TCPA Violation
CONCRETE SHOP: Accused of Discriminating Against Black Employee
DAIRY FARMERS: Settles Milk Class Action for $50 Million

DELIAN 6: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
DELTA AIR: Baggage Fee Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
DIAGEO PLC: Sued in S.D. Cal. Over Alleged Product Misbranding
DIVERSIFIED RECOVERY: Violates FDCPA, "Thomas" Class Suit Claims
DONA ANA: Gets Nursing Program Accreditation After Class Action

DOTHAN, AL: Class Suit Questions Arrest and Detention Policies
DUALSTAR ENTERTAINMENT: Former Intern Files Wage Class Action
EMIE MARKETING: Faces "Golden" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Boswein" Suit for FDCPA Violation
FARMACIA ADELFA: "Espinosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

FAYE GRAND: Accused by Occupational Therapist of Harassing & Bias
FILTER PRO: "Mayer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FOOD SPECIALISTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FRONTIER DRILLING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, "Miller" Suit Says
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Retirees Seek Class Action-Status for Suit

GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC: Faces Suit Over Asbestos Injuries and Death
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Schultz" Suit Over Zofran Injuries
GOODYEAR TIRE: Doesn't Properly Pay Associates, Action Claims
HAMILTON COMPANY: "Zak" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
KOHL'S CORPORATION: Faces "Le" Suit Over Misleading Price Label

LELAND STANFORD: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
LENDIO INC: Invaded Class Member's Privacy, "Blotzer" Suit Claims
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Johansen" Suit Says
LOCKHEED MARTIN: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in N.M.
LUCA INTERNATIONAL: Investors File Class Suit Over Alleged Fraud

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steven Toll Named as Co-Lead Counsel
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Gonzalez" Over Toxic Flooring Products
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Kumar" Sues Over Toxic Flooring Products
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Badias" Suit Included in China Flooring MDL
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Caiola" Suit Included in China Flooring MDL

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over China-made Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Marmonti" Suit Over China-made Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Bloomfield" Suit Included in Flooring MDL
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Hurd" Suit Included in Chinese Flooring MDL
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Tyrrell" Suit Consolidated in Flooring MDL

MAGIC BURGERS: "Hall" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MAHINA MELE: Recalls Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella
MANGIA FRESCA: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Morales" Suit Says
MASSACHUSETTS: Probation Officers File Discrimination Class Suit
MCCORMICK & CO: Fills Pepper Containers 25% Less, Suit Claims

MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces Data Breach Class Action
MERCY MEDICAL: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation
MIAMI HERALD: "Rierra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MINNESOTA: Judge Won't Allow Media Access in Sex-Offender Meeting
MORGAN STANLEY: Faces "Yoo" Suit Alleging Gender Discrimination

NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeals Court Ruling Based on Future Injury Risk
NEIMAN MARCUS: Balks at Appeals Court Ruling on Data Breach Case
NESTLE USA: Faces "Savalli" Suit Over Misleading Product Label
NEW YORK DOLLS: Employees File Wage Class Action
NEW YORK, NY: Cops Ordered to Provide Stop-and-Frisks Receipts

NEW YORK, NY: School Safety Agents to Receive $32MM in Backpay
NEW YORK, NY: Monitor Seeks Approval of Stop-and-Frisk Guidelines
NEW YORK, NY: ACS Sued Over Failure to Keep Foster Children Safe
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit for Violating Disabilities Act
PFIZER INC: Chicken Vaccine Litigation to Remain in Pennsylvania

PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Awards $11 Million to Florida Smoker
PLAIN GREEN: Faces RICO Class Action in Vermont
PML CLUBS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Hoyt" Suit Claims
PNC BANK: Faces Class Action Over Employee Misclassification
PROFESSIONAL BUREAU: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

QUETZAL RESTAURANT: Faces "Demesio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RELIABLE DRYWALL: Sued in Ga. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
REMINGTON OUTDOOR: Victims to Split $1.5MM from Lanza Estate
RESORT AT PELICAN: Treats Older Worker Differently, Suit Claims
RETRIEVAL MASTERS: "Areizaga" Suit Asserts FDCPA Violations

SCOUT ANALYTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
SILVER WHEATON: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
SOLOMON AND SOLOMON: Faces "Palace" Suit Over FDPCA Violation
SONY PICTURES: Data Breach Class Action Can Proceed
SPRINGFIELD, IL: Panhandling Ordinance Deemed Unconstitutional

ST. JOHN MEDICAL: Faces Age Discrimination Case in Ohio Court
TRI-COUNTY HOME: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
TRINET GROUP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in California
TSUKI ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Cruz" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
TWEEN BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Discounts That Never Exists

UBER TECH: Cops Raid Hong Kong Office
UBER TECH: Drivers Fail to Convince Judge in Classification Suit
UBER TECH: Gibson Dunn Uses Legal, PR Tactics in Bid to Quash Case
UBS PUERTO RICO: Investors File Class Action Over Bond Losses
UNDER ARMOUR: Shareholders File Class Action in Maryland

UNITED STATES: Judge Dismisses Suit v. SSA Over Same-Sex Marriage
VERIZON WIRELESS: Removes "Stender" Suit to N.D. West Virginia
VISA INC: Appeals Court Revives ATM Fees Antitrust Case
VOLUNTEER HOME: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WALGREEN CO: "Cummins" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL

WALGREENS CO: "Hernandez" Suit Moved From California to Illinois
WAL-MART STORES: "Shahrashian" Suit Included in Supplements MDL
WEATHERPROOFING TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WELLS FARGO: Sued for Using Home-Loan Schemes Aimed at Minorities
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Settles Suit Over Contaminated Land in Ohio

ZYNGA INC: Settles Class Action Over 2011 IPO for $23 Million

* Class Action Plaintiffs Lawyers Target Sports Organizations
* Securities Class Action Filings Remain Below Historical Average


                         Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Enters Agreements With Excess Insurers
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Has 2 PI Cases Set for Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Awaits CPUC Decision
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Had 5,600 Maremont Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Unit Has $11-Mil. Fibro Recoveries

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 65,000 PI Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $422-Mil. Fibro Claims Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Cashio" Moved to Louisiana Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Consolidates PI Cases for Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Schroeder" Parties Directed to File Case Status

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Allows Discovery in Inmate Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted in Inmate Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Wins Dismissal Bid in "Baumgartner"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Discovery to Conclude in "Santos"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: LGS' Summary Judgment Bid Fails in Coverage Suit

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pneumo Abex's Bid to Dismiss "Lee" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Arrowood-Reinsurer Arbitration Enjoined



                            *********


1047 BEDFORD: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Perez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
1047 Bedford Ave. Food Corp. d/b/a Villa Pancho Taquerja, Carlos
Zambrano, and Ahmad Samhan, Case No. 1:15-cv-04430 (E.D.N.Y., July
29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant known as Villa
Pancho Taqueria, located at 1047 Bedford Avenue, Brooklyn, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


701 W. 135TH: Faces "Mendez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Nava Mendez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 701 W. 135th Cafe Inc., Antonio Lobrutto, Arsenio
Rosas and Lucas Valeriani, Case No. 1:15-cv-05948 (S.D.N.Y., July
29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant located at
701 W. 135th Street, New York, New York 10031.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


AFNI INC: Faces "Witkes" Suit in E.D.N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sorel Witkes, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. AFNI, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04439
(E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Cleveland" Suit Alleges Ticket-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Cleveland and Garrett Kindelspire, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Airlines,
Incorporated, Delta Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Inc., and United
Airlines Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03497-CRB (N.D. Cal., July 29,
2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize
prices of airline tickets through signaling one another how
quickly they would add new flights, routes, and extra seats in
order to limit the capacity, and limiting access to competitive
fare information to keep the price of airfares artificially high.

The Defendants operate the largest commercial airline companies in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manfred P. Muecke, Esq.
      BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT P.C.
      600 West Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 798-4292
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
      E-mail: mmuecke@bffb.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Cumming" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth C. Cumming, Kenneth A. Nelson, Jonathan Shankle,
Bradford Tomlin, and Whitney Tomlin, both individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Airlines,
Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., Delta Air Lines, Inc., and United
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02253-M (N.D. Tex., July 8,
2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to
fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline
tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on
flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights
offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of
pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers
regarding flights within the United States.

The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Warren T. Burns, Esq.
      Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
      BURNS CHAREST LLP
      500 N Akard St, Suite 2810
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (469) 504-4551
      Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
      E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
              dcharest@burnscharest.com

         - and -

      Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Roche, Esq.
      BURNS CHAREST LLP
      365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
      New Orleans, LO 70130
      E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com
              eroche@burnscharest.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Howard Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Sloan Koller Group, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines
Co., Delta Air Lines, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-04002-BMC (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain,
or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically
by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United
States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United
States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information
available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights
within the United States.

The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
      Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
      Gregory K. Arenson, Esq.
      Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
      Donald R. Hall, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
              ffox@kaplanfox.com
              garenson@kaplanfox.com
              dhall@kaplanfox.com
              rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Jain" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Jain, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. American Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., Delta Air
Lines, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01072-CKK
(D.D.C., July 8, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the
price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining
the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting
the number of flights offered within the United States, and
limiting the transparency of pricing information available to
domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the
United States.

The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Edward Mason, Esq.
      Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
      E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
              jrathod@wbmllp.com



AMERICAN AIRLINES: "McEnerney" Suit Alleges Ticket Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
David McEnerney and Seth Lyons, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Delta Airlines, Inc., American
Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines
Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc.,
2:15-cv-03767-GAM (E.D. Pa., July 8, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain,
or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically
by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United
States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United
States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information
available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights
within the United States.

The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      A. Luke Smith, Esq.
      RADICE LAW FIRM, PC
      143 W Walnut Ln Suite 102-R
      Philadelphia, PA 19144
      Telephone: (267) 570-3000
      Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
      E-mail: lsmith@radicelawfirm.com

         - and -

      John Radice, Esq.
      34 Sunset Blvd.
      Long Beach, NJ 08008
      Telephone: (646) 386-7688
      Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
      E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judge Rejects Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Christine Simmons, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
after secret communications were revealed between opposing counsel
in credit card litigation, Eastern District Judge Nicholas
Garaufis rejected a far-reaching settlement between retailers and
American Express, citing "egregious conduct" by a plaintiffs
counsel.

In a stunning decision on Aug. 4 describing the communications,
Judge Garaufis assailed plaintiffs counsel Gary Friedman for
talking behind the scenes with Keila Ravelo, a former partner at
Willkie Farr & Gallagher who represented MasterCard in a separate
but similar lawsuit brought by the same retailers.

"The improper and disappointing conduct of [Friedman] has fatally
tainted the settlement process," said Judge Garaufis in In re:
American Express Anti-Steering Antitrust Litigation, 11-MD-2221.
The judge removed Mr. Friedman from the case and also criticized
his co-lead class counsel.

Mr. Friedman, of Friedman Law Group, has been plaintiffs counsel
in both American Express case and a class action by retailers
against Visa and MasterCard and various banks, In Re Payment Card
Interchange Fee And Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation,
05-MD-01720.

While at Willkie, Ms. Ravelo was among the defense counsel for
MasterCard in Interchange.

In December, the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey charged
Ms. Ravelo and her husband, Melvin Feliz, with conspiracy to
commit wire fraud.  Prosecutors said the couple used two vendors
to fraudulently obtain more than $5 million from Willkie, her
former law firm Hunton & Williams, and her client, MasterCard, by
submitting fake invoices.

Ms. Ravelo resigned from Willkie on Nov. 14.  She and Mr. Friedman
have known each other since they worked together at Sidley Austin
as associates in the 1990s.

After the U.S. Attorney's Office subpoenaed Willkie for documents
and the firm conducted an internal review, it found communications
between Ms. Ravelo and Mr. Friedman and notified parties.  In
particular, Willkie said it found emails about the American
Express litigation, where Ms. Ravelo was not involved.

In American Express, Judge Garaufis gave preliminary approval last
year to a settlement that would have altered American Express
rules to permit merchants to impose a separate fee, or
"surcharge," on all credit and charge card transactions and thus
to steer transactions to debit cards, which are not subject to
surcharge.

Judge Garaufis said the result would be a world in which a
merchant could impose a consistent surcharge, such as 1 or 2
percent of the purchase price, on all transactions completed with
a credit or charge card of any and all brands.

This is referred to as parity surcharging, as opposed to
differential surcharging, which contemplates a merchant imposing a
surcharge on transactions completed with a specific brand.

Under the settlement, American Express would have paid attorneys
fees up to $75 million.

Retailers who already objected to settlements in both American
Express and Interchange seized on the communications as proof the
settlements were not fair.

Judge Garaufis said that although he has serious concerns about
the settlement's substantive fairness, he didn't need to reach the
merits of retailer objections because the communications reveal
"egregious conduct" by Mr. Friedman.

Judge Garaufis cited "blatant violations" of protective orders in
American Express.  Mr. Friedman improperly sent emails to
Ms. Ravelo with confidential information that American Express
produced subject to a protective order that was prohibited from
further dissemination, the judge said.  Ms. Ravelo was counsel for
MasterCard, American Express' major competitor and not a party to
the protective order.

Judge Garaufis said these were not inadvertent violations.

"In at least two of them, Mr. Friedman writes, 'Burn after
reading,' and the content of others indicates his contemporaneous
recognition of the confidential and highly confidential nature of
the materials," Judge Garaufis said.

Mr. Friedman improperly sent Ms. Ravelo confidential information
and attorney work product of individual merchant plaintiffs,
Judge Garaufis said.

"This evident disloyalty to class members gives the court more
pause than does the dissemination of American Express'
information," Judge Garaufis said.

"The documents indicate that Friedman and Ravelo were in frequent,
possibly constant, communication regarding the negotiating process
and status" of both Interchange and American Express.
The communications are so problematic, he said, because the
American Express settlement interacts with Interchange settlement
"in a very important way."

The resolution of the American Express action effectively
determines "for the entire credit card industry whether parity,
differential or no surcharging will occur," he said.

Judge Garaufis said he questioned whether the combined result of
the two settlements "might itself amount to an anticompetitive
agreement," limiting competition among the credit card brands on
the merchant side of the market.

This interaction between the Interchange and American Express
settlements "illustrates why Friedman's apparent collaboration
with Ravelo is so troubling," the judge said.

Mr. Friedman bringing MasterCard into the negotiating process
created a conflict between class members and class counsel,
"specifically a risk that Friedman, with Ravelo in his ear,
negotiated settlement terms that are worse for class members than
the terms he might have negotiated absent that conflict," Judge
Garaufis said.

He added that co-lead class counsel "shockingly" have not
extricated Mr. Friedman from the ranks, but submitted a brief
signed by Mr. Friedman and other class counsel, including
Mark Reinhardt, of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, and Read
McCaffrey, formerly of Patton Boggs.

"Apparently, co-lead class counsel are willing to let Friedman
describe or characterize the communications as he wishes," the
judge said.  "This gives the appearance that Friedman's co-counsel
may be more interested in protecting Friedman, their settlement,
and their attorneys' fees application, than they are in protecting
the merchant class that they purport to represent."

Mr. Reinhardt told the Law Journal that his number one priority
has always been "to protect the class I represent" and he and his
firm will respond to the judge's orders.

Denying class counsel's request for attorneys fees, Judge Garaufis
ordered McCaffrey, Reinhardt, Squire Patton Boggs and others to
show cause in writing why they should continue as interim class
counsel.

Mr. Friedman and his attorney, Theresa Trzaskoma, of Brune &
Richard, did not return a message seeking comment.

American Express, represented by Philip Korologos --
pkorologos@bsfllp.com -- a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
said it was disappointed in the decision.  "We continue to believe
the agreement was fair to merchants, and would provide them with
additional flexibility while ensuring our card members are treated
fairly at the point of sale.  We believe we have strong defenses
against the merchants' claims, and will continue to fight our case
in court."

Meanwhile, the communications also threaten to unravel
Interchange.  In that case, after eight years of litigation,
Eastern District Judge John Gleeson in 2013 gave final approval to
a $5.7 billion settlement.

Lawyers for objecting Interchange retailers recently served a
motion to vacate the judgment approving the settlement.
Jeffrey Shinder, a partner at Constantine Cannon, which represents
a group of large retailers that objected to the settlements, said
Judge Garaufis' decision will be relevant to their motion to undo
Interchange.

"It validates that something substantially very problematic
occurred with both settlements and that Gary Friedman was in the
middle of it," he said.  "We consider it to be an important
bellwether decision for both settlements."


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Fisse" Suit Arising From Data Security Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beryl Fisse and Stephen Fisse, on behalf of their daughter M.F., a
minor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Anthem, Inc., and Anthem Companies, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
02189-JTM-KWR (E.D. La., June 17, 2015) is related to the
multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Anthem, Inc., Customer
Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
a data security breach that allegedly occurred sometime between
December 10, 2014, and February 4, 2015, and resulted in the
electronic theft of personally identifiable information and
personal health information of, by one estimate, some 80 million
current and former health insurance plan members and employees of
Anthem or its affiliated health insurance companies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Arthur Mahony Murray, Esq.
          Amanda K. Klevorn, Esq.
          Stephen Barnett Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          Poydras Center
          650 Poydras St., Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8100
          E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                  aklevorn@murray-lawfirm.com
                  smurray@murray-lawfirm.com


ANTHEM INC: Removes "Yarber" Class Suit to Indiana District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Yarber v. Anthem, Inc., Case
No. 49D13-1506-CT-017911, was removed from the Marion County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana (Indianapolis).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00947-TWP-DML to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff wants to represent a class of "[a]ll person who are
citizens of the State of Indiana, whose personally identifiable
information ("PII") was electronically stored by or on behalf of
Anthem, Inc., as of February 4, 2015, and which was subsequently
used to unlawfully gain access to the money, property or credit of
such persons."  Accordingly, the purported class includes
individuals, who obtained health insurance coverage from their
employers pursuant to a plan governed by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, who purchased insurance on the federal
exchange established pursuant to the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act and who receive health care coverage under
plans governed by other federal and state regulations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George "Jay" Hoffman, III, Esq.
          HOFFMAN & NEWCOMB
          250 East Jefferson Street
          Franklin, IN 46131
          Telephone: (317) 736-1982
          Facsimile: (317) 736-6979
          E-mail: George.hoffman@hanlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sally Franklin Zweig, Esq.
          KATZ & KORIN, PC
          334 North Senate Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 464-1100
          Facsimile: (317) 464-1111
          E-mail: szweig@katzkorin.com

               - and -

          Craig A. Hoover, Esq.
          E. Desmond Hogan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          Columbia Square, 555 Thirteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
          E-mail: craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com
                  desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com


ANTHEM INC: "Powell" Suit Included in Data Security Breach MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Powell, et al. v. Anthem, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00314, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose).
The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02641-
LHK to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL
No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
a data security breach that allegedly occurred sometime between
December 10, 2014, and February 4, 2015, and resulted in the
electronic theft of personally identifiable information and
personal health information of, by one estimate, some 80 million
current and former health insurance plan members and employees of
Anthem or its affiliated health insurance companies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
          Brett E. Bitzer, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          865 Howe Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 924-3100
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: carnold@justice4you.com
                  bbitzer@justice4you.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Robin J. Samuel, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS USA LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 785-4600
          Facsimile: (310) 785-4601
          E-mail: robin.samuel@hoganlovells.com


APPLE INC: iMessage Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Steve McCaskill, writing for TechWeek Europe, reports that a
lawsuit by disgruntled former iMessage users cannot proceed as a
class action on the basis that it would be difficult to determine
that all members of the suit had suffered inconvenience due to
text not being delivered to an Android phone.

The suit argued Apple had not made it clear enough that switching
from iOS to an alternative platform such as Android would make it
difficult to receive future messages from iPhone owners because
their phone number was still associated with the iMessage service.

Lead plaintiff Adrienne Moore said she was being "penalized" for
switching from an iPhone to a Samsung Galaxy S5 and was therefore
unable to receive the full benefits of her phone contract.

iMessage works by rerouting text messages over its own servers
rather than an operator's network, bypassing SMS costs and
providing additional features such as the ability to see when a
recipient is typing or reading a message.

However this relies on Apple having up to date records on which
phone numbers are using iPhones, meaning that if a user switches
to a different operating system, they might not be able to receive
their messages if Apple still lists their number as one associated
with iMessage.

But Judge Lucy Koh said that even if the lawsuit was able to prove
structural errors with iMessage, determining whether all members
had suffered interference would be far more difficult.

Apple has acknowledged issues with iMessage and last year released
a tool that allowed users to de-list their number.  Prior to this,
it said the problems were caused by a "server issue" and users
should switch off iMessage before they dispense with their
iPhone -- hardly an ideal solution if the smartphone is no longer
in their possession.


APPLE INC: Seeks Dismissal of Android Wiretapping Case
------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Nicholson, writing for Reuters, reports that Apple on Aug. 8
asked a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit against it that claims
the company wiretaps Android users by intercepting, and then
failing to deliver, texts sent from iPhones to Android phones.
The motion was made after Apple discovered that two of the three
plaintiffs in the case had gotten rid of their old iPhones after
they filed the suit against Apple.  They are thus unable to
demonstrate whether texts sent to their phone numbers went to
their Apple or Android devices, Apple claims.

One of the plaintiffs has also asked that she be dismissed as a
"named plaintiff" in the case.

And that request came a day after a judge declined to grant the
case class-action status.

While legally the case will now proceed on its own (and not as a
"class" representing all customers who switched from iPhone to
Android) with two remaining plaintiffs, its prospects look a lot
more negative than they used to.

It is not clear why Bouakhay Joy Backhaut wants to drop her name
from the case.  In motions filed by her lawyers, she wants to
continue as a class member.  She claims her husband traded in her
old iPhone when buying her a new Android.  Her husband, Adam
Backhaut, is continuing as a named plaintiff.  Kenneth Morris also
remains on the case.

The three had alleged that they switched from iPhones to Android
phones in 2012. After that, texts sent to them from other iPhone
users were not delivered.  They were probably stuck in Apple's
iMessage system, which was notoriously unreliable at delivering
texts to Android phones until late 2014, when Apple introduced a
fix for the bug.


ASCENSION: Settles Pension Class Action for $8 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Liss, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
Ascension, the Edmundson-based parent company of the nation's
largest nonprofit health system, has agreed to settle a 2013
class-action lawsuit that alleged it improperly maintained
employee pensions plans.

Under the settlement, contingent on approval next month by a
federal judge in Michigan, Ascension agrees to make a one-time $8
million cash payment to its pension plans and adopt certain ERISA-
like protections.  The protections include the guarantee of plan
benefits through June 30, 2022, and regular financial notices
about the plans.

The Ascension pension plans, however, will still be considered
"church plans," which are exempt from ERISA, or Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, the federal law that sets minimum
standards for pension and health plans.

"We are pleased to have reached a settlement in this matter, which
will avoid further litigation costs and have no impact on
individual pension plans or benefits," Ascension spokesman
Nick Ragone said in a statement to the Post-Dispatch.

While the Ascension lawsuit is close to being resolved, similar
challenges to other "church plans" are working their way through
the courts.

The religious designation, say critics, frees organizations from
complying with ERISA, allowing plan sponsors to underfund plans
and put participants at risk of never collecting retirement
benefits.

In the Ascension case, brought by Marilyn Overall, a former
employee of an Ascension hospital in Michigan, alleged the pension
plans were underfunded by $444.5 million, affecting 122,000
employees. Ascension has about 153,000 employees.  Mr. Ragone
counters the Ascension plans were "very well-funded."

Thomas E. Clark Jr., counsel at the Wagner Law Group, a legal
expert on ERISA who has closely followed this case, says the
Ascension lawsuit illustrates a larger issue with the church plan
designation.

"Simply being a church plan isn't positive or negative," he said.
But it's about whether the employer is legally required to live up
to the benefits its promises employees via their pensions.

"Because of the lack of state law protections, and the fact that
ERISA does not apply, those participants are left purely to the
promises of their employer and the continued existence of that
employer in the marketplace if they compete against for-profit
entities," Mr. Clark said.

Some critics argue that the church plan designation is used too
liberally for employers like Ascension that are not direct
employees of a church.

Religious pension plans are exempt from ERISA if the plan was
established and maintained by a tax-exempt church, or if the tax-
exempt employer is controlled by or associated with a church.

Under ERISA-exempt church plans, the employer is not required to
pay the benefits it has promised to employees, it is not required
to disclose financial information about the plan or the plan's
overall financial health, and the plan is not protected by the
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., the federal government agency that
insures most private pensions.

The church plans have been a growing problem within the last five
years, said Nancy Hwa, spokeswoman for the Pension Rights Center,
a consumer advocacy group.

"No one knew that employers were using the church plan exemptions
in this way to get out of their ERISA obligations," Ms. Hwa said.

That status should be a concern for employees, Ms. Hwa said,
because it means employees are not protected by the PBGC.

"So if the plan goes under, or the employer goes under, and the
pension is severely underfunded, they are going to get a fraction
of the benefits that they earned," Ms. Hwa said.

Some of St. Louis' largest employers are affiliated with a
religious institution, including SSM Health and Mercy Health.

Neither organization would comment on the status of its pension
plans.

                       *     *    *

Mark Wilson, writing for Evansville Courier & Press, reports that
the proposed settlement is set for a hearing on Sept. 17.

According to a motion seeking approval of the settlement: "It
provides for significant plan provisions which will enhance the
retirement security of the members of the settlement class -- in
essence mimicking some of ERISA's key provisions for the next
seven and one-half years," notes Courier & Press.

The report relates that the Ascension lawsuit is one of nine filed
in district courts around the country challenging the issue of
church plan exemption. The time period covered in the settlement
should provide time for the Internal Revenue Service and
Department of Labor to clarify or change their rules based on the
outcome of those cases, it added.


AUTOMATION PLASTICS: Accused of Treating Older Staff Differently
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernard Nagle v. Automation Plastics Corporation and Harry Smith,
Case No. CV-15-846758 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, June 9, 2015) alleges
that the Defendants treated the Plaintiff differently than other
similarly situated employees based on his age.  His employment was
subsequently terminated on February 12, 2015.

Automation Plastics Corporation is a domestic corporation with its
principal place of business located in the County of Portage, in
Aurora, Ohio.  Harry Smith was the President, CEO, and Owner of
Automation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luke D. Mahoney, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
          Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: luke.mahoney@spitzlawfirm.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
United International Insurance Company v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05957-UA (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2015), arises
out of the Defendants' alleged collusive manipulation of the
market for U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds, and derivative
financial products based on these Treasury securities, including
Treasury futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange.

Bank of Nova Scotia is a New York-based branch of a Canadian
financial services and banking company with its principal place of
business at 250 Vesey Street, New York, New York 10080.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      C. Dov Berger, 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
              jnematzadeh@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com
              cdberger@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 315-3454
      Facsimile: (954) 315-3455
      E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com

         - and -

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


BAYER: To Establish $56.9MM Program to Settle Yaz & Yasmin Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the makers of Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella have agreed to provide nearly
$56.9 million to establish a settlement program for plaintiffs
claiming they suffered arterial blood clots as a result of taking
the birth-control drugs.

Bayer, which makes Yaz and Yasmin, and Barr Laboratories and Teva
Pharmaceuticals, the makers of the generic drug Ocella, have
agreed to provide $56.9 million to settle claims that the
drospirenone-containing birth control drugs led to stroke and
heart attacks.  The agreement covers cases pending in
Pennsylvania, California and New Jersey.

As of April, 360 cases were pending in the Philadelphia Complex
Litigation Center, according to recent statistics.  The first
arterial blood clot-related case had been set to begin trial in
late July.

The settlement program is expected to resolve the vast majority of
the claims against Bayer.  However, the company can withdraw from
the program if fewer than 97.5 percent of those who are eligible
participate.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold New entered
implementing orders regarding the settlement program on Aug. 3.
U.S. District Judge David R. Herndon of the Southern District of
Illinois was the MDL judge in the case.

"Special master Randi Ellis and Judge New as well as the MDL judge
here were instrumental in assisting the parties to agree to this
deal," said Michael Weinkowitz -- mfishbein@lfsblaw.com -- of
Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman.  Mr. Weinkowitz represented some
of the plaintiffs, and was a member of the committee negotiating
the settlement.

Bayer spokesman Steven Immergut said the company believes the
contraceptives do not carry an increased risk of arterial blood
clots, and the labeling adequately disclosed the risks.

"Bayer agreed to this settlement, without admission of wrongdoing
or liability, in order to avoid the cost and distraction of
litigation and to put the focus back on what matters most-the
needs of patients," Mr. Immergut said in a statement.  "This
settlement is an important step in bringing to a close
longstanding litigation involving Bayer's drospirenone-containing
combination oral contraceptives that has lasted for more than six
years."

Albert G. Bixler -- abixler@eckertseamans.com -- of Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott represented Bayer.

Alice S. Johnston -- ajohnston@schnader.com -- of Schnader
Harrison Segal & Lewis, who represented Barr and Teva, did not
immediately return a call for comment on Aug. 4.  It was not clear
exactly how much Barr and Teva may contribute to the settlement
program.

Lawsuits against Bayer claiming injuries related to venous blood
clots, deep vein thrombosis, gallbladder injury and arterial clots
were consolidated into an MDL in 2009.

According to a statement from Levin Fishbein, Bayer previously
agreed to pay $2 billion to resolve the venous clot-related
claims, and has also settled claims related to alleged gallbladder
injuries.

Court documents from the MDL said that, at its height, the
litigation involved nearly 12,000 files with multiple plaintiffs
per file, and had been declared the largest multidistrict
litigation in the nation.  By February, the MDL had boiled down to
about 3,400 claims, according to court documents.

The defendants, court papers said, had argued some plaintiffs
never took birth-control pills containing drospirenone, and that
many plaintiffs had duplicate cases pending.  However, in
February, Herndon issued an opinion criticizing the defendants'
litigation tactics.

"Given the history of this litigation, the undersigned judge has
become convinced that the strategy going forward, on the part of
the defendants, is one of attrition not marketplace analysis in
the [venous thrombosis event] cases and virtually not negotiating
the [arterial thrombosis event] cases," Judge Herndon said.

As part of that ruling, the judge petitioned the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to remand some of the cases to
their home districts to be dismissed, settled or tried.  The judge
also told the parties to take "whatever depositions are needed for
purposes of discovery and trial so that as many of the cases as
possible are ready or nearly ready for trial when remanded."

Attorneys from New York City, Denver and Newport Beach,
California, took part in the settlement talks.  According to
Mr. Weinkowitz, after months of negotiations and one final all-
night session, the negotiating teams reached an agreement in
Philadelphia on the morning that the first case involving arterial
blood clot claims was set to begin jury selection.


BED BATH: Faces "Louie" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Louie, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Bed Bath and Beyond, Inc. and Steven
Temares, Case No. 2:15-cv-04438-LDW-AYS (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants operate a chain of domestic merchandise retail
stores throughout the United States.

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


BOB EVANS: Faces Suit Alleging Age & Disabilities Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Eachen v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., d/b/a Bob Evans, Case No.
1:15-cv-00150 (N.D. Ind., June 15, 2015) alleges discrimination,
in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Bob Evans Farms Inc., doing business as Bob Evans, is a company
doing business in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and was the Plaintiff's
employer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher C. Myers, Esq.
          Ilene M. Smith, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES
          809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802
          Telephone: (260) 424-0600
          Facsimile: (260) 424-0712
          E-mail: cmyers@myers-law.com
                  ismith@myers-law.com


BOUYGUES CIVIL: "Barzey" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Barzey, Enrique Jaime Perez, Joseph Norteus, Carlos A.
Ramirez, Irving Omar Marrero, Joe Lopez, Guillermo Suarez
Rodriguez, German Sandoval, Terrence Wright, Gary Wayne Mosley,
Paul Gibbs, Henock Moise, Kerry Louissaint, Frank Cooney and Clive
Harris, and others similarly-situated v. Bouygues Civil Works
Florida, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-22826-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 29,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Bouygues Civil Works Florida, Inc. operates a construction company
and does business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
      1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Appel" Suit for FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Bernice H. Appel, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Capital Management Services, LP and Does 1 Though 10,
Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-03375-LFR (E.D. Pa., June 16, 2015)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Road, Suite A
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
          E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


CASCABEL HOSPITALITY: Faces "Corona" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Corona and Edgardo Villegas, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Cascabel Hospitality Group LLC, d/b/a
Cascabel Taqueria, David Chiong and Elizabeth Gaudreau, Case No.
1:15-cv-05275 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant located at
1556 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10075.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


CASTLE SERVICES: Faces "Puentes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Puentes, and all others similarly-situated v. Castle
Services Inc. and Francisco Castillo, Case No. 1:15-cv-22557-CMA
(S.D. Fla., July 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Castle Services Inc. is a Florida corporation which regularly
conducted business in Miami-Dade County, Florida by performing
janitorial cleaning and moving services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      DANIEL T FELD P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE
      1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com


CHICAGO, IL: Police Department to Allow Stop-and-Frisk Evaluations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Babwin, writing for Associated Press, reports that the Chicago
Police Department will allow independent evaluations of its stop-
and-frisk procedures that critics say target blacks under an
agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union announced on
Aug. 7, as police nationwide face scrutiny about how they treat
minorities.

The agreement that calls for increased public disclosure and more
officer training follows a scathing March 2015 report from the
ACLU of Illinois that found Chicago officers disproportionately
targeted blacks and other racial minorities in hundreds of
thousands of stop, question and frisk encounters.

Under the agreement, former U.S. Magistrate Judge Arlander Keys
will provide public reports twice a year on Chicago police
investigatory stops and pat downs, looking at whether the city is
meeting its legal requirements.  It goes into effect immediately.

"It's not going to be a change in the actual way that we stop
people, it's going to be a change in the way that we record the
stop," Superintendent Garry McCarthy said at an Aug. 7 news
conference.  And he suggested that the evaluations will bear out
his belief that the stops have been constitutional.

Mr. McCarthy also said he was pleased that his department was not
compelled to take action by a court order, and that he hopes the
agreement will "set the standard" for other police departments.

The president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association said other
departments would be "wise" to follow Chicago's lead.

"If we can address the community concerns without having to go to
court, without . . . a lawsuit, I think that's obviously a better
way and certainly better for the relationship between the police
and the community," said Tom Manger, chief of police in Montgomery
County, Maryland, who was in Chicago to meet with McCarthy and
other police chiefs.

The only concern Mr. McCarthy said he had is that the extra
paperwork might take officers off the streets for too long.

In its report, the ACLU of Illinois identified more than 250,000
Chicago stop-and-frisk encounters in which there were no arrests
from May through August 2014.  African-Americans accounted for
nearly three-quarters of those stopped, even though they make up
about a third of the city's population.

The agreement comes after months of negotiations between the city,
the department and the ACLU that aimed to avoid expensive and
time-consuming litigation, the parties said in a news release.

The police department still faces a federal class-action lawsuit
with 53 African-American plaintiffs claiming the street stops have
led to constitutional abuses, including unlawful searches and
seizures as well as excessive force.

"I certainly think that it does add a lot of credibility to the
lawsuit," said Antonio Romanucci, an attorney handling the
lawsuit.

The city and department have agreed to collect additional data
about investigatory stops.  That includes officers' names and
badge numbers, the race, ethnicity and gender of the person
stopped, the reason for the stop, whether they were frisked and
other details.

That information will be given to the ACLU and Keys, who will
oversee the agreement's implementation.

Mr. McCarthy has been a proponent of stop-and-frisk and worked at
two police departments that came under fire for their use of the
tactic -- the New York City Police Department and Newark, New
Jersey, which he headed before coming to Chicago.

In New York, a monitor is overseeing changes to the stop-and-frisk
policy after a federal judge ruled that the tactic sometimes
discriminated against minorities.  Last August, the city dropped
appeals after its new mayor took over who was elected, in part, on
an anti-stop-and-frisk campaign.

And the Newark department was placed under a federal monitor after
the U.S. Department of Justice found that when Mr. McCarthy ran
it, 75 percent of pedestrian stops were made without
constitutionally adequate reasons.


CHICAGO, IL: Romanucci & Blandin Files Stop-and-Frisk Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Personal injury law firm, Romanucci & Blandin, LLC, recognizes the
efforts of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois
and the Chicago Police Department (CPD) who announced on Aug. 7 an
agreement going into effect immediately regarding monitoring how
officers go about conducting street stops of citizens in Chicago.
In addition, the agreement names independent consultant U.S.
Magistrate Arlander Keys, who will issue bi-annual reports on the
department and recommend policy changes.

"The announcement made today is exactly why the civil class action
lawsuit our firm filed in April is so important in our efforts to
expedite and help create radical policy changes at the Chicago
Police Department," notes Antonio Romanucci, lead attorney for
Romanucci & Blandin.  "If not for the pending stop and frisk class
action lawsuit filed against the City of Chicago and Chicago
Police Department, this announcement from the ACLU and CPD would
not have occurred. We sat down with the ACLU and we were in
agreement with the policy changes that are incorporated into this
understanding," he added.

Despite the Aug. 7 announcement, the class action lawsuit, which
now has 53 named African-American plaintiffs, against the City of
Chicago and Chicago Police Department is still pending.  The case
alleges that the street stop practice is being done without
reasonable articulable suspicion which is required under the
Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Instead, the
CPD employs race and/or national origin as determinative factors
in deciding to stop and frisk individuals, in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment.  All victims and plaintiffs represented in
the complaint are African-American males who seek immediate
injunctive and declaratory relief of these unconstitutional "catch
and release" stop and frisk practices.

"We know that Stop & Frisk was a colossal failure with 99% of 2.3
million frisks failing to find a weapon and they were unlawful.
Which is exactly why the practice has already been ruled as
unconstitutional," says Mr. Romanucci.  "While we applaud the
efforts of the ACLU and CPD, we must also remain unwavering in our
pursuit of a judgment against the City of Chicago and the Chicago
Police Department on behalf of the plaintiffs we represent in the
class action."

The lawsuit is class action No: 1:15-cv-03467.
Those interested in learning more about the federal case or
participating in the lawsuit can call: 1-800-458-9636; email:
badstop@rblaw.net; or visit: www.badstop.org

                  About Romanucci & Blandin, LLC

Romanucci & Blandin -- http://www.rblaw.net-- is a civil trial
practice law firm in Chicago concentrating in personal injury and
police misconduct.  The attorneys at the Chicago law firm
represent individuals and their families in catastrophic personal
injury matters, wrongful death and workers' compensation cases.
The cases that are referred to Romanucci & Blandin involve
accidents or injuries which occurred due to negligence and
carelessness on the part of individuals, governmental bodies and
corporations of all sizes.  Since its inception more than 16 years
ago, Romanucci & Blandin has secured more than $300 million in
verdicts and settlements on behalf of their clients.


CMRE FINANCIAL: Invaded Class Member's Privacy, "Zuniga" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Zuniga, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CMRE Financial Services, Inc., Case No.
8:15-cv-01083 (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of
all others similarly situated seeking damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of the Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading
Plaintiff's privacy.

CMRE Financial Services, Inc. is a leader in consumer debt buying
and recovery or collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


COLLEGE ASSIST: Faces "Brockerman" Suit Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Brockerman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. College Assist, Case No. 1:15-cv-01619-CBS (D. Colo.,
July 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C., LAW OFFICES OF
      369 South Doheny Drive, Suite 415
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


CONCRETE SHOP: Accused of Discriminating Against Black Employee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Howard v. Concrete Shop, LLC; and Hoonhorst Concrete,
Inc.; and Fred Hoonhorst, Case No. 1:15-cv-00633 (W.D. Mich., June
15, 2015) alleges that during the Plaintiff's employment with the
Defendants, he was repeatedly subjected to harassment, including
unwelcomed and unwanted racial harassment.

Mr. Howard is an African American male and a resident of the City
of Wyoming, County of Kent, Michigan.

The Defendants were the employers of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen R. Drew, Esq.
          Adam C. Sturdivant, Esq.
          DREW, COOPER & ANDING
          80 Ottawa Avenue NW, Suite 200
          Grand Rapids, MI 49503
          Telephone: (616) 454-8300
          E-mail: sdrew@dca-lawyers.com
                  asturdivant@dca-lawyers.com


DAIRY FARMERS: Settles Milk Class Action for $50 Million
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a national dairy marketing
cooperative has agreed to pay a total of $50 million to thousands
of Northeast dairy farmers in an amended settlement of a long-
running lawsuit accusing the group of trying to drive down milk
prices, but some farmers are opposed to the deal.

Under the proposal filed on Aug. 5, Dairy Farmers of America would
pay an average of $4,000 to about 9,000 farmers.  The settlement
must be approved by a judge, who rejected a proposal in March.

The 2009 class-action lawsuit charged Dairy Farmers of America;
its marketing arm, Dairy Marketing Services; and Dallas-based
dairy processor Dean Foods with working together to monopolize the
market for raw milk in the Northeast.

Dean Foods agreed to a settlement of $30 million in 2011. It
covered farmers in Delaware, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Virginia and the District of Columbia.

U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss rejected the previous
settlement proposal mainly because some farmers opposed it.

They argued that they could be exposed to retaliation by the
groups and said the estimated financial compensation of $4,000 per
farm was "functionally irrelevant," reflecting the cost of one
"tractor tire," the judge wrote in her decision.  They contended
the proposal's injunctive relief was insufficient and would allow
the defendants to continue practices that led to the lawsuit,
Reiss said.

The judge said it appeared there was strong opposition to the
proposed deal on the following grounds: The monetary relief was
inadequate if there were no significant changes to how defendants
did business; the proposed release was overly broad; and, in light
of the modest per-farm relief, lawyers would be the primary
beneficiaries of the proposed settlement if their fees and costs
were approved.

The farmers' attorneys requested fees of $16.6 million plus
expenses in the first settlement proposal.

After negotiating, the two sides agreed to amend the settlement to
address some of those concerns, but the settlement amount remained
the same.

"We think it's a fair and reasonable settlement and that it's in
the best interest of the farms," said Kit Pierson, a Washington-
based attorney for the plaintiffs.

But dairy farmer Jonathan Haar of West Edmeston, N.Y., who is a
class representative, opposes the deal.

"We remain opposed to it.  It's fundamentally the same settlement
that the judge correctly recognized . . . that the primary
beneficiaries were counsel," he said.

A spokeswoman for DFA said attorneys for both sides agreed to
certain amendments to the earlier deal.

"It is believed that these changes will address the concerns, and
we look forward to a final conclusion of the matter," said
Monica Massey of DFA.


DELIAN 6: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated employees, known and unknown v Delian 6, Inc., d/b/a
Round the Clock Restaurant, Minas Litos, Elias Litos, and Stasia
Litos, Case No. 1:15-cv-06661 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1760 S.
Torrence Avenue, Lansing, IL 60438.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Luka, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PAUL LUKA, P.C.
      120 S. State Street, Ste. 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 236-9825
      E-mail: paul@lukapc.com


DELTA AIR: Baggage Fee Suit Can Proceed as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald, writing for Daily Report, reports that the
executive director of the National Association of Airline
Passengers on Aug. 6 embraced a decision by a federal judge to
proceed as a class action against Delta Air Lines and AirTran
Airways over alleged price-fixing of baggage fees.

"Nobody likes these bag fees," Douglas Kidd said on Aug. 6.
"Charging for bag fees is really not something we are in favor of
and we think is unreasonable on the part of the airlines. . . . We
don't agree with that pricing model, a la carte pricing. . . . But
the airlines are pretty much dancing to the tune of Wall Street."

On Aug. 5, U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten ruled that the
Atlanta-based suit -- which accuses Delta of illegally colluding
with AirTran to charge first-bag fees -- will proceed on behalf of
all U.S. Delta and AirTran passengers who since 2008 have paid to
check their bags.  Before that, first bags were checked for free.

Delta and AirTran -- which competed fiercely for customers who fly
out of Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport in Atlanta --
began in 2008, within weeks of each other, to charge their
customers a new $15 first-bag fee. Delta's first-bag fees have now
risen to $25.  AirTran was absorbed in 2011 by Southwest Airlines,
which doesn't charge bag fees.

Judge Batten issued his ruling in the six-year-old case on Aug. 5,
two days after he levied an additional $2.7 million in fines,
legal fees and expenses against Delta for losing or destroying
company records critical to the litigation.  A special master last
fall had recommended that the judge sanction Delta $1.8 million.
Batten has said in earlier orders that his consideration of
whether the litigation should go forward has been stalled by
battles to secure relevant company records.  Judge Batten's latest
sanction ruling is his fifth, bringing to $8.4 million the fines
and fees he has handed down against Delta.

Delta counsel Randall Allen -- randall.allen@alston.com -- a
partner at Atlanta's Alston & Bird, would not comment on Judge
Batten's rulings.  A Delta spokesman could not be reached either
by phone or by email for comment.  AirTran's lead lawyer,
Alden Atkins -- aatkins@velaw.com -- of Vinson & Elkins'
Washington office, could not be reached for comment.

David Flint -- dflint@swfllp.com -- a partner at Atlanta's
Schreeder Wheeler & Flint and one of a team of lawyers
representing the plaintiffs, said, "I can't think of a case more
appropriate for class certification.  . . . This was a no-brainer.
I'm just glad the judge was able to certify the class."

Mr. Flint said he doesn't know how many airline passengers have
paid first-bag fees since Delta and AirTran first began charging
them. "It's going to be a lot," he said.

In certifying the class, Judge Batten rejected arguments by the
lawyers for the airlines that some fliers actually benefited from
the fees for a service that had previously been free.  Delta and
AirTran claimed that charging first-bag fees had allowed the
airlines to lower airfares in some cases and that those fare
reductions amounted to more than the added fees associated with
checking a first bag.  The airlines also claimed they had lowered
fees for second bags when they introduced first-bag fees and that
passengers who paid fees for multiple pieces of luggage paid less
than they would have paid without the first-bag fee.

The judge said a class action was appropriate because individual
claims by passengers who have checked bags on Delta and AirTran
since 2008 were "so small that the cost of individual litigation
would be far greater than the value of those claims."

Since 2009, the two rival airlines have quietly but fiercely
battled claims that they violated federal antitrust laws by
colluding in instituting the fees and then taking significant
measures to hide their complicity.

The stakes are high.  The multidistrict litigation seeks both full
monetary and treble damages for all passengers who have paid first
bag fees since Delta and AirTran instituted them in late 2008.

From January through September in 2014 alone, Delta earned $417.7
million in baggage fees, more than any other airline, according to
the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics.  Southwest Airlines
earned $44.3 million in baggage fees during the same time, nearly
all of it from AirTran.

Moreover, if the plaintiffs can show that Delta and AirTran
violated federal antitrust laws, company executives could be
implicated in civil or criminal antitrust investigations by the
U.S. Justice Department.  In February 2009, two months after the
two airlines began charging for bags, the DOJ opened a civil
antitrust investigation and began seeking information from Delta
as to whether the bag fees were the result of a price-fixing
scheme.  The DOJ has never reported publicly on the outcome of
that investigation, and it has taken no action against Delta or
AirTran in connection with price-fixing allegations.

Lawyers representing airline passengers contend that Delta and
AirTran used a series of 2008 public earnings conference calls
with securities analysts, industry conferences and joint
negotiations with the Atlanta airport over gate leases to
illegally signal -- and coordinate -- plans to implement a first-
bag fee, cut back on the total number of daily flights, and
increase ticket prices -- all at the expense of passengers who had
previously benefited from their vigorous competition in Atlanta.
They also contend that AirTran emails uncovered during the
litigation suggest that AirTran executives also were communicating
with Delta through an unofficial "grapevine."

In seeking to dismiss the case, Delta said the antitrust
allegations rested "on entirely conclusory characterizations of
statements made by Delta and AirTran to the investment community
about a matter of vital interest to investors -- each airline's
plans for responding to unprecedented, rapid and substantial
increases in the price of fuel, and to the onset of the worst
recession since the Great Depression."

Despite six years of litigation, the merits of the case have yet
to be decided.  Instead, lawyers for the passengers have battled
over what happened to company records, including emails and
minutes of executive meetings, reports and other documents for the
critical weeks leading up to Delta's decision to implement the
first-bag fees.  Plaintiffs' attorneys have garnered admissions --
and repeated apologies -- from Delta lawyers acknowledging that
company files requested by the plaintiffs inadvertently had been
lost, misplaced, or destroyed.  They have also been awarded $4.7
million, to which Judge Batten on Aug. 3 added an additional $2.7
million.

In adding $1 million in fines to the special master's sanctions
recommendation, Judge Batten said in an order issued Aug. 3, "It
is Delta's ineptitude and missteps that have caused the vast
majority of the excessive time, expenses and energy that the
parties expended in discovery for the last five years. . . .
Delta's discovery misconduct has rendered the court's attempts to
manage this litigation and move it toward a resolution on the
merits as futile and maddening as Sisyphus' efforts to roll his
boulder to the top of the hill."

Delta lawyers have acknowledged that multiple -- and embarrassing
-- mistakes were made but have blamed the imbroglio on: human
error; "the flaws and foibles" of culling through millions of
electronic files; contract lawyers hired to sort through the
morass; Delta's in-house technology team; inadequate software; and
the plaintiffs' computer expert.

Delta's lawyers said the plaintiffs' computer expert undertook a
"scorched earth campaign to collect every conceivable source of
data that he could collect" after Delta gave him access to their
electronic records and farmed out the analysis, which Delta
lawyers argued was "incredibly botched."

Mr. Allen, Delta's lead outside counsel, has publicly disavowed
any price-fixing conspiracy over baggage fees, contending in court
hearings that Delta had "made a good-faith effort and in all
instances a reasonable effort to collect and preserve documents."

"We did not do everything perfectly," he said in a sanctions
hearing last year.  "We endeavored as best we could to do it
right, and we tried at every turn to do the right thing, and in
some of those instances we failed. We made mistakes."

But, he insisted, "The suggestion that we did so intentionally or
with reckless disregard for the fact that evidence would be lost,
I think, is not proven and will not be proven."


DIAGEO PLC: Sued in S.D. Cal. Over Alleged Product Misbranding
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Dumas and Eugene Buner, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Diageo plc and Diageo-Guinness USA
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01681-BTM-BLM (S.D. Cal., July 29, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' false, deceptive, and misleading
packaging and labeling of Red Stripe(R) beer that it is a
"Jamaican Style Lager," that contains "The Taste of Jamaica".

Diageo plc owns a spirits, beer, and wine manufacturing production
facilities across the globe.

Diageo-Guinness USA Inc. is a Delaware corporation and is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Diageo plc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
      Ashley R. Rifkin, Esq.
      Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
              arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com
              lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com


DIVERSIFIED RECOVERY: Violates FDCPA, "Thomas" Class Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erica K. Thomas, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Diversified Recovery Solutions, LLC, and John Does 1 to 10,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04063-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., June 15, 2015) is brought
over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


DONA ANA: Gets Nursing Program Accreditation After Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albuquerque Journal reports that Dona Ana Community College said
that its associate nursing program has regained national
accreditation after losing its status three years ago.

The Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing -- which
accredits a dozen other nursing programs in New Mexico -- formally
notified DACC in late July that the school had been awarded
accreditation.

DACC President Renay Scott said the school completely overhauled
its curriculum to meet New Mexico Board of Nursing standards,
shifted the program's focus to evidence-based learning and raised
faculty salaries to stay competitive with local hospitals.

"We have a fundamentally new program with very high standards,
very competitive, but it prepares our students to be successful,"
she said.  "They gave us high marks for all the work
(administrators and faculty) did."

The loss of national accreditation rocked both DACC and its parent
institution, New Mexico State University.  Both schools saw a
change in leadership.

Garrey Carruthers, chancellor of the NMSU system, which includes
DACC, applauded the accreditation.

"It means a lot for our reputation simply because being accredited
is kind of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval that you have a
quality program," said Mr. Carruthers, a former New Mexico
governor.  "It really means a lot to our students because
graduating from an accredited program is much preferred to just
graduating as a nurse. The salaries are different; the
opportunities are different."

Ms. Scott and Mr. Carruthers said they believe enrollment will
rise now that the nursing program has righted itself.

The 11 students who graduated in May can now say they graduated
from a nationally accredited program.

Roughly 100 students were enrolled in the program in fall 2012,
the year it lost accreditation, Ms. Scott said.

NMSU offered to shift those students into its own accredited four-
year program, and many took that option.  A handful remained at
DACC.

Eight former DACC nursing students sued the school in May 2013,
claiming they incurred financial losses and turmoil when the
school lost its nationally accredited status.

A state district court judge ruled in May that the lawsuit could
proceed as a class action to include "all persons who were
enrolled in the nursing education program at DACC at the time of
DACC's loss of national accreditation," according to a Las Cruces
Sun-News report.

The accreditation is retroactive only to the term the accrediting
team came to visit -- spring 2015. DACC has 42 students enrolled
in its nursing program for this fall.


DOTHAN, AL: Class Suit Questions Arrest and Detention Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Cooper, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated people v. The City of Dothan, Case No. 1:15-cv-00425-WKW-
TFM (M.D. Ala., June 16, 2015) alleges that the City's arrest and
detention policies and practices routinely result in the
confinement of individuals solely due to their poverty in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal
Protection clauses.

Specifically, the Plaintiff argues that the City's post-arrest
detention scheme featuring preset and undifferentiated bond
amounts forces indigent individuals arrested on misdemeanor
offenses to remain behind bars for as long as a week, while
allowing those who can afford the scheduled bond to walk free.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alec Karakatsanis, Esq., Executive Director
          EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
          916 G St NW, Suite 701
          Washington, DC 20001
          Telephone: (202) 681-2409
          E-mail: alec@equaljusticeunderlaw.org

               - and -

          Joseph Mitchell McGuire, Esq.
          MCGUIRE & ASSOCIATES LLC
          31 Clayton Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Telephone: (334) 517-1000
          Facsimile: (334) 517-1327
          E-mail: jmcguire@mandabusinesslaw.com


DUALSTAR ENTERTAINMENT: Former Intern Files Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a former intern has sued
Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen's licensing and manufacturing company,
saying she worked 50 hours a week but wasn't paid.

Shahista Lalani filed a class-action lawsuit against Dualstar
Entertainment Group in Manhattan's state Supreme Court.  Ms.
Lalani says she worked from May to September 2012.  The Daily News
reports the lawsuit claims interns were misclassified as exempt
from minimum wage requirements.  Ms. Lalani says her
responsibilities included inputting data into spreadsheets, doing
errands for paid employees, cutting patterns, photocopying and
sewing.

A spokeswoman tells the Post the company wasn't aware of the
lawsuit and declined to comment further.

The 29-year-old twins founded the company when they were 6.  Among
other things, it makes videos, books, cosmetics and clothes.

Ms. Lalani's attorney didn't respond to requests for comment from
the News.


EMIE MARKETING: Faces "Golden" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Golden, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Emie Marketing, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-01105-PGB-KRS (M.D.
Fla., July 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Emie Marketing, Inc. operates a marketing agency with a principal
place of business in Orange County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Bernard Celler, Esq.
      RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
      Suite 230, 7450 Griffin Road
      Davie, FL 33314
      Telephone: (866) 344-9243
      Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
      E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Boswein" Suit for FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Boswein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00918
(E.D. Wis., July 29, 2015), seeks redress for the Defendant's
collection practices that violate the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC operates a debt collection agency
with its principal offices at 8014 Bayberry Road, Jacksonville,
Florida 32256.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
      John D. Blythin, Esq.
      Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
      Denise L. Morris, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
      3620 East Layton Avenue
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Telephone: (414) 482-8000
      Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
      E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
              jblythin@ademilaw.com
              meldridge@ademilaw.com
              dmorris@ademilaw.com


FARMACIA ADELFA: "Espinosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yuliemni Espinosa, and others similarly-situated v. Farmacia
Adelfa & Paty, Inc., and Ruben Murillo, Case No. 1:15-cv-22556-KMW
(S.D. Fla., July 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmacy within Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      DANIEL T FELD P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE
      1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com


FAYE GRAND: Accused by Occupational Therapist of Harassing & Bias
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Dellarossa Larussa v. Faye Grand Hand Therapy Center, Case
No. 705884/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 5, 2015) alleges that the
Plaintiff became the victim of untold harassment and unfair
treatment at the hands of the Defendant, after she dutifully
notified the owner of her multiple ailments, in an obvious attempt
to push her out of the Center.

Faye Grand Hand Therapy Center is an occupational therapy center
located in Flushing, New York, and was the Plaintiff's "employer."
Ms. Larussa works at the Center as an Occupational Therapist.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Morelli, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A. MORELLI, P.C.
          1461 Franklin Avenue
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 393-9151


FILTER PRO: "Mayer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Mayer, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Filter Pro USA, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-01099-GAP-DAB (M.D. Fla.,
July 7, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Filter Pro USA, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company that
manufactures electronic coils and transformers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


FOOD SPECIALISTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Meftahi v. Food Specialists Inc., a California corporation;
Scott's Jack London Seafood, Inc., a California corporation;
Scott's Seafood Grill & Bar (Walnut Creek), Inc. dba "Scott's
Seafood Walnut Creek, Inc.", a California corporation; Scott's
Seafood Walnut Creek, Inc., an entity form entity unknown; and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG15772821 (Cal. Super.
Ct., June 4, 2015) accuses the Defendants of failure to pay
overtime time and double time wages.

The Defendants operated a seafood restaurant and catering business
in Oakland, California, which employed the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark L. Venardi, Esq.
          Martin Zurada, Esq.
          VENARDI ZURADA LLP
          700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 937-3900
          Facsimile: (925) 937-3905
          E-mail: mvenardi@vefirm.com
                  mzurada@hotmail.com


FRONTIER DRILLING: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage, "Miller" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Miller, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Frontier Drilling, Case No. 2:15-cv-00423-DBP (D.
Utah, June 15, 2015) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
arising from alleged denial of overtime compensation.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Retirees Seek Class Action-Status for Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Nearing, writing for Times Union, reports that a lawsuit
against General Electric by two retired salary workers will be
considered on Aug. 7 for class action status, which would expand
their claim the company is improperly reducing health care
benefits to include about 65,000 retirees.

"I will turn 65 that day, and this is the best present that I
could have, if this moves forward as a class action," said
Evelyn Kauffman, a retired GE manager and Niskayuna resident who
launched the legal challenge.

The motion comes after Judge Lynn Adelman in U.S. District Court
in Milwaukee denied an earlier GE motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

"We are hoping that expanding into a class action will help the
judge and GE understand that this is just not two crazy retirees
in this fight," said Ms. Kauffman.  "This is about getting all the
(salaried) retirees relief."

In September 2012, GE alerted all former salaried workers that as
of Jan. 1, 2015, those who would be still under the age of 65
would no longer receive coverage, which helped fill the 20 percent
gap left by standard Medicare health insurance.  Those over age 65
will be paid a $1,000 stipend but must select supplemental
insurance through a health exchange much like the ones established
through the Affordable Health Care Act.

A retired corporate benefits counselor, Ms. Kauffman filed the
lawsuit with former chief negotiator Dennis Rocheleau because the
non-union workers will have to shoulder sometimes thousands of
dollars worth of prescription medication coverage when GE
discontinues the supplemental health insurance.

The complaint says an explanation of GE benefits in July 2012 said
the company "expects" and "intends" to continue GE medical plans
"indefinitely."  The lawsuit seeks to ultimately have the benefit
reinstated, but does not cover retired unionized workers.

On Aug. 7, a GE spokesman said that the company "will continue to
defend the one surviving count of the complaint and remains
confident that the company acted properly and lawfully in making
changes to retiree health benefits consistent with trends among
other large companies."

GE has previously said it will save $586 million in future
obligations by canceling the Medicare plans and instead offering
reimbursements of about $1,000 a year to retirees who obtain
Medicare-supplement policies.


GEORGIA-PACIFIC LLC: Faces Suit Over Asbestos Injuries and Death
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shelley Newman, Individually and as Personal Representative of the
Heirs and Estate of Arthur R. Newman, Deceased v. Georgia-Pacific
LLC f/k/a Georgia-Pacific Corporation, Case No. 201531960 (Tex.
Dist. Ct., June 4, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiff's Decedent was
exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products while working
for the Defendant.  Mr. Newman died of asbestos-related
mesothelioma on March 6, 2007.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          W. Mark Lanier, Esq.
          Benjamin Pyle, Esq.
          THE LANIER LAW FIRM
          6810 F.M. 1960 West
          Houston, TX 77069
          Telephone: (713) 659-5200
          Facsimile: (713) 659-2204
          E-mail: wml@lanierlawfirm.com
                  bsp@lanierlawfirm.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Schultz" Suit Over Zofran Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Schultz and Scott Schultz, individually and as Parents and
Natural Guardians of D.S., a Minor v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC d/b/a
GlaxoSmithKline, a limited liability company; McKesson
Corporation, a corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 30-
2015-00792248 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 9, 2015) arises from the
injuries to D.S. as a result of her alleged prenatal exposures to
the prescription drug Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients, who were afflicted with the most severe nausea
imaginable -- that suffered by cancer patients undergoing
chemotherapy or radiation treatments.

GSK is a Delaware limited liability company.  GSK's sole member is
GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware corporation,
and which has identified its principal place of business in
Wilmington, Delaware.  GSK is the successor in interest to Glaxo,
Inc. and Glaxo Welcome Inc.  Glaxo, Inc. was the sponsor of the
original New Drug Application for Zofran.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett M. Murdock, Esq.
          BRETT MURDOCK, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          324 S. Brea Blvd.
          2 Brea, CA 92821
          Telephone: (714) 529-0111
          Facsimile: (714) 529-7237
          E-mail: brettmurdock1@gmail.com


GOODYEAR TIRE: Doesn't Properly Pay Associates, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thad Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-05745-RGK-PJW (C.D. Cal., July 29,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to properly
compensate non-exempt associates for off-the-clock work.

The Defendants operate commercial truck service and tire
retreading centers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Harris, Esq.
      Priya Mohan, Esq.
      HARRIS & RUBLE
      655 North Central Avenue, 17th Fl.
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (323) 962-3777
      Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
      E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
              pmohan@harrisandruble.com


HAMILTON COMPANY: "Zak" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Zako v. Hamilton Company, Case No. 5:15-cv-03162-HRL (N.D.
Cal., July 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs
pursuant to Fair Labor Standard Act.

Hamilton Company designs, manufactures and sells a wide range of
robotic laboratory products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan H. Siegel, Esq.
      Heather Michelle Conger, Esq.
      SIEGEL LEWITTER MALKANI
      1939 Harrison Street, Suite 307
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 452-5000
      Facsimile: (510) 452-5004
      E-mail: jsiegel@sl-employmentlaw.com
              hconger@sl-employmentlaw.com


KOHL'S CORPORATION: Faces "Le" Suit Over Misleading Price Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Le, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Kohl's Corporation and Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-05758 (C.D. Cal., July 29, 2015), is an action for damages
as result of the Defendants' false and misleading labeling,
advertising, and marketing of supposedly discounted retail prices
based on false and inflated "regular" prices.

The Defendants operate 1,162 department stores in 49 states
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
      Joseph Pettigrew, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      655 North Central Ave., 17th Floor
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (213) 985-1274
      Facsimile: (213) 985-1278
      E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
              jpettigrew@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Erin G. Comite, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      156 South Main Street
      P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Telephone: 860-537-5537
      Facsimile: 860-537-4432
      E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
      P. O. Box 382434
      Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
      Telephone: 205-908-4906
      Facsimile: 866-747-3905
      E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net


LELAND STANFORD: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Lagos, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The Leland Stanford Junior University and Does 1
through 10, Case No. 5:15-cv-03496-BLF (N.D. Cal., July 29, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide
disclosure and obtain the requisite consent before procuring or
causing to be procured consumer reports for employment purposes.

The Leland Stanford Junior University is a private research
university in Stanford, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Roald Dion-Kindem, Esq.
      THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
      PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 883-4900
      Facsimile: (818) 883-4902
      E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

         - and -

      Lonnie C. Blanchard III, Esq.
      THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
      3311 East Pico Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90023
      Telephone: (213) 599-8255
      Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
      E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com

         - and -

      Jeff Holmes, Esq.
      HOLMES LAW GROUP, APC
      3311 East Pico Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90023
      Telephone: (310) 396-9045
      Facsimile: (970) 497-4922
      E-mail: jeffholmesjh@gmail.com


LENDIO INC: Invaded Class Member's Privacy, "Blotzer" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lendio, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01077-JVS-DFM (C.D.
Cal., July 8, 2015), is an action for damages resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully contacting the Plaintiff and class members on
their cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Lendio, Inc. is in the business of offering consumers and business
owners' business loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Johansen" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Johansen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Liberty Mutual Group Inc., Spanish Quotes, Inc. d/b/a
WeSpeakInsurance, Case No. 1:15-cv-12920-ADB (D. Mass., July 8,
2015), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls to Class member's residential telephone.

Liberty Mutual Group Inc. is an American diversified global
insurer and the second-largest property and casualty insurer in
the United States.

Spanish Quotes, Inc. is an insurance shopping network designed to
provide Spanish speaking American with quotes on auto and home
insurance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
      208 Ridge Street
      Winchester, MA 01890
      Telephone: (508) 221-1510
      E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com
              ted@broderick-law.com

         - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      One South Avenue, Third Floor
      Natick, MA 01760
      Telephone: (508) 655-1415
      E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

LOCKHEED MARTIN: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in N.M.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carter Cash v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, and Lockheed Martin
Training Solutions, Case No. 1:15-cv-00506-CG-KBM (D.N.M.,
June 15, 2015) is brought to remedy alleged discrimination and
retaliation on the basis of disability, in violation the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990.

Lockheed Martin Corporation is a foreign, for Profit Corporation
registered to do business in New Mexico and doing business in
Bernalillo County, New Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald G. Gilpin, Esq.
          THE GILPIN LAW FIRM, LLC
          6100 Indian School Rd. NE, Suite 201
          Albuquerque, NM 87110
          Telephone: (505) 244-3861
          Facsimile: (505) 254-0044
          E-mail: ggd48@aol.com


LUCA INTERNATIONAL: Investors File Class Suit Over Alleged Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Berestein Rojas, writing for 89.3 KPCC, reports that
Chinese and local investors filed a class action lawsuit claiming
an investment firm that targeted them through Chinese-language
media and investment seminars for oil exploration instead used
some of the money to buy a luxury home in Fremont and other
personal expenses.

They're seeking $750 million in damages from Luca International
Group LLC, which describes itself as an "upstream energy company"
on its website.

Among Luca's investors were hopeful immigrants who were investing
money through the federal EB 5 visa program, which gives
foreigners legal status if they invest at least $500,000 locally
and the money creates at least 10 jobs.

In a sales pitch at Luca's San Gabriel office, one plaintiff was
allegedly pitched "a 100 percent return on her investment within
three to four years."

According to the suit, it raised $68 million from investors.

The firm is headquartered in Houston, Texas but had offices in
Fremont, Calif. and locally on Valley Boulevard in San Gabriel.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles, alleges breach of contract,
fraud and negligence.  It comes on the heels of an investigation
into the company's practices by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, which filed its own complaint last month.

Company officials could not be reached for comment.  Its Valley
Boulevard office is now vacant and phone numbers listed locally
and in Northern California have been disconnected.  An email to
the company went unanswered on Aug. 7.

One of the Luca companies named in the lawsuit is Luca Energy
Fund, LLC; a "Luca Energy Fund Regional Center" in Texas is among
the hundreds of "immigrant investor regional centers" listed by
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Most of these regional centers are private companies that are
authorized by the government to collect investments from EB 5 visa
applicants.

Launched in 1990, The EB 5 has grown exponentially in recent
years, with applications flooding in from wealthy Chinese as that
country's economy has grown.  The program maxed out last year at
the annual 10,000 visas allowed, the majority going to Chinese
applicants.

The number of EB 5 regional centers has also mushroomed, from just
a handful a decade ago to almost 700 now.  But some have run into
trouble: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services lists 34
regional centers that have been terminated.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Steven Toll Named as Co-Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anthony J. Trenga, of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, has named Steven J. Toll, Managing
Partner of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a veteran class
action litigator, as co-lead counsel in the high-profile class
action lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators.  The lawsuit alleges
that the flooring company sold noncompliant composite flooring
that contains hazardous levels of cancer-causing formaldehyde.

The lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who
allege that Lumber Liquidators sold China-manufactured flooring
that was tainted with hazardous levels of formaldehyde while
falsely labeling their products as meeting or exceeding California
Air Resources Board emissions standards.  This composite laminate
flooring was sold nationwide under the brand name Lumber
Liquidators "Dream Home."

"I appreciate Judge Trenga's confidence in me and in Cohen
Milstein to represent the best interests of this class of
consumers who potentially have been harmed by the irresponsible
and deceptive actions of Lumber Liquidators."

Mr. Toll, who has led numerous stock-fraud cases for plaintiffs,
steered a lawsuit against Countrywide over mortgage-backed
securities to a $500 million settlement in 2013, secured a
recovery of $335 million in RALI Mortgage-Backed Securities
Ligation that was finally approved in July 2015, and recovered a
$275 million settlement in Harborview Mortgage-Backed Securities
Litigation in 2014.  He is currently co-lead counsel in
shareholder litigation against BP related to the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon oil spill.

Mr. Toll and the two other co-lead counsels, Nancy Fineman --
nfineman@cpmlegal.com -- of Cotchette, Pitre & McCarthy LLP, of
Burlingame, Calif., and Steven Berman, of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, of Seattle, Wash., were among dozens of attorneys
seeking court appointment to leadership positions in the class
action lawsuit.

For more information about In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-
Manufactured Flooring Products, Sales Practice and Product
Liabilities Litigation, visit
http://www.cohenmilstein.com/news.php?NewsID=790

Founded in 1969, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC --
http://www.cohenmilstein.com-- is a national leader in plaintiff
class action lawsuits and litigation.  As one of the premier firms
in the country handling major complex cases, including securities
fraud actions, Cohen Milstein, with over 80 attorneys, has offices
in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Palm Beach
Gardens, Fla., and Denver, Colo.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Gonzalez" Over Toxic Flooring Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 7:15-cv-
00327 (S.D. Tex., July 29, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to
comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The
Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of
formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by
the United States National Toxicology Program and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168. Lumber is a retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patricia Rigney, Esq.
      RIGNEY LAW FIRM
      1416 W. Dove Ave.
      McAllen, TX 78504
      Telephone: (956) 457-1181
      Facsimile: (956) 272-0116
      E-mail: Rigneylaw@gmail.com

         - and -

      Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
      Bruce E. Bagelman, Esq.
      LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P.
      3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 777
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 560-2201
      Facsimile: (214) 560-2203
      E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net
              beb@lhlaw.net


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Kumar" Sues Over Toxic Flooring Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shiv Kumar and Misty Kumar, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02760-AJT-TRJ (E.D. Va., July 29, 2015), alleges
that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese
Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable
formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses
excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known
human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program
and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168. Lumber is a retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis Reich, Esq.
      REICH & BINSTOCK, LLP
      4265 San Felipe, Suite 1000
      Houston, TX 77027
      Telephone: (713) 622-7271
      E-mail: dreich@reichandbinstock.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Lowenberg, Esq.
      THE LOWENBERG LAWFIRM
      7941 Katy Freeway #306
      Houston, TX 77024
      Telephone: (832) 241-6000
      Facsimile: (832) 241-6001
      E-mail: mike@thetexastriallawvers.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Badias" Suit Included in China Flooring MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Badias v. Lumber Liquidators,
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-20876, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(Alexandria).  The Virginia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-02631-AJT-TRJR to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 1:15-md-02627-AJT-TRJR.

The actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
regarding whether Lumber Liquidators falsely represented that its
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring complied with California
Air Resources Board standards and other legal requirements
governing the emissions of formaldehyde.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald Peter Weil, Esq.
          RONALD WEIL PA
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Wachovia Financial Center, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-5352
          Facsimile: (305) 372-5355
          E-mail: Ronald@wqmlaw.net

               - and -

          Theodore Babbitt, Esq.
          BABBITT JOHNSON & OSBORNE
          1641 Worthington Road, Suite 100
          PO Box 4426
          West Palm Beach, FL 33402-4426
          Telephone: (561) 684-2500
          Facsimile: (561) 684-6308
          E-mail: tedbabbitt@babbitt-johnson.com

               - and -

          Wendi Leigh Ribaudo, Esq.
          John Marion Quaranta, Esq.
          WEIL QUARANTA, P.A.
          200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-5352
          Facsimile: (305) 372-5355
          E-mail: wribaudo@wqmlaw.net
                  John@wqmlaw.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Emily Yandle Rottmann, Esq.
          Robert Eric Bilik, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          50 N. Laura Street, Suite 3300
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 798-3224
          Facsimile: (904) 798-3263
          E-mail: erottmann@mcguirewoods.com
                  ebilik@mcguirewoods.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Caiola" Suit Included in China Flooring MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Caiola, et al. v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00094, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia (Alexandria).  The Virginia District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:15-cv-02628-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 1:15-md-02627-AJT-TRJR.

The actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
regarding whether Lumber Liquidators falsely represented that its
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring complied with California
Air Resources Board standards and other legal requirements
governing the emissions of formaldehyde.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Margaret Jane Pishko, Esq.
          Scott C. Harris, Esq.
          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600-5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
          E-mail: maggie@wbmllp.com
                  scott@wbmllp.com
                  dan@wbmllp.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joan S. Dinsmore, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          P. O. Box 27507
          434 Fayetteville St., Suite 2600
          Raleigh, NC 27601
          Telephone: (919) 755-6693
          Facsimile: (919) 755-6562
          E-mail: jdinsmore@mcguirewoods.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over China-made Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Johnson, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02632-AJT-
TRJR (E.D. Va., June 15, 2015) alleges that Lumber Liquidators
falsely represented that its Chinese-manufactured laminate
flooring complied with California Air Resources Board standards.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis J. Balint, Jr., Esq.
          BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
          4023 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 4
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (602) 776-5903
          Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
          E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Marmonti" Suit Over China-made Flooring
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Marmonti, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Lumber Liquidators
Leasing, Inc., Lumber Liquidators Holding, Inc., and Lumber
Liquidators Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02629-AJT-TRJR (E.D.
Va., June 15, 2015) alleges that Lumber Liquidators falsely
represented that its Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring
complied with California Air Resources Board standards.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Plummer Lukes, Esq.
          WISE & DONAHUE PLC
          10476 Armstrong Street
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 934-6377
          Facsimile: (703) 934-6379
          E-mail: jlukes@wisedonahue.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Bloomfield" Suit Included in Flooring MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Bloomfield v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01956, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(Alexandria).  The Virginia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-02633-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 1:15-md-02627-AJT-TRJR.

The actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
regarding whether Lumber Liquidators falsely represented that its
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring complied with California
Air Resources Board standards and other legal requirements
governing the emissions of formaldehyde.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Eshoo, Jr., Esq.
          Michael W. Duffy, Esq.
          CHILDRESS DUFFY, LTD.
          500 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 1200
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 494-0200
          Facsimile: (312) 494-0202
          E-mail: Eeshoo@childresslawyers.com
                  mduffy@childresslawyers.com


The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth Camille Christen, Esq.
          Joseph Kent Mathewson, Esq.
          DONOHUE BROWN MATHEWSON & SMYTH
          140 S. Dearborn, Suite 800
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 422-4908
          E-mail: christen@dbmslaw.com
                  kent@dbmslaw.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Hurd" Suit Included in Chinese Flooring MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Harvey Hurd, et al. v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00424, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(Alexandria).  The Virginia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-02635-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 1:15-md-02627-AJT-TRJR.

The actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
regarding whether Lumber Liquidators falsely represented that its
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring complied with California
Air Resources Board standards and other legal requirements
governing the emissions of formaldehyde.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          Wesley K. Polischuk, Esq.
          Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@rcrsd.com
                  wpolischuk@rcrsd.com
                  drobinson@rcrsd.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William L. Stern, Esq.
          Lauren Lynn Wroblewski, Esq.
          Lisa Ann Wongchenko, Esq.
          William F. Tarantino, Esq.
          MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: wstern@mofo.com
                  lwroblewski@mofo.com
                  LWongchenko@mofo.com
                  wtarantino@mofo.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Tyrrell" Suit Consolidated in Flooring MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled John Tyrrell, et al. v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01615, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(Alexandria).  The Virginia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-02634-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 1:15-md-02627-AJT-TRJR.

The actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
regarding whether Lumber Liquidators falsely represented that its
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring complied with California
Air Resources Board standards and other legal requirements
governing the emissions of formaldehyde.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Ari Y. Brown, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-7292
          Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  ari@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330-7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William L. Stern, Esq.
          Lauren Lynn Wroblewski, Esq.
          Lisa Ann Wongchenko, Esq.
          William F. Tarantino, Esq.
          MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: wstern@mofo.com
                  lwroblewski@mofo.com
                  LWongchenko@mofo.com
                  wtarantino@mofo.com


MAGIC BURGERS: "Hall" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Hall v. Magic Burgers, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00382-BJD-PRL
(M.D. Fla., July 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to Fair Labor Standard Act.

Magic Burgers, LLC operates various Burger King restaurants in
Dallas Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey M. Goodz, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Suite 505, 4901 NW 17th Way
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309
      Telephone: (954) 717-4500
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jgoodz@gtemploymentlawyers.com

         - and -

      Richard David Tuschman, Esq.
      GOODZ & TUSCHMAN, PLLC
      8551 W Sunrise Blvd Ste 303
      Plantation, FL 33322-4007
      Telephone: (754) 551-5630
      Facsimile: (954) 380-8938
      E-mail: rtuschman@gtemploymentlawyers.com


MAHINA MELE: Recalls Macadamia Nuts Due to Salmonella
-----------------------------------------------------
Mahina Mele Farms is recalling the following products after FDA
testing found Salmonella in macadamia nuts. Salmonella, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often
experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting
and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with
Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream
and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

To date, no illnesses have been reported in connection with these
products. In the interest of public health and safety, we are
recalling all products processed from this batch of macadamia
nuts.

The following products are involved in the recall. They were
distributed to retail stores from May 26-29, 2015 primarily on the
East Coast and in Hawaii.

  PRODUCT                    UPC            LOT #  SIZE
  -------                    ---            -----  ----
Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts   689076792677   016    6oz (salted)
Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts   689076793575   016    6oz (unsalted)
Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts   689076792776   016    16oz
                                                   (unsalted)
Izzie Macs! Macadamia Nuts   689076792974   016    16oz (salted)
Bulk Macadamia nuts(salted   --             016    5lb bag
and unsalted; wholes and
pieces)
Baby Bruddah's Mac Nut       753182242019   016    12oz
Buttah
Baby Bruddah's Chocolate     735182242040   016    12oz
Mac Nut Buttah

Customers who have purchased the above products should not consume
them and should return them to the store where they were purchased
for a full refund or replacement. Mahina Mele Farm will reimburse
the wholesaler for any returned product.

These products were shipped May 26-29th, 2015 and are from LOT
#016.

If you have any questions, call Jason or Kollette Stith at 808 328
8987.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the Food and Drug
Administration.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm457432.htm


MANGIA FRESCA: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Morales" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Morales, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Mangia Fresca, Inc. and
Paul Impallaria, Case No. 1:15-cv-05989 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons for
all time worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
      Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq.
      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
      E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com
              dwerman@flsalaw.com


MASSACHUSETTS: Probation Officers File Discrimination Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Redmond, writing for Lowellsun, reports that after passing
the Probation Department promotion exam in 2012, Eduardo Rosado, a
16-year veteran Lowell District Court probation officer, said he
was shocked to learn in April that he failed the latest, revised
promotion exam for assistant chief.

"I was really surprised," Mr. Rosado said, sitting on a bench
outside Lowell District Court.

He discovered he passed two sections, which included multiple
choice, but failed the essay portion, the subjective part of the
exam.

All three sections must be passed to pass the exam.

Mr. Rosado, who is Hispanic, said there is an issue with how some
of the questions were worded, along with the essay part of the
test focused on knowledge of a computer system probation officers
don't use and had nothing to do with skills needed for the job.

"I think the test was unfair," he said.

There also appears to be striking disparity along racial lines of
those who failed, said attorney Harold Lichten, who filed a class-
action complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against
Discrimination on behalf of five minority probation officers,
including Rosado.

Trial Court spokesperson Jennifer Donahue said she could not
comment on the MCAD complaint because her office hasn't been
served.

About 200 people took the test in March.  Mr. Lichten said more
than half of the minority candidates failed.  "That's an
extraordinary number," he said.

Still stinging from the test results, Mr. Rosado, 54, said he
viewed this exam as his last chance at a promotion to assistant
chief, and a top salary bump of $10,000, before his retirement in
a few years.

"All I'm after is a fair opportunity for promotion," he said.

Six of the eight minority probation officers who have been working
as acting assistant chiefs for the past 18 months could lose their
jobs because they failed the test, Mr. Lichten said.

"There is something nuts about this test," Mr. Lichten said.
"These are people who have been getting good job reviews for 18
months and now they could lose their jobs."

Acting assistant chiefs who failed the exam were scheduled for
demotion and a pay cut on Aug. 3, but the Trial Court, which
administered the exam, suspended the demotions in the wake of the
controversy surrounding the test results, according to reports.

Trial Court officials sent out an email that the demotions have
been postponed until further notice, adding that officials will
update those impacted when there is additional information.

NAGE, the union that represents probation officers, reportedly has
filed a grievance to permanently stop the demotions.

In a letter to Trial Court officials posted on NAGE's website,
NAGE wrote, "The high percentage of veteran officers who did not
pass seems to statistically invalidate the test."

Trial Court officials are working on an "appropriate resolution"
for those acting assistant chiefs who did not pass the test.

The resolution, Lichten said, is obvious: Void the results of the
current test and create an exam that tests for "real attributes"
required to be a good assistant chief.


MCCORMICK & CO: Fills Pepper Containers 25% Less, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Marsh, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. McCormick & Co., Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
01625-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal., July 29, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's unlawful practice of filling its standardized, opaque
containers with 25% less ground black pepper without changing the
size of the respective tins.

McCormick & Co., Inc. is a Maryland corporation, with its
principal place of business located in Sparks, Maryland. McCormick
is the largest distributor of spices in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael T. Fraser, Esq.
      THE FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      4120 Douglas Blvd., Suite 306-262
      Granite Bay, CA 95746
      Telephone: (888) 557-5115
      Facsimile: (866) 212-8434
      E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net

         - and -

      Polly J. Estes, Esq.
      THE ESTES LAW GROUP
      1005 Northgate Dr., PMB #504
      San Rafael, CA 94903
      Telephone: (415) 376-9726
      E-mail: pollyestes@yahoo.com


MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
iHealthBeat reports that an Indiana resident affected by a data
breach at electronic health record vendor Medical Informatics
Engineering has filed a class-action lawsuit in federal court
against the company, alleging the vendor did not adequately
protect its software from a cyberattack, Health IT Security
reports.

Background

On May 26, MIE discovered an attack on its main network and its
subsidiary NoMoreClipboard's network that started on May 7.  Only
some of the vendor's clients were affected.

Information on the hacked servers included:

  -- Birthdates;
  -- Email addresses;
  -- Dictated reports;
  -- Mailing addresses;
  -- Medical conditions;
  -- Names; and
  -- Social Security numbers.

MIE CEO Eric Jones said it was not immediately clear how many
patients were affected.

Lawsuit Details

The class-action lawsuit, filed by James Young, argues that MIE
did not "take available steps to prevent and stop the breach from
ever happening."

The suit, which is joined by more than 100 plaintiffs, also
alleges that MIE failed to:

  -- Disclose to its customers material facts related to the
breach; and

  -- Provide timely notice of the breach.

According to the lawsuit, "As a result of the MIE data breach,
numerous individuals whose [health information] was used in a MIE
[EHR] have been exposed to fraud and these individuals have been
harmed."

Specifically, the suit claims that Mr. Young "suffered actual
injury from having his [personally identifiable information] and
[personal health information] compromised and stolen in and as a
result of the MIE data breach."

Among other things, the lawsuit seeks to determine whether MIE:

   -- Engaged in wrongful conduct;

   -- Failed to meet its responsibility of protecting patients'
health information; and

  -- Was aware or should have been aware that its systems were
vulnerable.


MERCY MEDICAL: Accused of Racial Discrimination and Retaliation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chantelle Chaffatt v. Mercy Medical Center, Case No. 155698/2015
(N.Y. Sup Ct., June 5, 2015) is brought for discrimination on the
basis of the Plaintiff's race (African American), retaliation and
unlawful policies and practices engaged in by Mercy Medical.

Mercy Medical is a domestic non-profit corporation with its
principal place of business located in Rockville Centre, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marsha Mozammel, Esq.
          IMBESI LAW P.C.
          450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (646) 790-3851
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9177
          E-mail: marsha@lawicb.com


MIAMI HERALD: "Rierra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Odin Rierra, and all others similarly-situated v. Miami Herald
Media Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-22558-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 8,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Miami Herald Media Company is a Florida corporation which
regularly conducted business in Miami-Dade County, Florida by
printing newspaper.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      DANIEL T FELD P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE
      1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com


MINNESOTA: Judge Won't Allow Media Access in Sex-Offender Meeting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Kennedy, writing for Star Tribune, reports that a federal
judge has declined to open the doors on a courthouse conference
that he hopes will produce reforms of the troubled Minnesota Sex
Offender Program (MSOP).

The Star Tribune, the New York Times and 14 other news and open-
government organizations had requested that the Aug. 10 conference
before U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank be open to the public.

Late on Aug. 7, the judge denied the motion, saying he invited
Gov. Mark Dayton, state Attorney General Lori Swanson and top
Republican and DFL legislators to the hearing for "candid input"
on how to reform a system that he has found to be
unconstitutional.

"Because the proceeding will be in the nature of a preliminary
mediation regarding both future proceedings and possible
settlement, it will remain closed," Judge Frank wrote.  He also
rejected a request to provide a full transcript of the hearing, in
lieu of open access.

Mr. Dayton, Ms. Swanson and others involved in the matter -- a
class-action suit filed by several sex offenders to challenge the
MSOP's rules -- have said they favor public access.  But Judge
Frank said trial courts have discretion to limit attendance
without violating First Amendment tenets.

In his order, the judge said the news organizations are missing
the point that the meeting is a pretrial hearing to facilitate
settlement.  "In general, they are conducted in private as a
matter of modern practice," Judge Frank wrote.

Leita Walker, attorney for the groups, had pleaded for public
access because the hearing promises to be a "dynamic" policymaking
session affecting the future of the state.

The MSOP holds about 700 convicted sex offenders, most of whom
have completed prison terms but have been deemed too dangerous for
release.


MORGAN STANLEY: Faces "Yoo" Suit Alleging Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Doreen Yoo v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC and Ian Bernstein,
Case No. 1:15-cv-04663 (S.D.N.Y., June 16, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants engaged in the unlawful discrimination and subsequent
retaliation of the Plaintiff in the terms, conditions, and
privileges of her employment in violation of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 based upon her sex, female.

Morgan Stanley is a corporation licensed to do business in the
state of New York, with offices located in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Sack, Esq.
          SACK & SACK LLP
          110 East 59th Street, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 702-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 702-9702
          E-mail: jsack1@gmail.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: Appeals Court Ruling Based on Future Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Brett Hirsh, Esq. of Levenfeld Pearlstein, in an article for
Corporate Counsel, reports that on July 20 the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dealt what appears to be a fatal
blow to the argument that data breach plaintiffs cannot establish
Article III standing based on the mere risk of a future injury.
In deciding Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, the Seventh Circuit
did what many courts would not -- allowed a data breach lawsuit to
proceed based upon the "substantial risk" of a future injury.   As
a result, plaintiffs now will have a substantially easier
experience proceeding with data breach lawsuits based on the risk
of future injury.

Let's start by answering a question: What is Article III standing?
Article III standing is a constitutionally imposed limitation on
the jurisdiction of federal courts, ensuring that only actual
cases or controversies are considered. According to the U.S.
Supreme Court's Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l. decision, a plaintiff
seeking to establish standing must demonstrate an injury that is
"concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly
traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable
ruling."  A potential future injury may justify standing, and the
Supreme Court took up this issue in Clapper.  Just what is
required by Clapper to establish standing based on the risk of a
future injury is at the very heart of the Neiman Marcus decision.

So, what happened in Neiman Marcus? In 2013, the department store
company Neiman Marcus allegedly suffered a data breach in which
customer credit card numbers may have been stolen through malware
infecting its computer systems.  Neiman Marcus publicly disclosed
that the cyberattack may have compromised some 350,000 credit
cards between July 16, 2013, and October 30, 2013.  Of those
potentially affected credit cards, 9,200 were allegedly used
fraudulently.  Neiman Marcus ultimately took steps to notify all
potentially impacted customers for which it had contact
information.

On the heels of the public disclosure, various federal class
action lawsuits were filed, which were later consolidated.  All of
the plaintiffs alleged that they had shopped at a Neiman Marcus.
Some also alleged that they had been victimized by fraudulent
charges or had been exposed to scams.  Plaintiffs also conceded
that all fraudulent charges were reimbursed.  According to the
district court, ". . . the overwhelming majority of the plaintiffs
allege only that their data may have been stolen."  The court
dismissed the lawsuit for lack of standing.

The Seventh Circuit rejected the district court's decision. First,
it interpreted the facts differently.  It rejected the lower
court's hedging on the alleged theft: ". . .  the complaint
alleges that everyone's personal data has already been stolen."
Moreover, the appeals court expressed the strong view that the
district court "overread" the Supreme Court's Clapper decision.
According to the Seventh Circuit, "Clapper does not, as the
District Court thought, foreclose any use whatsoever of future
injuries to support Article III standing."

Underlying its disagreement with the lower court is its belief
that there exists an alternative to the "certainly impending"
standard.  The Seventh Circuit stated that in Clapper the Supreme
Court "did not jettison the 'substantial risk'" standard in
reference to a possible future injury.  It quotes footnote 5 of
the Clapper decision, which stated, "Our cases do not uniformly
require plaintiffs to demonstrate that it is literally certain
that the harms they identify will come about.  In some instances,
we have found standing based on a 'substantial risk' that the harm
will occur, which may prompt plaintiffs to reasonably incur costs
to mitigate or avoid that harm."  Based on this footnote, the
Seventh Circuit concludes that standing in connection with the
risk of a future injury can be evaluated according to this
alternative standard.

When does the "substantial risk" standard substitute for the
"certainly impending" standard? The Neiman Marcus decision raises
the question but does not answer it.  The Seventh Circuit provides
no guidance as to when the "substantial risk" standard as opposed
to the "certainly impending" standard applies.  However, one thing
is clear: the court believes that the "substantial risk" standard
applies in the context of data breach cases.

The Seventh Circuit was persuaded by the decision in a case in the
Northern District of California -- In re Adobe Sys. Inc. Privacy
Litig. In discussing that case, the court noted: "In a data breach
case similar to ours, a district court persuasively applied these
principles, including Clapper's recognition that a substantial
risk will sometimes suffice to support Article III standing."  The
appellate court seemed to be particularly moved by Adobe's view
that in the context of a data breach, "the risk that Plaintiffs'
personal data will be misused by the hackers who breached Adobe's
network is immediate and very real."

While the Seventh Circuit does not explain on what basis the
district court in Adobe was able to draw the conclusion that there
is an "immediate" risk of misuse of personal data, in Neiman
Marcus the predicate is on full display.  On this crucial point --
the very essence of the standing analysis -- the Seventh Circuit
wrote: "At this stage in the litigation, it is plausible to infer
that the plaintiffs have shown a substantial risk of harm from the
Neiman Marcus data breach. Why else would hackers break into a
store's database and steal consumers' private information?
Presumably, the purpose of the hack is, sooner or later, to make
fraudulent charges or assume those consumers' identities.  The
plaintiffs are also careful to say that only 9,200 cards have
experienced fraudulent charges so far; the complaint asserts that
fraudulent charges and identity theft can occur long after a data
breach."

Can the risk of future injury really be supported by assumptions
about what a computer hacker intended and what he may do in the
future? Clapper certainly does not support this.  In Clapper, the
Supreme Court specifically rejected such conjecture about the acts
of a third party, stating, "We decline to abandon our usual
reluctance to endorse standing theories that rest on speculation
about the decisions of independent actors."  So why did the
Seventh Circuit seem so inclined to revive the Neiman Marcus case?
Here the answer seems obvious.  The court harbors very serious
concerns that "[l]ike the Adobe plaintiffs, the Neiman Marcus
customers should not have to wait until hackers commit identity
theft or credit -- card fraud in order to give the class standing,
because there is an 'objectively reasonable likelihood' that such
an injury will occur."

What does this all mean? First, it is clear that in the Seventh
Circuit there are two possible standards for determining Article
III standing with reference to a possible future injury --
"certainly impending" and "substantial risk."  Neiman Marcus makes
clear that this is not merely a nomenclature issue but an
alternative standard left untouched by Clapper.  It also can
easily be inferred from Neiman Marcus that the "substantial risk"
standard is less rigorous. (Of course, if the contrary were true,
then the Seventh Circuit's conclusion that the Supreme Court did
not proscribe the "substantial risk" standard would be
irrelevant.) Also, the Seventh Circuit's legal analysis
demonstrates a different level of scrutiny.  Unlike Clapper, where
the Supreme Court refused to speculate as to the possible actions
of an independent actor in determining standing, applying the
"substantial risk" standard, the Seventh Circuit buttressed its
conclusion on just that.

The obvious corollary is this: It is now significantly easier to
establish standing in data breach lawsuits.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Balks at Appeals Court Ruling on Data Breach Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the plaintiffs bar is heralding a federal appeals court
ruling that could make it easier for victims of data breaches to
sue, but defense lawyers aren't convinced there's a sea change in
the law.

On July 20, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
reversed dismissal of a class action against Neiman Marcus Group
Ltd. over a 2013 breach that compromised about 350,000 credit
cards of its customers.  The panel held that the plaintiffs had
established a "substantial risk of harm" from the breach to have
standing to bring their case, including the 9,200 customers who
were reimbursed for fraudulent charges but had to spend time and
money to prevent future identity theft or other harm.

Neiman Marcus, citing questions of "exceptional importance" in the
case, filed a petition for rehearing on Aug. 3, arguing that the
decision is "squarely at odds" with the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013
decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, which found that
plaintiffs could pursue a case only if they had established that a
harm was "certainly impending," and not just a "possible future
injury."

"This court is now the first court of appeals to address squarely
the issue of standing in the context of payment card data
breaches, at a time when data breaches -- and resulting litigation
-- are exploding in number," wrote David Hoffman --
david.hoffman@sidley.com -- co-head of Sidley Austin's white
collar group in Chicago.

The decision, he wrote, sets a broad standard based on
"conclusory, speculative allegations of future and present injury"
that is "enormously consequential to the national legal
landscape."

Mr. Hoffman didn't respond to a request for comment, and Neiman
Marcus spokeswoman Ginger Reeder declined to comment.

Plaintiffs lawyer Tina Wolfson, principal of Ahdoot & Wolfson in
West Hollywood, California, did not return a call for comment.
In early 2014, the Dallas-based luxury retailer disclosed the
breach, which lasted more than four months; its chief information
officer, Michael Kingston, testified alongside Target Corp. Chief
Financial Officer John Mulligan at Congressional hearings about
data breaches.

The closely watched decision by the Seventh Circuit already has
been cited by plaintiffs lawyers in other data breach class
actions including those against The Home Depot Inc., Anthem Inc.,
Barnes & Noble Inc. and The Michaels Companies Inc. The Federal
Trade Commission also cited the decision in a novel data breach
case against Wyndham Hotels now before the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

But defense lawyers are firing back, calling the decision an
outlier.

"I can see why plaintiffs would be citing it," said Kenneth Dort,
-- Kenneth.Dort@dbr.com -- a partner in Chicago at Philadelphia's
Drinker Biddle & Reath who represents companies in data breach
actions.  "But in looking at it, I don't think given the facts of
the case that the court was ruling on -- and what they were ruling
on were facts alleged in the complaint -- it really moves the bar
all that far, practically speaking. You've got a situation where
there are several hundred thousand affected people, and a small
percentage of those people actually incur credit card fraud."

U.S. District Judge James Zagel of the Northern District of
Illinois on Sept. 16 had dismissed the case against Neiman Marcus.
But in reversing that decision, the Seventh Circuit cited a
Sept. 4 decision by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern
District of California in a class action against Adobe Systems
Inc. that found the risk of future misuse of the plaintiffs'
personal data was "immediate and very real."

"Our case is much the same," wrote Chief Judge Diane Wood.  "Like
the Adobe plaintiffs, the Neiman Marcus customers should not have
to wait until hackers commit identity theft or credit-card fraud
in order to give the class standing, because there is an
'objectively reasonable likelihood' that such an injury will
occur."

In its petition, Neiman Marcus noted that, unlike the Adobe
breach, which involved personal data, only credit card information
had been stolen from its customers.

Despite the ruling, plaintiffs still have many more hurdles going
forward.  In its decision, the Seventh Circuit was skeptical about
the plaintiffs' contention that they suffered damages based on the
value of their personal information or due to the premium prices
they paid at Neiman Marcus without knowing of the security risks.

"What happen with most of these cases -- the vast majority -- is
if they're not thrown out, there will be a settlement conference,"
Mr. Dort said.


NESTLE USA: Faces "Savalli" Suit Over Misleading Product Label
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johanna R. Savalli, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Nestle USA, Inc. and Gerber Products Company, Case No.
0:15-cv-61554-WJZ (S.D. Fla., July 29, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' false and deceptive practices in deceiving consumers
about the fruit and vegetable content and the nutritional and
health qualities of Gerber Graduates Puffs.

Nestle USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of Nestle SA, a Swiss corporation
that does business in the United Sates and touts itself as the
world's largest food company.

Gerber Products Company is the best-known baby food company in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua R. Gale, Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISCHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
      101 N. Woodland Blvd. Suite 600
      Deland, Florida 32720
      Telephone: (386) 675-6946
      Facsimile: (386) 675-6947
      E-mail: JGale@WCQP.com

         - and -

      E. Clayton Lowe Jr., Esq.
      THE LOWE LAW FIRM, LLC
      301 19th Street North, Ste. 525
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0607
      Facsimile: (205) 314-0707
      E-mail: clowe@claylowelaw.com


NEW YORK DOLLS: Employees File Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
the strippers aren't the only ones getting screwed out of fair
wages at popular jiggle joints New York Dolls, Private Eyes and
Flashdancers, a new class action suit charges.

The strip clubs, which are under the same corporate umbrella,
underpay waiters, porters, bartenders and other employees, the
suit filed in Manhattan Federal Court charges.

The suit names Enrique Arana, who says he worked as a porter 65
hours per week between July 2011 and Jan. 2014 at Flashdancers.
He was then hired at New York Dolls, where he worked as much as 55
hours per week, documents charge.  He made either $75 or $85 flat
per day, with no overtime or lunch breaks, papers charge.

The suit alleges similar rules exist at Private Eyes and seeks
damages to be determined at trial.

The three clubs agreed to a $4.3 million settlement with 267
strippers last year.

A lawyer who represented the clubs in that suit did not respond to
a request for comment.

A cottage industry has sprung up in legal circles over wage
violations in the adult entertainment business.

Scores of other clubs, including the Larry Flynt's Hustler Club,
Lace Gentlemen's Club, Rick's Cabaret and the Penthouse Executive
Club have all been hit with similar suits.


NEW YORK, NY: Cops Ordered to Provide Stop-and-Frisks Receipts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Saul, writing for the New York Post, reports that a new
report filed by the NYPD's federal monitor includes
recommendations that would force cops to have "reasonable
suspicion" before frisking someone, and would require them to fill
out a receipt explaining why a stop was made.

Under the order, cops would have to fill out a "tear-off
information card" with their name, rank, command and shield
number, and hand it over to anyone stopped but not arrested, court
papers state.

"The proposed procedures also require documentation of all stops
and make more explicit the responsibilities of supervising
officers up the chain of command," lawyer Peter Zimroth wrote in
his final recommendations filed in Manhattan federal court on
Aug. 7.

Mr. Zimroth's recommendations to the NYPD come after a 2013 court
order mandating changes to the stop-and-frisk policy.

The proposed "receipt" policy will begin Sept. 21, according to
Mr. Zimroth's recommendation, which was filed in Manhattan federal
court on Aug. 7.

The police officer will also have to check one of seven boxes to
explain why they stopped the person.

The choices include "Concealing or Possessing a Weapon," "Engaging
in a Drug Transaction," "Casing Victim or Location" and "Other."

The card will also provide the following explanation to the person
who was stopped: "The Police Officer stopped you because the
officer had information requiring further investigation.  The
following factor(s) contributed to the officer's suspicion,"
followed by the seven boxes.

Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin ordered changes to stop-and-frisk
in 2013 after a class-action civil rights lawsuit trial in which
plaintiffs said they had been wrongly targeted by police because
of their race.

Her ruling and changes had been in limbo after the city, under
then-Mayor Mike Bloomberg, appealed, but Mayor Bill de Blasio
dropped the appeals, and others by the city's police unions were
also tossed.

The monitor's letter also says he has worked with the NYPD to
revise the patrol guide in terms of what role race can play in
stop-and-frisk, explaining that the new policy he recommends is
that race, age and gender can't be the sole description used to
stop a suspect.

"The procedure states that police action, including stops, frisks,
arrests or other law enforcement actions, may not be motivated,
even in part, by the actual or perceived color, ethnicity, or
national origin of an individual," his letter states.

It goes on to say that race can only be used if it's part of a
specific suspect description that includes not just race, gender
and age, but other identifying characteristics as well.

Mr. Zimroth's letter takes a slightly sarcastic tone when it
introduces this revision, stating: "This is not new law; it is
based on the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution."


NEW YORK, NY: School Safety Agents to Receive $32MM in Backpay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
more than 5,000 school safety agents who won $32 million in
backpay through a class action settlement will soon begin
receiving their money now that a Manhattan Federal Court judge has
shot down a law firm's effort to get a bigger piece of the award.

Judge Sidney Stein denied attorney James Linsey's effort to earn a
windfall by also tapping into the $43.3 million in raises included
in a new contract between the city and safety officers.

The Linsey Law Firm had sought a whopping $11.5 million in fees --
$7.5 million of which would have been paid by the plaintiffs.

Judge Stein reduced the legal fees and costs to $1.9 million
total, which will be paid solely by the city.

A city Law Department spokesman hailed the ruling.

"We agree with the Court's reasoning that awarding the lawyers a
percentage of plaintiffs' recovery . . . would provide an
unwarranted windfall that would be taken from money that would
otherwise go to the plaintiffs themselves," the spokesman said.

The hefty settlement figure was the result of a deal in August of
last year in the case alleging predominantly-female school safety
agents were systematically paid less than predominantly-male
special officers who have similar jobs guarding public buildings
like hospitals.

The settlement was part of the overall contract for both the
agents and officers, which raises wages by 10% over seven years.

The 5,213 school safety officers who are part of the class are
eligible for backpay between $250 and $7,000, according to
documents.  That money will soon be distributed, barring an
appeal.

Mr. Linsey would not say whether he planned to appeal but said
handling the case had been "an honor."

On his site he called the decision "a disappointment" and argued
the firm's suit had spurred the city's new contract with safety
officers.

"It is undisputed that we won for you approximately $33 million in
back pay and over $43.3 million in extraordinary raises, totaling
over $76 million for you and your families," he wrote.

"The Court never credits that, and, unfortunately, that will
likely make it harder, if not impossible, for those like you to
obtain legal representation in future cases."

Judge Stein justified the lesser award to Mr. Linsey's firm by
saying it charged "inflated" rates for its work on the case as
high as $800 per hour.  He wrote that a more reasonable rate was
$450 per hour.

Judge Stein -- who formally approved the settlement in March --
also took exception to the firm's billing practice.  He wrote that
a member of the firm, Andrew Weitz, "billed more than 50 hours for
eight depositions which he admits did not take place."

Teamsters Local 237 President Gregory Floyd, who represents the
safety agents and officers, praised the ruling.

"No money will be coming out of members' pocket," he said.  "That
was the intention of the city when they settled this case."


NEW YORK, NY: Monitor Seeks Approval of Stop-and-Frisk Guidelines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hays, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
federal monitor overseeing changes at the New York Police
Department asked a judge on Aug. 7 to sign off on revised
guidelines intended to make sure that street stops are lawful and
to clarify a ban on racial profiling.

In a letter to the judge, attorney Peter Zimroth wrote that the
changes to the NYPD's patrol guide are needed to clear up
confusion over the department's stop-and-frisk tactics.

"In focus groups and in conversations with individual officers
about stop, question and frisk, we have heard a consistent
message: The officers want more guidance and instruction about
what they can and cannot do under the law," Mr. Zimroth wrote.

Current guidelines focus mainly on what officers should do after
they make stops, but they don't spell out the legal standards
governing when they can stop someone in the first place, he said.

The proposed wording tells officers they're allowed to approach
people to ask questions but adds that the questioning can't be
accusatory.  It also cautions that "the person may refuse to
answer questions and/or walk or even run away" without
consequence.

If officers decide to stop and frisk someone, they must have a
particular reason to believe that person is a criminal suspect, it
says.

"The officer must be able to articulate specific facts
establishing justification for the stop; hunches or gut feelings
are not sufficient," it says.

The directive on racial profiling warns officers not to take
enforcement action based "even in part on a person's actual or
perceived race, color, ethnicity or national origin" unless race
is part of a reliable description of a suspect.

Another federal judge ordered changes in 2013 after a class-action
civil rights trial in which black and Hispanic men said they had
been unfairly targeted by police because of their race.  The judge
found the department had unintentionally discriminated against
minorities and ordered reforms, but she did not end the policy.

In a statement on Aug. 7, police officials said they had "worked
with the monitor and the parties on these new procedures, which
will be implemented as part of the ongoing remedial process in the
stop, question and frisk litigation settlement."

Also on Aug. 7, the Chicago Police Department announced it will
allow independent evaluations of its stop-and-frisk procedures
under an agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union.

The agreement that calls for increased public disclosure and more
training for officers follows a scathing March 2015 report from
the ACLU of Illinois that found Chicago officers
disproportionately target blacks and other racial minorities in
hundreds of thousands of stop, question and frisk encounters.

The NYPD is the nation's largest department with more than 35,000
uniformed officers.  The next largest is Chicago with about
13,000.


NEW YORK, NY: ACS Sued Over Failure to Keep Foster Children Safe
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elisa W., et al. v. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-05273-LTS (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' failure to keep all children who are now or will be in
the foster care custody of the Commissioner of New York City's
Administration for Children's Services safe. And, instead of
ensuring that New York City's foster children grow up in safe,
permanent families, the Defendants' policies and customs cause far
too many children to grow up in the custody of the state, without
a home or family to call their own.

The City of New York was, and is, a municipal entity created and
authorized under the laws of the State of New York. It is
authorized by law to maintain and ultimately is responsible for
the New York City Administration for Children's Services, which
acts as its agent in the area of protecting the safety and welfare
of children in the City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julie A. North, Esq.
      CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
      825 Eighth Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 474-1000
      Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
      E-mail: jnorth@cravath.com


NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit for Violating Disabilities Act
-------------------------------------------------------
Clarice Pfeffer and Dulce Malagon, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. New York City Department of
Finance; Jacques Jiha, as Commissioner of the New York City
Department of Finance; NYSANDY3 NBP3, LLC; and FANSAM Properties,
LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03547-PKC-MDG (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2015)
alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donna Dougherty, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES FOR THE ELDERLY IN QUEENS
          97-77 Queens Boulevard, Suite 600
          Rego Park, NY 11374
          Telephone: (718) 286-1500
          Facsimile: (718) 275-5352
          E-mail: ddougherty@jasa.org

               - and -

          Leslie Salzman, Esq.
          CARDOZO BET TZEDEK LEGAL SERVICES
          55 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 790-0240
          Facsimile: (212) 790-0256
          E-mail: salzman@yu.edu

               - and -

          Matthew J. Chachere, Esq.
          NORTHERN MANHATTAN IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
          45 Wadsworth Avenue
          New York, NY 10033
          Telephone: (212) 822-8309
          E-mail: matthewchachere@nmic.org


PFIZER INC: Chicken Vaccine Litigation to Remain in Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a lawsuit filed by Mexican chicken breeders against pharmaceutical
companies Pfizer and Zoetis for producing faulty chicken vaccines
will be litigated in Pennsylvania, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania denied Zoetis' motion, joined by Pfizer, to move the
case to Mexico, where plaintiffs Incubadora Mexicana and
Incubadoras Rancho Grande are based.

Zoetis argued that since neither of the chicken breeders had ties
to Pennsylvania, the case should be sent to Mexico since it is the
plaintiffs' place of residence and base of business operations.

The breeders responded the defendants' corporate headquarters are
in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and the vaccine, Poulvac, was
alleged to have been manufactured in Pennsylvania.

But Judge Beetlestone wrote in her opinion that the breeders had
shown that Pennsylvania was a convenient venue for the parties.

"Moreover, plaintiffs first attempted to address their losses with
their counterparts in Mexico but were repeatedly told to bring
their complaints to Zoetis in the United States," Judge
Beetlestone said.

"Plaintiffs have explained in detail why they believe much of the
evidence they need to establish liability is located in the United
States, including information defendants gathered as part of an
internal inquiry concerning the failed Poulvac vaccines.  On a
motion to dismiss, plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to
support an inference that their choice of forum was in fact based
on convenience, and the court will defer to that choice."

Judge Beetlestone said the plaintiffs, who breed and supply
egg-laying chickens, routinely purchase vaccines to protect their
chickens against the potentially fatal Marek's disease virus.

According to Judge Beetlestone, the defendants advertised Poulvac
as the "most effective [Marek vaccine] on the market."

The plaintiffs had low rates of the Marek's disease virus among
their chicken stock, thanks to the vaccines, until January 2014,
when the defective batch was shipped, according to Beetlestone.

The defendants did not alert the breeders about the defective
vaccines until July 2014.  By that time, according to Judge
Beetlestone, the breeders experienced significant losses in their
livestock.

When the breeders contacted Zoetis' Mexican division, they were
told that the company's New Jersey headquarters office was
handling the matter, according to Judge Beetlestone.

When the breeders filed suit, the defendants made a motion for
forum non conveniens.  One of the factors the court examined was
whether the public interest of Pennsylvania's citizenry would be
served by keeping the case in the state.

"While Mexico would certainly have an interest in protecting its
citizens, there is also a local interest in the dispute as it
involves the sale of vaccines allegedly manufactured in this
state, and Pennsylvania has an interest in ensuring that its
corporations do not engage in tortious conduct which causes injury
to anyone, regardless of where those individuals reside," Judge
Beetlestone said.  "For the same reasons, it is appropriate for a
Pennsylvania jury to sit for this case."

Pfizer's animal health division was based in Exton, Pennsylvania.
Another issue advanced by Zoetis was that Mexican law governs the
case, and the court should not be burdened with applying foreign
law.  Conversely, the plaintiffs argued there was no conflict
between Mexican and Pennsylvania law; therefore, the Eastern
District court should maintain jurisdiction.

Judge Beetlestone said under the federal civil rules, Zoetis, as
the party seeking the application of foreign law, had the burden
for proving whether a conflict existed between Pennsylvania and
Mexican law.

"It did not carry that burden," Judge Beetlestone said.  "Zoetis'
arguments with respect to choice of law focused on whether Mexico
or Pennsylvania has a greater interest in the dispute."

However, Judge Beetlestone said that analysis is only significant
after the court has determined whether a conflict exists.

"Although Zoetis submitted an expert declaration on Mexican law,
that declaration focused solely on whether plaintiffs would have
'access to justice' in Mexico and did not identify any particular
Mexican laws or cite any particular cases," Judge Beetlestone
said.  "The declaration certainly did not explain how Mexican law
differs for each of the 10 counts in plaintiffs' complaint."

Aaron Freiwald -- ajf@layserfreiwald.com -- of Layser & Freiwald
represented the breeders.

"We're pleased that the case is going to stay here in federal
court," Mr. Freiwald said.  "We believe that these companies and
their conduct can be fairly evaluated and they can be held
accountable right here in Pennsylvania."

Joseph Blum -- jblum@shb.com -- of Shook, Hardy & Bacon
represented the defendants and did not return a call seeking
comment.


PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Awards $11 Million to Florida Smoker
--------------------------------------------------------
Alyson Palmer, writing for Daily Report, reports that a team of
Atlanta lawyers has won an $11 million verdict for a Florida
smoker against cigarette maker Philip Morris.

The Duval County, Florida, jury on July 31 came back with the
plaintiff's verdict after a three-week trial, finding that
plaintiff Elaine Jordan has suffered $7.8 million in compensatory
damages.  On Aug. 3, the jury added $3.2 million in punitive
damages.

The plaintiff's team included lead counsel Laura Shamp --
shamp@ssjwlaw.com -- and her partner, Laurie Speed --
speed@ssjwlaw.com -- of Shamp, Speed, Jordan & Woodward, and
Leslie Bryan -- lbryan@dsckd.com -- of Doffermyre Shields Canfield
& Knowles, all from Atlanta.  John Kalil -- jkalil@akjaxlaw.com --
Michael Kalil and Elaine Jones from Jacksonville served as local
counsel.  Philip Morris' team was led by Walter Cofer --
wcofer@shb.com -- of Shook, Hardy & Bacon's Kansas City, Missouri,
office.

Ms. Jordan's case is one of the so-called Engle progeny cases.
The Florida Supreme Court in 2006 decertified a class action and
tossed the $145 billion punitive damages award in Engle v. Liggett
Group Inc.  But the court allowed individual plaintiffs to rely in
the future on the class action jury's findings about the dangers
of cigarettes.  Thousands of individuals subsequently filed suit,
basing their claims on the jury findings from the initial class
action.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled earlier
this year that the practice of using jury findings from the
tobacco class action conflicted with Congress' decision to
regulate cigarettes but not ban them.  But Ms. Shamp said that
ruling does not apply to Florida state court cases in light of a
different Florida Supreme Court ruling.

Ms. Shamp said Ms. Jordan's case was the fifth Florida Engle
tobacco case she has tried and by far the largest verdict out of
the five. She said a key advantage that Ms. Jordan had over other
clients was that she had lived to see a trial, which made her
testimony over how she became addicted to smoking more effective
than in cases where spouses or children of deceased smokers have
to prove that element.

Mr. Cofer could not be reached to discuss the verdict.

Born in 1949, Ms. Jordan is a north Florida woman who claimed her
addiction to cigarettes caused her to develop chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease (COPD).  According to Ms. Speed, Ms. Jordan
began smoking at age 14 and stopped so that she could receive a
lung transplant in 2002.  Ms. Jordan received a second transplant
in 2012.

Ms. Jordan initially sued several tobacco companies.  But,
according to her lawyers, Ms. Jordan smoked primarily Marlboros,
so she dropped her claims against companies other than Marlboro-
maker Philip Morris.

At the trial before Circuit Judge Virginia Norton, Ms. Jordan's
lawyers had to prove that she was part of the Engle class by
showing that she had been addicted to cigarettes, that addiction
caused her injuries and that her injury manifested itself between
1990 and 1996.

The defense contended that Jordan was not addicted to cigarettes
but smoked as a personal choice, said Ms. Speed.  The defense
claimed Jordan had hypersensitivity pneumonitis instead of COPD,
blaming Jordan's 15 years of working in a sawmill.

The defense also disputed that Jordan's injury had manifested
during the 1990-1996 class window, according to Ms. Speed.  The
defense argued that she fell outside of that time period because
her symptoms had begun prior to 1990 and she hadn't been diagnosed
until 1999.

A key challenge for the plaintiff was a lack of medical records
showing she was diagnosed with COPD in 1993 as she claimed.
Ms. Shamp said this was a common problem for Engle cases, as
medical records are destroyed after seven years in Florida.  Judge
Norton, the trial judge, dealt a further blow to the plaintiff
when she ruled that medical insurance records from that time could
not be admitted as evidence.

The plaintiff was able to overcome that hurdle by presenting
testimony from Ms. Jordan, her daughter and Ms. Jordan's treating
pulmonologist, said Ms. Speed.

A six-person jury -- three African-Americans and three whites, two
men and four women -- awarded $4.8 million for past and future
pain and suffering, $2.5 million for past and future medical
bills, $400,000 for past lost income and $76,000 for future loss
of services.  The jury also found that punitive damages were
warranted, sending the case into a second phase.

During the punitives phase, Philip Morris' lawyer argued that
there was no need to punish the company because it had changed,
having for years acknowledged publicly that there is no such thing
as a safe cigarette.

"The Philip Morris of today in 2015 conducts itself much
differently . . . than 50 or 60 years ago," Mr. Cofer told the
jury in arguments captured on video by Courtroom View Network.  He
added that the company was led by different people and operating
in a new regulatory environment.

Ms. Shamp told jurors that it was lawsuits that had led Philip
Morris to change, and the company was still marketing its
cigarettes.  "The only thing that will make them change is money,"
Ms. Shamp told jurors, calling Ms. Jordan "the person Philip
Morris doesn't give one iota about."  Ms. Shamp asked for $22
million in punitive damages -- two days of profit for Philip
Morris -- but the jury instead awarded $3.2 million, which brought
the total award up to $11 million, or one day of profits.

The jurors deliberated about five hours before coming back with
the compensatory award but took only 20 minutes to dole out
punitives, according to Ms. Jordan's attorneys.

The jury apportioned 40 percent of the responsibility of
Ms. Jordan's injuries to Jordan herself.  But because the jury
also found that Philip Morris had committed intentional torts of
conspiracy and fraud-also the basis for the jury to award punitive
damages -- the apportionment of fault does not reduce Ms. Jordan's
recovery, her lawyers said.  Ms. Shamp said the medical expenses
portion of the verdict likely will be reduced by about $1.4
million under a Florida procedure for handling awards for medical
bills.

Ms. Speed said Ms. Jordan feels guilty about her smoking and
grateful for her transplants.  After the verdict was announced,
said Ms. Speed, "She looked at me and said, 'at least it shows I'm
not the only one who is at fault.'"

Ms. Jordan had offered to settle the case for $100,000, according
to Shamp, allowing the plaintiff to recover attorney fees under
Florida's offer-of-judgment law because she fared so much better
at trial.

"We overshot that," Ms. Shamp deadpanned.  "We did OK."  She
valued the attorney fees at $2 million. She said the plaintiff
also could seek $250,000 as the prevailing party.

Plaintiffs' lawyers in February announced they had reached a $100
million aggregate settlement with several tobacco companies for a
subset of the Engle-progeny cases, approximately 400 that were
pending in federal district court.  But Ms. Shamp said that
generally tobacco companies do not settle state court cases.

Ms. Shamp said she had won four of the five Engle cases that she
has tried, with the next highest verdict coming in at $1 million.
She attributed the relatively low verdicts to juries apportioning
considerable responsibility to the smoker, as well as the
difficulties of making a case for an intentional tort without the
smoker available to testify.

"This is my first living smoker," she added.  "So we had all of
the advantages of actually having the smoker there to testify."

Proving an intentional tort requires proof that the smoker relied
on the representations of the tobacco company, which is easier to
do when the smoker can testify, Ms. Shamp explained.  She added
that her client had switched to light cigarettes, which tobacco
makers had falsely suggested were safer, adding to her case.  "She
was incredibly sympathetic," said Ms. Shamp.


PLAIN GREEN: Faces RICO Class Action in Vermont
-----------------------------------------------
Ben Walsh, writing for The Huffington Post, reports that online
payday lender Plain Green allegedly blocked borrowers from
accessing their accounts or viewing their loan documentation,
leaving borrowers unsure of their legal rights and how much they
still owed, according to a complaint filed in U.S. District Court
in Vermont on Aug. 4.

The complaint, part of a class-action lawsuit led by two Vermont
residents, adds federal racketeering charges to the list of
alleged violations of federal trade and consumer protection laws
levied against the company when the suit was first filed in in
May.  The Pennsylvania attorney general is also suing Think
Finance, a Texas-based finance company connected to Plain Green,
in federal court for alleged violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

"None of the Plaintiffs in this action can access any of the
records relating to their loans from Plain Green, including any
purported arbitration agreement," the complaint states.

The complaint says that the Chippewa Cree laws that the loans are
subject to are not available online, and that "organizations --
like law school libraries -- will not provide a copy . . . by
remote access" because Plain Green executives "have not granted
them the right do to do."

Plain Green's loan agreement states that the loans are governed by
the laws of the Chippewa Cree tribe of Montana, which owns the
company.  However, as The Huffington Post recently reported, the
tribe's ownership of Plain Green is nominal at best: The company
is part of a growing trend of "rent-a-tribe" operations, where
off-reservation finance companies use tribal sovereignty as a
shield to try to evade state lending regulations and consumer
protection laws.

Company documents, which HuffPost first published in June, have
now been filed in the Vermont class action case.  They show that
the tribe receives just a tiny fraction of the company's revenues
and plays little part in running the business. The Chippewa Cree
tribe only receives between 4.5 percent and 5.5 percent of the
revenues generated by the company.  (A term sheet outlining the
deal notes that the company was to be 51 percent owned by the
tribe. A recent tribal resolution submitted in court states that
Plain Green is "wholly owned" by the Chippewa Cree.)

The bulk of the operation's incoming cash -- an estimated $500
million to $700 million a year -- flows off the reservation to
Think Finance and to other third parties, including an anonymous
Cayman Islands limited liability company.

The latest complaint adds Ken Rees, the former chairman and CEO of
Think Finance and current CEO of Elevate, a lending company spun
off of Think Finance last year, as a defendant, along with the
venture capital firms Sequoia Capital and Technology Crossover
Ventures, both investors in Think Finance.

The complaint points to Sequoia and TCV's intensive due diligence
processes, which include an analysis of legal risk.  It alleges
that they were "fully aware" of how Think Finance and Plain Green
operated, and that they "knew that the practices violated the law"
before they decided to invest.

"The very purpose of an online lender affiliating with a tribe is
specifically and expressly so that they can lend in violation of
state laws," Ellen Harnick, a payday lending expert at the Center
For Responsible Lending, told HuffPost in June.

In a statement to HuffPost, Plain Green CEO Joel Rosette said the
amended suit "is a transparently desperate attempt to inject new
life into a baseless lawsuit full of allegations that are not only
false but are also disparaging to all members of the Chippewa Cree
Tribe."

The amended lawsuit claims that the complex structure of its
subsidiaries is an effort on the part of Think Finance and Rees
"to isolate and decrease any liability they may face."

Think Finance and TCV declined to comment for this article.
Sequoia did not return requests for comment.


PML CLUBS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Hoyt" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Hoyt and Lisa Sodekson, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. PML Clubs, Inc., East Coast Restaurant
& Nightclubs, LLC, d/b/a The Gold Club, and Michael Rose, Case No.
4:15-cv-02711-RBH (D.S.C., July 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay the full federal minimum wage as
required by the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of strip clubs located
throughout the country, including Myrtle Beach and Hilton Head,
South Carolina; Bedford, New Hampshire; Las Vegas, Nevada;
Greensboro, North Carolina; San Francisco and San Jose,
California; and Wilmington, Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Rothstein, Esq.
      ROTHSTEIN LAW FIRM
      1312 Augusta Street
      Greenville, SC 29605
      Telephone: (864) 232-5870
      Facsimile: (864) 241-1386
      E-mail: derothstein@mindspring.com


PNC BANK: Faces Class Action Over Employee Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bowling, writing for TRIBLive, reports that PNC Bank
violates state and federal wage laws when it comes to paying its
mortgage loan officers, three former employees and one current
employee claim in a proposed federal class-action lawsuit filed on
Aug. 7.

The current and two of the former employees worked for PNC in
Florida while the other former employee worked in Ohio.  Their
employment contracts require any lawsuits be filed in Pittsburgh,
the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit seeks to represent all mortgage loan officers who have
worked in Pennsylvania during the last three years and any former
mortgage loan officers who had to sign an employment contract the
bank circulated after it was sued in 2011 for misclassifying them
as being exempt from wage and hour laws.

A PNC spokesman couldn't be reached for comment.

The lawsuit claims that while PNC appears to pay mortgage loan
officers an annual salary of $24,000, it deducts that amount from
their commissions.  The bank discourages them from reporting
overtime and, when they work approved overtime, also deducts the
regular pay portion of that overtime, $11.54 per hour, from their
commissions, the lawsuit says.

PNC also underpays overtime by not including their commissions and
bonuses as part of their total wages before calculating the hourly
rate that it pays time-and-a-half on, the lawsuit says.


PROFESSIONAL BUREAU: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachael Freilich, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Professional Bureau of Collections of
Maryland, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03461 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2015)
alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395-3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


QUETZAL RESTAURANT: Faces "Demesio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Montiel Bonilla Demesio, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Quetzal Restaurant & Bakery Inc., d/b/a
Quetzal Restaurant and Pedro Jimenez, Case No. 1:15-cv-03987-ILG-
RML (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Quetzal Restaurant, a Dominican
restaurant located at 6420 17th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11204.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


RELIABLE DRYWALL: Sued in Ga. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonel Banegas, Mariela Mejia, Zeluma Mendoza and Karla Montalvan
v. Reliable Drywall Contractors, Inc., Saucedos Drywall LLC, and
Timothy S. Looney d/b/a Pioneer Development, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02674-WSD (N.D. Ga., July 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
over 40 during work weeks.

The Defendants operate as dry wall contractors doing business
within the State of Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Moore Weaver, Esq.
      QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO, LLP
      3516 Covington Hwy.
      Decatur, GA 30032
      Telephone: (404) 299-1211
      E-mail: rweaver@qcwdr.com


REMINGTON OUTDOOR: Victims to Split $1.5MM from Lanza Estate
------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Nolan, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that the families of 16 victims of the Newtown school shooting are
set to split $1.5 million under proposed settlements against the
estate of the gunman's mother.

The settlement proposals were disclosed in probate court documents
filed Aug. 3.  The families suing Nancy Lanza's estate would
evenly divide a $1.5 million homeowner's insurance policy that
Lanza had on her Newtown home if a judge approves the plan. Each
family would receive $93,750.

The lawsuits were filed on behalf of 16 of the victims who
perished in the massacre.  Initially, according to plaintiffs
lawyers, two survivors of the attack also were part of the lawsuit
but they withdrew their suits in April.

The settlement includes a confidentiality agreement precluding the
plaintiff's lawyers from commenting on specifics of the
litigation.

The lawsuits had alleged that Ms. Lanza was careless and negligent
in allowing her son, Adam Lanza, to get his hands on an unsecured
Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle that he used in the rampage.
Nancy Lanza bought the rifle in 2010 from Riverview Gun Sales in
East Windsor, the now-closed retailer named in another related
Sandy Hook school shooting lawsuit.

Mr. Lanza was killed by her son in their home before he drove to
the school and killed 20 first-graders and six teachers.

Nancy Lanza had an insurance policy on the home and the lawsuits
were essentially notices of claims for that policy.  The
plaintiffs' attorneys said the homeowner's insurance can apply
when a person is injured as a result of an unsecured firearm in
the home being accessed by a third party.

One of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Joshua Koskoff, of Koskoff Koskoff
& Bieder in Bridgeport, had told the Law Tribune earlier this year
that he had expected the lawsuit regarding the insurance policy to
be settled without a trial.  "This is procedural.  We expect these
insurance claims to be resolved quickly," Mr. Koskoff said.  "With
this many claimants, the money ends up being a symbolic gesture;
but it serves as an important reminder that people who keep
firearms in the home must be scrupulous about securing their
weapons."

Mr. Koskoff filed a lawsuit against Ms. Lanza's estate on behalf
of three children who were killed -- Benjamin Wheeler,
Dylan Hockley and Daniel Barden.  Other plaintiffs represented by
his firm include the families of teachers who were killed,
including Rachel D'Avino, Victoria Soto and Lauren Rousseau, and
two teachers who were injured.

Mr. Koskoff also represents many of the same families in a lawsuit
pending against the Remington Outdoor Co., the distributor of the
Bushmaster rifle Lanza used.

Angelo Ziotas, of Silver Golub & Teitell in Stamford, represented
Mark Mattioli, whose 6-year-old son James was among the children
killed.  Mr. Ziotas explained how the other lawsuits filed against
Nancy Lanza's estate came to be.

"The perpetrator of the horrible crimes of December 14, 2012, is
dead and had no assets.  His mother, who carelessly gave her son
access to lethal weapons despite his psychological problems, is
also dead," said Mr. Ziotas.  "Up until shortly before the statute
of limitations ran, many of the families who suffered losses at
Sandy Hook were faced with being unable to bring Adam Lanza to
justice or otherwise hold him or his mother accountable for what
her son was able to do because of her actions.

"When several Sandy Hook families learned that the estate of
Nancy Lanza had insurance coverage that might be available to them
shortly before the statute of limitations was about to run on
these claims, the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association organized
firms to represent seven of the estates," Mr. Ziotas continued.
"The lawyers representing those seven estates are handling these
claims completely pro bono, with no fees or expenses charged to
the clients."

The estate of Charlotte Bacon was represented by John J. Kennedy
Jr. of Kennedy, Johnson, Schwab & Roberge in New Haven. Rosemarie
Paine, of Jacobs & Dow in New Haven, represented the estate of
Grace McDonnell.

The estate of Emilie Parker was represented by Michael D'Amico of
D'Amico, Griffin & Pettinicchi in Watertown.  Douglas Mahoney, of
Tremont Sheldon Robinson Mahoney in Bridgeport, represented the
estate of Jack Pinto.

The estate of Jessica Rekos was represented by D. Lincoln Woodard
of Walsh Woodard in Hartford.  And David Cooney of RisCassi &
Davis in Hartford, represented the estate of Mary Sherlach.

The Koskoff firm represented their clients in this case on a pro
bono basis.

Handling the settlement agreements on behalf of Nancy Lanza's
estate was John Majewski of Tinley, Renehan & Dost in Waterbury.
Majewski was on vacation last week and unavailable for comment.

Peter Kochenburger, executive director of the Insurance Law Center
at the University of Connecticut School of Law, said the growing
trend nationally is for insurance companies to include provisions
in policies that block the type of coverage the victims' families
collected from in this litigation.

"The trend is to add a clause which will eliminate any insurance
coverage if any of the policyholders committed an intentional
harm," said Mr. Kochenburger.

Mr. Kochenburger said, however, that mass shootings are not a
large source of loss for insurance companies.


RESORT AT PELICAN: Treats Older Worker Differently, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ramir R'Cornbart v. The Resort at Pelican Hill; The Irvine
Company, LLC; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2015-
00791647 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 5, 2015) alleges that the
Plaintiff was treated differently from other employees due to his
age.

The Resort at Pelican Hill is a California business entity with
its principal place of business located in Newport Coast,
California.  The Irvine Company, LLC is a California business
entity with its principal place of business located in Newport
Beach, California.  The Plaintiff does not know the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stanton T. Mathews, Esq.
          Andrew J. Nissen, Esq.
          STANTON T. MATHEWS & ASSOCIATES, A LAW CORP.
          24012 Calle de la Plata, Suite 320
          Laguna Hills, CA 92653
          Telephone: (949) 586-2235
          Facsimile: (949) 586-1806
          E-mail: mathews@mathewsfirm.com
                  nissen@mathewsfirm.com


RETRIEVAL MASTERS: "Areizaga" Suit Asserts FDCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Areizaga, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau Inc.,
a/k/a American Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 1:15-cv-03476-
FB-SMG (E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Palace, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
          383 Kingston Avenue, #113
          Brooklyn, NY 11213
          Telephone: (347) 651-1077
          Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
          E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


SCOUT ANALYTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Weller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Scout Analytics, Inc., ServiceSource International,
Inc., and Mike Smerklo, Case No. 5:15-cv-03170-EJD (N.D. Cal.,
July 8, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Scout Analytics, Inc. is a cloud-based customer lifecycle
management solution designed to maximize customer value and
accelerate sustainable growth in revenue and profits.

ServiceSource International, Inc. provides cloud-based recurring
revenue management solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Du Wors, Esq.
      NEWMAN DU WORS LLP
      2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1500
      Seattle, WA 98121
      Telephone: (206) 274-2800
      Facsimile: (206) 274-2801
      E-mail: john@newmanlaw.com

         - and -

      Leeor Neta, Esq.
      NEWMAN DU WORS LLP
      1900 Powell Street, Sixth Floor
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Telephone: (415) 944-5422
      Facsimile: (415) 944-5423
      E-mail: leeor@newmanlaw.com


SILVER WHEATON: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Masilionis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Silver Wheaton Corp., Randy V. J. Smallwood,
Peter Barnes, and Gary Brown, Case No. 2:15-cv-05146-CAS-JEM (C.D.
Cal., July 8, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Silver
Wheaton Corp. provides precious metal streaming services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


SOLOMON AND SOLOMON: Faces "Palace" Suit Over FDPCA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mordechai Palace, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Solomon and Solomon, P.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-
04434 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      83 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


SONY PICTURES: Data Breach Class Action Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------
Danielle Correa, writing for SC Magazine, reports that moves to
dismiss a class action suit against Sony Pictures Entertainment
have failed and the case, initially filed on March 2, 2015, will
continue with nine plaintiffs suing the company in the wake of the
security breach in which Sony's information technology
infrastructure and network were hacked.

Sensitive personal data of at least 15,000 former and current Sony
employees were stolen.  "The information included financial,
medical and other personally identifiable information (PII), was
used to threaten the individual victims and their families, and
was posted on the internet," said Judge Klausner of the US
District Court.

The plaintiffs, who are all former employees of Sony, cited these
claims:

negligence, breach of implied contract, violation of the
California Customer Records Act, violation of the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, violation of the
Unfair Competition Law, Declaratory Judgment, violation of
Virginia Code Sec. 18.2-186.6 and violation of Colorado revised
statutes Sec. 6-1-716.

Judge Klausner stated, "The[se factual allegations] alone are
sufficient to establish a credible threat of real and immediate
harm, or certainly impending injury."

On June 5, the court granted a motion to dismiss the case but only
in part, allowing progress to trial.

Many press accounts attributed the Sony hack to North Korea,
seemingly a response to the release of the movie "The Interview",
thought to be offensive by the country and its leaders.  Others
suggested that the motive was purely financial, making a non-state
actor more likely.

Sony argued that the plaintiffs endured no current or threatened
injury that is impending, but the court rejected those arguments.

The court rejected the negligence claim of the plaintiffs due to a
failure to notify them of the security breach in time.  However,
the claim was admitted to continue on the basis of Sony's "alleged
breach of duty to maintain adequate security measures."

The plaintiffs argued that by hiring and paying them there came
about an implied contract to protect their data.  The court
clashed with this argument and granted Sony's motion to dismiss to
that cause of action.

The court granted Sony's motion to dismiss to an alleged violation
of the California Records Act, but they found that under the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act that the
plaintiffs could proceed, as no formal disclosure was required of
Sony.  The Act requires each employer that receives medical
information to establish appropriate procedures to ensure
confidentiality and protection from unauthorized use and
disclosure of the information.

The motion to dismiss was denied under the Unfair Competition
allegations of the plaintiffs but granted as to alleged violations
of the Virginia Code.  Lead plaintiff, Michael Corona, a Virginia
resident, "discovered an unencrypted spreadsheet containing his
[personal information] online, before he received any notification
from Sony, and before he had an opportunity to obtain identity
protection services."

Motion to dismiss was granted as to violation of Colorado's
Consumer Protection Act, due to there being no private right to
sue under the statute.  The state's attorney general is the only
one to keep such an action.

The court failed to hinder the plaintiffs from pursuing injunctive
and declaratory relief.


SPRINGFIELD, IL: Panhandling Ordinance Deemed Unconstitutional
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Yeagle, writing for Illinois Times, reports a federal
appellate court ruled on Aug. 7 that Springfield's ordinance
banning a certain form of panhandling downtown is
unconstitutional.

The case has been pending for almost two years, after panhandlers
Don Norton and Karen Otterson of Springfield filed a class action
lawsuit in September 2013.  They alleged the City of Springfield
violated their First Amendment right to free speech through an
ordinance banning oral requests for immediate monetary donations
in the city's downtown.  They also claimed certain Springfield
police officers harassed them outside of the downtown, using a
state law regarding business solicitations along roadsides.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, which includes Springfield, ruled on Aug. 7 that the
city's panhandling ban doesn't pass a test created in another
panhandling case recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

That case, Reed v. Gilbert, arose from a town in Arizona and held
that more strict regulations on certain signs than on others was
"content-based" regulation, a form of discrimination based on the
sign's message.  Applying the Reed decision to Mr. Norton and
Ms. Otterson's case, the appellate court held that the City of
Springfield had failed to provide a "compelling justification" for
why it should be allowed to distinguish between an unpopular form
of speech -- panhandling -- and other forms of speech.

The Aug. 7 decision reversed a lower court's decision on Norton
and Mr. Otterson's lawsuit, sending the case back to the lower
court to issue an injunction barring the city from enforcing its
ordinance.

Mr. Norton says he and Ms. Otterson plan to seek damages in their
case, although the decision from the appellate court did not touch
on whether Springfield police had violated the panhandlers'
rights.


ST. JOHN MEDICAL: Faces Age Discrimination Case in Ohio Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick J. Hauck v. St. John Medical Center, Case No. CV-15-846572
(Ohio Comm. Pleas, June 4, 2015) alleges age discrimination.

St. John Medical Center is an Ohio Corporation licensed to do
business in the state of Ohio and engaged in operating hospital(s)
and medical center(s).  St. John Medical Center owns and operates
the St. John Medical Center hospital located in Westlake, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J. Ebner, Esq.
          William D. Brown, Esq.
          STEUER, ESCOVAR, BERK & BROWN CO., LPA
          55 Public Square, Suite 1475
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 771-8121
          Facsimile: (216) 771-8120
          E-mail: pebner@sebblaw.com
                  wbrown@sebblaw.com


TRI-COUNTY HOME: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bethie St. Fort Colin v. Tri-County Home Nursing Services, Inc.,
Linda Cunegin, Taniella Jo Harrison, and Giana B. Harrison, Case
No. 606488/2014 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 4, 2015) alleges that the
Plaintiff is entitled to: (i) wages from the Defendants because
she was paid below the statutory minimum wage during her
employment as provided by New York State's Minimum Wage Act and
New York State Labor Law.

Tri-County Home Nursing Services, Inc. is a duly organized New
York corporation, with its principal place of business in Nassau
County, New York.  The Individual Defendants were the Plaintiff's
employers as defined under the NYLL.  The Defendants operated the
business, Tri-County Home Nursing Services, as home health care
service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fausto E. Zapata, Jr., Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF FAUSTO E. ZAPATA, JR., PC
          277 Broadway, Suite 206
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 766-9870
          E-mail: fz@fzapatalaw.com


TRINET GROUP: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Aug. 7 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
TriNet Group, Inc. common stock during the period between May 5,
2014 and August 3, 2015.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from August 7, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058,
or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/trinet/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges TriNet and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
TriNet is a provider of a comprehensive human resources solution
for small to medium-sized businesses, enabling clients to
outsource their human resources, or HR, function to one strategic
partner.  The Company's HR solutions include services such as
payroll processing, human capital consulting, employment law
compliance and employee benefits.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's current financial condition and quarterly and year-end
revenue and earnings outlook for fiscal 2014 and 2015.

Specifically, defendants' statements during the Class Period were
each false and misleading, because defendants knew or deliberately
disregarded and failed to disclose the following facts: (a) the
Company's processes and methodologies for analyzing and accruing
claims failed to properly account for historical claims trends;
(b) the Company's forecasting process failed to properly
incorporate relevant historical and current claims trends; and (c)
the Company was experiencing growing claims trends in medical and
workers compensation that negatively affected the Company's
current and future business prospects.  As a result of these
misrepresentations and omissions, TriNet stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a
high of $37.88 per share on March 3, 2015.

On March 3, 2015, TriNet announced disappointing fourth quarter
fiscal 2014 financial results, missing both its insurance revenue
and income expectations due to an increase in large medical
claims.  On May 5, 2015, TriNet announced its financial results
for the first quarter of fiscal 2015, again missing expectations
due to higher than expected workers compensation costs.  Then on
August 3, 2015, the Company issued a press release announcing its
second quarter fiscal 2015 financial results.  The Company
reported financial results that missed both revenue and earnings
per share estimates by a wide margin due to another increase in
high-volume medical claims.  On this news, the Company's stock
price declined 38%, from a close of $26.69 per share on August 3,
2015 to a close of $16.33 per share on August 4, 2015, on high
trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
TriNet common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first
in both the amount and number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.


TSUKI ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Cruz" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Cruz v. Tsuki Entertainment, Inc., and Francesco Grassano,
Case No. 1:15-cv-05239 (N.D. Ill., June 15, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Erik Stevens, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 307-0766
          E-mail: dstevens@yourclg.com


TWEEN BRANDS: Faces Class Suit Over Discounts That Never Exists
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Legendre, Individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tween Brands, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04088-
CCC-JBC (D.N.J., June 17, 2015) alleges that the Company utilizes
in-store signs and in-and out-of-store advertisements for the
purpose of attracting customers to its stores to make purchases of
the 'discounted' products, with the promise of a discount, which
never exists.

Tween Brands, Inc. is organized and is existing under the laws of
Delaware with its corporate headquarters in New Albany, Ohio.  The
Company operates 34 Justice-brand retail stores across New Jersey
and over 850 stores across the U.S.  Tween sells consumer
products, including children's apparel and accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Deem, Esq.
          R.C. SHEA & ASSOCIATES
          244 Main Street, P.O. Box 2627
          Toms River, NJ 08753
          Telephone: (732) 505-1212
          Facsimile: (732) 505-1360
          E-mail: maasecretary1@verizon.net


UBER TECH: Cops Raid Hong Kong Office
-------------------------------------
Kelvin Chan, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Hong Kong police searched Uber's office in the Asian financial
center on Aug. 11, in the latest legal headache for the fast-
growing company that's meeting resistance from regulators and
traditional taxi businesses worldwide.

The raid came after officers posing as customers arrested five
drivers offering their services through a mobile app, in an
operation aimed at combating illegal taxis.  The five men were
suspected of illegally carrying passengers and driving without
insurance and are being held for further investigation, police
said in a statement.

Police did not name Uber Technologies but local Cable TV news
showed officers taking away computers and documents from the
company's Hong Kong office, which opened in July last year.

It's the latest setback for the San Francisco-based company as its
overseas expansion meets multiple legal and regulatory challenges.

Uber has also faced other challenges in greater China, where
police this year paid visits to its offices in the mainland cities
of Chengdu and Guangzhou as part of a widening investigation into
its operations.

In a statement, Uber spokesman Harold Li said it "ensures that all
rides are covered by insurance, and all drivers on the platform
undergo an extensive background check."

The company said it stands by its drivers "100 percent" and
welcomed the opportunity to work with the authorities on updating
regulations.


UBER TECH: Drivers Fail to Convince Judge in Classification Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge seemed unmoved on Aug. 6 by declarations from 400 Uber
drivers who say they like being independent contractors,
suggesting the headline-grabbing tactic won't be enough to defeat
class certification in a case that threatens to force the company
to overhaul its entire business model.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of
California said he's not convinced Uber Technologies Inc.'s driver
survey proves the majority of drivers object to a lawsuit that
seeks to provide them with minimum wage and other benefits
guaranteed to employees.

Judge Chen said 400 declarations sounds "impressive, except when
you measure that against 160,000 class members, that measures out
to 0.25 percent, not even that."

The battle over class certification is one of the most important
fights of the case, and the stakes are high for Uber.  Last month
a San Francisco company that provided on-demand house cleaning,
and shared Uber's independent contractor model, shut down
following four lawsuits over worker pay and benefits.

Lead plaintiffs lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan has said if she can't
bring a class action against Uber, she'll start filing individual
lawsuits on behalf of the nearly 2,000 drivers that have contacted
her firm.

"Far less efficient," she wrote in an email, "but that's what we'd
have to do."

During the Aug. 6 roughly three-hour hearing on class
certification, Judge Chen said there are other interests besides
the drivers' to take into account.  Uber must comply with labor
code regulations, Judge Chen said.  And the company cannot put
competitors at a disadvantage by improperly classifying its
workers.

"You cannot allow naysayers and a group of potential class members
who object to control the situation," Judge Chen said.  "You're
always going to get some people who don't agree with it."

Uber's lead lawyer, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore
Boutrous Jr., said the issue is whether the named plaintiffs in
the suit can adequately represent class members.

"Plaintiffs have three people," Mr. Boutrous said.  "Three named
plaintiffs.  They didn't bother to find out what anyone else
desired."

Ms. Liss-Riordan countered that the case isn't a "popularity
contest."  In employment cases there are always "happy camper"
declarations from workers, Ms. Liss-Riordan said.

For weeks Mr. Boutrous' team has played up the 400 driver
declarations submitted in response to plaintiffs' class-
certification motion.  He's already held two press conferences on
the opinions of the dissenting drivers, and during the Aug. 6
hearing he was quick to turn the discussion to the declarations.

Judge Chen seemed to find another question more interesting: If
all Uber drivers should be independent contractors, doesn't that
mean there is enough commonality among the group to certify a
class?

"How can you argue that everyone is an independent contractor,
it's clear, and yet there are individual variables that preclude
class certification?" Judge Chen asked.

Mr. Boutrous maintained there are many other factors that can't be
proven on a classwide basis.  He argued Uber has used 17 driver
contracts since it began operating in California in 2009.

Depending on which agreement binds a driver, Mr. Boutrous said, he
or she is subject to a varying degree of control by Uber -- a key
factor in determining employment status.  For example, only 10 of
the 17 agreements specify Uber can deactivate a driver if his or
her customer rating is too low, and five prohibit workers from
driving for apps that compete with Uber.

Judge Chen directed his toughest questions at Uber and said much
of the proof used in this case "is going to look very classwide."

However, the judge expressed concern about drivers who ran their
own car service or limo businesses while driving for Uber.  "That
sure does look like an independent contractor to me," he said.

During a press conference before the hearing, Mr. Boutrous
reiterated Uber's position that most drivers want to be
independent contractors, not employees.  The three named
plaintiffs in the suit don't represent the desires of the class as
a whole, he said.

"You can't have a class action when that is the situation,"
Mr. Boutrous said, flanked by nine Uber drivers who have attested
that they appreciate the independence of being a contractor.

The drivers included a groundskeeper for the San Francisco Giants,
a woman who works in advertising at a Spanish radio station, and a
former public television technician who was laid off in 2002.  One
carried an Uber tote bag.

Alicia Devora, 50, of San Francisco, said she enjoys the
independence of being an Uber driver, including being able to pull
over and turn off the app whenever she wants to eat or take a
break.

"No one's telling me what I can do or cannot do," she said.

                           *     *     *

Wired reports that Uber's lead counsel, Ted Boutrous, has been
down this road before. Four years ago, he went before the Supreme
Court and had class action status overturned in Walmart v. Dukes.
On Aug. 6, he told Judge Chen lumping the issues of hundreds of
thousands of drivers into a single suit would be ill-advised
because there is no such thing as a typical Uber driver.  Beyond
that, he argued, converting Uber drivers to employee would
threaten the flexibility and independence drivers enjoy, because
the suit would challenge the company's business model.

Shannon Liss-Riordan wasn't buying it.  She's representing Uber
drivers and has filed similar cases against Lyft, Caviar,
Postmates and Homejoy, the latter of which has shut down in large
part because of labor suits filed against the company.  She told
Chen that the question of whether Uber drivers prefer to be
employees or contractors is legally irrelevant.  Moreover, wage
laws exist not only to protect workers, but to provide a check
against businesses undercutting the competition to gain an unfair
competitive advantage. (According to the National Employment Law
Project, businesses stand to save up to 30 percent of payroll tax
costs by classifying workers as independent contractors.)

Early in the hearing, Judge Chen questioned whether making Uber
drivers employees really would cost them some flexibility.  "A lot
of folks might think, 'Suddenly, I'm an employee and I'm going to
be called in at 8 a.m. and told to get down here,'" Judge Chen
said.  "That might be a false assumption."

He seemed skeptical of Uber's arguments.  "How can you argue that
[every Uber driver] is an independent contractor, it's clear, and
yet there are individual variables here that preclude class
certification?" he asked Mr. Boutrous.

Judge Chen already ruled in March that the suit could move to jury
trial, which is where the merits of the case would be debated --
such as who has the right of control, drivers or the company.  But
in court, Judge Chen noted certain commonalities among those
issues of control, which seemed to suggest an inclination to
certify the class.  Judge Chen said monitoring driver performance
using Uber's star rating system and controlling fares seemed very
much within Uber's control, not to mention Uber's right to
terminate a driver with sole discretion and without cause.  But he
did note some issues that did not seem to be in Uber's control,
such as routes and schedules.

Ms. Liss-Riordan pressed those uniform issues of control, arguing
the suit could be stronger than a case in which FedEx recently
agreed to a $228 million settlement compensating some 2,000
delivery drivers deemed employees, not contractors.  That's
because of Uber's constant monitoring from its star-rating system.

But Mr. Boutrous pushed back, saying the fact its drivers could
work for any on-demand company they choose once they are on the
road. He argued that drivers aren't compelled by a duty or loyalty
to Uber, and compared them to journalism freelancers.  "Suppose a
journalist worked for both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Los
Angeles Times and gets a great story," he mused in court.  "With
duty of loyalty, how does that journalist pick a publication?"

Mr. Boutrous also cited the company's 17 agreements for drivers --
calling them "licensing agreements with an app," not employee
contracts -- as evidence that the group is so fractious the suit
should not be certified as a class. The agreements evolved as Uber
revised its terms over time at the discretion of teams in
different cities, and Mr. Boutrous argued that they differ in
substantial ways.  "We have UberX, Uber Black, we have great
variability," he said.

The two sides couldn't even agree on when the judge should
consider making the suit a class action?a decision that could be
reversed later, as was the case in Walmart v. Dukes.

"Let's just first have a trial, instead of certifying a class,"
pleaded Uber's Boutrous.

"Uber could file a motion for decertification," Ms. Liss-Riordan
countered. She told Chen, "You could make the decision before the
ultimate decision is decided."

In the end, Judge Chen punted, deciding not to rule from the
bench.  He'll make a decision in the weeks to come, but even he
concedes someone may likely second-guess it.  "I intend to go
forward on this and rule and throw the dice," he said.  "The
chances are a higher court will have a look at whatever I do."


UBER TECH: Gibson Dunn Uses Legal, PR Tactics in Bid to Quash Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that an hour
before a crucial hearing, a lawyer approached a podium outside the
San Francisco federal courthouse.  Facing a crowd of reporters
gathered on a windy patio, he explained why the workers standing
behind him would face "a devastating consequence" if his side
didn't prevail.  One by one, they stepped forward to share
sympathetic stories of trying to make ends meet: a man said he
needed to supplement his income as a San Francisco Giants
groundskeeper, a woman said she'd been unemployed for years.

It's a familiar scene in employment class actions but the casting
on Aug. 6 had a twist. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore
Boutrous Jr. wasn't trying to advance a lawsuit on behalf of Uber
Technologies Inc. drivers. He was trying to quash it.

Since bringing on Gibson in April to defend the driver suit, Uber
and its lawyers have launched an aggressive media blitz.  Perhaps,
with its entire contract-labor business model on the line, the $50
billion ride-hailing giant can't afford to keep quiet.
Mr. Boutrous has given two press conferences and numerous
interviews in the past month, and Uber's communications team has
released statements, blog posts, and even commissioned a study of
its drivers to prove they are happy being contractors.

The backdrop is a wage-and-hour suit on behalf of Uber drivers
seeking employment benefits such as minimum wage and overtime.
Uber, which classifies its drivers as independent contractors,
wants to send a message that employee status would actually harm
drivers by taking away their flexible schedules and making it
harder for them to work second jobs.

Uber employs at least 25 communications staffers in the Bay Area,
according to a LinkedIn search, including nine hired this year.
Uber recently poached Google Inc. executive Rachel Whetstone to
lead its communications department, replacing former President
Barack Obama advisor David Plouffe. (Mr. Plouffe remains in the
Uber fold as an adviser reporting to CEO Travis Kalanick.) Two of
Uber's recent communications hires came from public-relations firm
Brunswick Group, which handled media relations for venture-capital
firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers during its high-profile
gender bias trial in March.

The timing of Uber's public-relations campaign is crucial. U.S.
District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California
heard arguments for class certification on Aug. 6 -- arguably the
most important battle in the case to date.

Mr. Boutrous is no stranger to engaging reporters and the public.
Gibson Dunn is known for taking on high-profile cases and pairing
an aggressive courtroom defense with carefully orchestrated press
conferences and slick case websites.  That's the strategy Boutrous
used while representing Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in a precedent-
setting employment case that went up to the U.S. Supreme Court,
Chevron Corp. in a suit accusing the oil giant of damaging the
Amazon rain forest, and in a recent case targeting California's
teacher tenure laws.

"It's important to make sure our clients' views are heard and
known," Mr. Boutrous said.

Gibson Dunn often teams up with outside P.R. firms, including
RALLY, formerly known as Griffin Schein Communications.  But
neither Gibson Dunn nor Uber have contracted outside help in the
driver case.

Nicholas Gaffney, managing partner of legal public-relations firm
Zumado, said Uber's case calls for an effective P.R. campaign.
Most defendants he works with prefer to keep a lower profile, but
that's not an option here.

"They're not just trying to win a case," he said.  "This is a
public policy battle."

A spokeswoman for Uber declined to comment on the inner workings
of the company's P.R. machine, but wrote: "yes, we are providing a
lot of information and context around [O'Connor v. Uber].  That's
because it's an incredibly important case that could impact
thousands of driver-partners."

Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents the
potential class of California Uber drivers, said Uber's aggressive
P.R. response to the litigation has been unusual.

"In the end though, the case will be resolved in the courtroom,
not the media," she said.

Ms. Liss-Riordan worries Uber's P.R. blitz is advancing incorrect
information -- namely that if Uber is forced to classify its
drivers as employees, the drivers will lose the flexibility they
have over their schedules and other aspects of work.

One of the main messages Mr. Boutrous has been pushing to the
media is that drivers don't really want to be employees.  As
proof, he's submitted declarations from 400 drivers.

On Aug. 6, a diverse group of Uber drivers stood behind him and
confirmed that they want to remain independent contractors.  One
threatened to quit if her title changed.  As the drivers praised
Uber's business model because "no one's telling me what I can do
or cannot do," and flexibility is "the No. 1 thing that drives me
to this app," they clutched typed statements in identical manila
folders given to them by the company's communications team. One
driver even carried an Uber tote bag.

But at the hearing that followed, Judge Chen was unmoved.  He said
400 declarations sounds "impressive, except when you measure that
against 160,000 class members, that measures out to 0.25 percent,
not even that."

Chen said there are other interests besides the drivers' to take
into account.  Uber must comply with labor code regulations, and
the company cannot put competitors at a disadvantage by improperly
classifying its workers.

"You cannot allow naysayers and a group of potential class members
who object to control the situation," Judge Chen said.  "You're
always going to get some people who don't agree with it."


UBS PUERTO RICO: Investors File Class Action Over Bond Losses
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corkery, writing for New York Times, reports that bond
investors filed class action against UBS Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico officials now say the government cannot afford to pay
its $72 billion in debt.  The government recently defaulted on a
bond payment for the first time since the island came under the
jurisdiction of the United States nearly 117 years ago.

More indebted than any American state by some measures, Puerto
Rico sold its bonds far and wide, to everyone from wealthy
Midwesterners to New York hedge funds.  But more than 20 percent
of the government debt is owned locally.  And as values have
plunged, some of the most intense pain is being felt by the tens
of thousands of Puerto Ricans who bet much of their savings on the
bonds.

"These are doctors, stay-at-home moms, teachers, older people,
young people," said Jeffrey B. Kaplan, a Miami lawyer whose firm
represents more than 150 Puerto Rico bond investors.  "And now
they have all their eggs in one basket."

How so many ordinary Puerto Ricans came to shoulder such a large
share of the island's debt can be explained by a confluence of
factors: a local government desperate to borrow money, banks
collecting fees for selling the bonds, and brokers encouraging
residents to buy them.

Even some of the riskier debt, which previous administrations had
difficulty selling to investors in the rest of the United States,
found a home in the investment accounts of ordinary Puerto Ricans,
according to former finance officials.

It was not just residents who were loading up on the bonds.  The
island's 116 credit unions, which serve many poor and rural
communities, also became big buyers after local regulators allowed
these small lenders to take more risks with their investments.

A government spokeswoman says many locally owned bonds are
insured, which could help limit losses.  But already, individual
investors have seen big hits to their retirement portfolios.  At
the same time, taxes have gone up and business has slowed in the
face of a nine-year recession on the island.

Even when signs of a coming crisis seemed obvious to some
analysts, local residents kept buying their government's bonds.

A big source of that demand was a series of uniquely structured
bond funds that were required to have two-thirds of their holdings
in Puerto Rico investments, including government bonds and other
forms of locally issued debt.  The funds were an easy sell for
brokers working for large banks like the Swiss bank UBS and Banco
Popular of Puerto Rico because they were exempt from local taxes.

The funds could not be sold on the mainland United States because
they did not follow federal investment rules, which, among other
things, limit how much leverage, or borrowed money, the funds
could use to buy bonds.  Exempt from the federal rules, the Puerto
Rico funds ramped up their leverage. In good times, the leverage
strengthened returns.  But it magnified losses when bond prices
fell.

Still, investors like Jose Castrodad, a private-school operator in
a mountainous town on the island, said he ended up sinking most of
his retirement assets in UBS Puerto Rico funds.

So did his wife, his son, his sister-in-law and his 84-year-old
mother-in-law.

The bond funds were not just used as nest eggs.  When
Mr. Castrodad's sister-in-law needed cash for a medical procedure,
her UBS broker persuaded her to take out a loan using her
investment funds as collateral, according to a claim her family
filed against UBS with the Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority.

"This was like the bubble in mortgages," Mr. Castrodad said.

The UBS funds were avid buyers of many government bonds, including
those like pension obligation bonds that are now experiencing some
of the biggest losses.

In 2008, with the island's retirement system facing a big
shortfall, the government sold about $3 billion in bonds to plug
the hole.

Ideally, the pension funds' returns exceed the interest rate on
the bonds, making more cash available to pay the benefits of
public workers.  The bonds used for this kind of arbitrage are
typically not eligible for tax exemption in the United States,
making them a tougher sell on the mainland.

But for island investors in the Puerto Rico funds, income from the
pension bonds was free from local taxes.

One UBS Puerto Rico fund has about 45 percent of its holdings in
pension bonds, according to fund documents.  Today, the bonds
trade for as little as 18 cents on the dollar.

"There is no question that some of the most toxic, radioactive
debt got dumped into these funds," said Andrew Stoltmann, a lawyer
representing Mr. Steinberg, the math professor.

Another Puerto Rico resident, Georgina Velez Montes, and a group
of other investors have filed a class-action lawsuit against UBS
in Federal District Court in New York claiming the bank steered
them into the funds because of the high fees the brokers were
earning.  The lawsuit notes that even as UBS brokers were being
paid by people like Ms. Velez Montes to buy the bonds for their
investment accounts, UBS's investment bankers were being paid by
the government to sell the bonds.

In court documents, UBS said that investors were told about the
risks in the fund documents, which also explained the high
concentrations of Puerto Rico bonds and the fact that the bank was
sometimes acting as both seller and buyer.

"For more than 20 years, including through significant downturns
in U.S. markets, investors in UBS's Puerto Rico municipal bonds
and closed-end funds received excellent returns that frequently
exceeded the returns available through investments in other bonds
or bond funds," the bank said in a statement.

Credit unions in Puerto Rico were also attracted to those high
returns and are now paying the price.  Until 2009, the credit
unions could invest only in the highest-rated bonds.  But local
regulators made an exception as long as the credit unions invested
in Puerto Rico bonds.

As a result, the credit unions went from owning zero Puerto Rico
bonds to holding about $1.1 billion worth today.  And nearly half
of the credit unions' holdings is concentrated in debt issued by
the island's Government Development Bank, which has served as an
emergency source of cash for the commonwealth.  Because of
concerns that the Government Development Bank may soon default,
its debt trades as low as 29 cents on the dollar -- raising fears
in banking circles that losses on the credit unions' holdings
could force some credit unions to limit their lending.

A local banking regulator, Daniel Rodriguez Collazo, said the
credit unions had enough cash to absorb any blow. Still, they are
working with the government to restructure their holdings in ways
that would minimize their losses.

"We are prepared," said Mr. Rodriguez Collazo, who is president of
the Corporation for the Supervision and Insurance of Cooperatives,
which oversees the credit unions.  "We have our reserves.  We have
our liquidity."

But Mr. Steinberg was not prepared for this.  He made his first
investments in the UBS bond funds in 2005, totaling $70,000.  Over
the years, he would regularly reinvest his dividends from the
bonds.  He transferred his annuities there, too.

In March 2012, Mr. Steinberg moved over $100,000 from his savings
account, increasing his investments in the bond funds to $248,325.

A few months later, as the economic crisis in Puerto Rico
intensified and bond value dropped, he checked his account
balance.  "The $100,000 was gone," he said.

Mr. Steinberg had plans to retire in the next few years and buy a
house in the mainland United States to be closer to his children.
But with his savings in a shambles, he will have to keep working.

"I am a mathematician.  I am not very good in this type of
business," he said.  "They told me this was the best place to put
my money, and I trusted them."


UNDER ARMOUR: Shareholders File Class Action in Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Meehan, writing for Baltimore Business Journal, reports that
shareholders in Under Armour Inc. are bringing a lawsuit against
the company ahead of a stock split the company announced earlier
this summer.

The case, filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on
June 18, alleges Under Armour board members breached their
fiduciary duties by approving a new class of stock and changes to
the company's charter, issues that will be put to a vote at a
special meeting of shareholders on Aug. 26.

Under Armour announced the 2-for-1 stock split earlier this
summer.  The split would create a new class of stock and ensure
CEO Kevin Plank retains control over the company.

The class-action suit seeks to stop actions being taken on the
stock split, as well as changes to company's charter. Shareholders
are also seeking unspecified monetary damages, costs and
attorneys' fees.

In addition to Mr. Plank and the company itself, shareholders are
also suing board members George W. Bodenheimer, Douglas E.
Coltharp, Anthony W. Deering, Karen W. Katz, A.B. Krongard,
William R. McDermott, Eric T. Olson and Harvery L. Sanders.
Three class-action lawsuits were initially filed against the
company, and they were consolidated into one case. Plaintiffs
include Pedro Ramirez Jr. and Joshua Kohnstamm.

Under Armour officials did not respond to requests for comment,
but the company's most recent quarterly report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission says, "The Company believes
that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the
lawsuit vigorously.  However, because of the inherent uncertainty
as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is unable at
this time to estimate the possible impact of this matter."

Charles Piven, the attorney for the plaintiffs, and G. Stewart
Webb, the lawyer representing Under Armour and its board members,
did not immediately return requests for comment.


UNITED STATES: Judge Dismisses Suit v. SSA Over Same-Sex Marriage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders on Aug. 7 disclosed that U.S.
District Judge Percy Anderson that it has dismissed a class action
lawsuit in which the Social Security Administration (SSA) was
charged with discriminating against SSI recipients who are married
to a person of the same sex.  Social Security did not recognize
the recipients' marriages until more than a year after the fall of
the Defense of Marriage Act with the Supreme Court ruling in U.S.
v. Windsor in June 2013.  GLAD, Justice in Aging, and Foley Hoag
LLP filed Held v. Colvin in March 2015 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

When SSA failed to implement the Windsor ruling, Hugh Held of Los
Angeles (who is married to Orion Masters) and Kelley Richardson-
Wright of Athol, MA (who is married to Kena Richardson-Wright)
were erroneously paid benefits as though they were single; then
more than a year later, the agency demanded payments of thousands
of dollars from the plaintiffs, who are disabled.  According to
the complaint filed in March, hundreds if not thousands of SSI
recipients are in similar situations.

"The judge got this one wrong," said Gerald McIntyre, Directing
Attorney at Justice in Aging.  "He fundamentally misunderstood
Hugh's and Kelley's claims, and mistakenly believed that the harm
incurred can be corrected through Social Security's administrative
process." Vickie L. Henry, Senior Staff Attorney at GLAD added,
"This is a system-wide problem of the Social Security
Administration unconstitutionally failing to recognize marriages
after it was ordered to do so.  This problem calls for a system-
wide solution.  Our clients and the proposed class are disabled or
elderly and very poor.  They do not need to be terrorized with an
overpayment notice and then forced through Social Security's long
appeal process one at a time.  SSA and the Obama administration
can do better."

The plaintiffs are considering their options for next steps,
including appeal.


VERIZON WIRELESS: Removes "Stender" Suit to N.D. West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Ashley Stender, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated v. Verizon Wireless Network
Procurement LP d/b/a Cellco Partnership, Case No. 15-C-158, was
removed from the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia to
the U.S. District Court Northern District of West Virginia
(Wheeling). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-
00097-JPB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
      Rodney A. Smith, Esq.
      Todd S. Bailess, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
      E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
              rsmith@baileyglasser.com
              bailesslaw@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Corey Clay, Esq.
      Stanley Weiner, Esq.
      Yelena Katz, Esq.
      JONES DAY
      North Point, 901 Lakeside Ave.
      Cleveland, OH 44114-1190
      Telephone: (216) 586-3939
      Facsimile: (216) 579-0212
      E-mail: cclay@jonesday.com
              sweiner@jonesday.com
              ykatz@jonesday.com

         - and -

      Joseph M. Price, Esq.
      ROBINSON & MCELWEE, PLLC
      PO Box 1791
      Charleston, WV 25326
      Telephone: (304) 347-8306
      Facsimile: (304) 344-9566
      E-mail: jmp@ramlaw.com


VISA INC: Appeals Court Revives ATM Fees Antitrust Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that a federal
appeals court in Washington on Aug. 4 revived an antitrust case
that accuses Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc. of conspiring to keep
ATM access fees high.

Independent ATM operators and ATM users sued Visa and MasterCard
over rules the companies put in place that restricted ATM access
fees.  The rules block ATM operators from charging different fees
for the use of certain networks to process transactions, even if
it costs the operator less to use a non-Visa or MasterCard
network.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Aug. 4 reversed
the dismissal of the cases.  Judge Robert Wilkins wrote that the
trial judge was wrong to find that the plaintiffs failed to show
they had standing to bring the claims and failed to present facts
supporting the conspiracy allegations.

The ATM operators argued that without Visa and MasterCard's rules,
they could charge lower prices to incentivize consumers to use
cheaper networks.  U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson
dismissed the cases in February 2013.  She wrote that the
plaintiffs' arguments about how the alleged conspiracy harmed them
were too speculative.  Judge Wilkins said that Jackson "was
demanding proof of an economic theory that was not required in a
complaint."

Wilkins, joined in the opinion by Judges David Tatel and Sri
Srinivasan, wrote:

"Plaintiffs' theories here are susceptible to proof at trial.  The
plaintiffs allege a system in which Visa and MasterCard insulate
their networks from price competition from other networks.  This
insulation yields higher profits for Visa and MasterCard (and
higher returns for their shareholders), at the cost of consumers
and independent ATM operators.  The economic injury alleged is
present and ongoing."

Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro,
argued for the ATM operators and consumers.  In an email, he said
the ruling was "a big win for consumers as we believe this case
will bring not only damages caused by the anti-competitive acts of
Visa and MasterCard but also an injunction that will spark
competition in the ATM market."

Kenneth Gallo -- kgallo@paulweiss.com -- of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison argued for Visa and MasterCard.  Mr. Gallo, who
co-chairs the firm's antitrust practice and is managing partner of
the Washington office, could not immediately be reached for
comment.

The appeals court also found that the plaintiffs presented enough
facts at this stage of the case to proceed on the conspiracy
claims.  The lawsuits allege that a group of banks that previously
controlled Visa and MasterCard when the ATM access-fee rules were
adopted designed the rules to be anti-competitive.

"The allegations here -- that a group of retail banks fixed an
element of access fee pricing through bankcard association rules
-- describe the sort of concerted action necessary to make out a
Section 1 claim," Judge Wilkins wrote.


VOLUNTEER HOME: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Fisher, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Volunteer Home Care, Inc., Volunteer Home Care Of West
Tennessee, Inc., and Volunteer Home Care Of Middle Tennessee, Inc.
d/b/a Quality First Home Care, Case No. 3:15-cv-00837 (M.D. Tenn.,
July 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants operate a home health agency that offer home
health, private duty and support services in thirteen counties
throughout West and Middle Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
      David W. Garrison, Esq.
      Scott P. Tift, Esq.
      Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
      Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
              dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
              stift@barrettjohnston.com
              shyatt@barrettjohnston.com
              jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

         - and -

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
              asantillo@winebrakelaw.com


WALGREEN CO: "Cummins" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sean James Cummins v. Walgreen
Co., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00911, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05074
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
          Heather Marie Baker Dobbs, Esq.
          Justin Matthew Keller, Esq.
          Michael L. Kelly, Esq.
          KIRTLAND AND PACKARD LLP
          2041 Rosecreans Avenue, 3rd Floor
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 536-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
          E-mail: bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
                  hmb@kirtlandpackard.com
                  jmk@kirtlandpackard.com
                  mlk@kirtlandpackard.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Amanda Leigh Groves, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          101 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
          E-mail: agroves@winston.com


WALGREENS CO: "Hernandez" Suit Moved From California to Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Hernandez v. Walgreens Company,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00260, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05076 to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RONALD MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Amanda Leigh Groves, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          101 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 591-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
          E-mail: agroves@winston.com

               - and -

          Shawn Rieko Obi, Esq.
          WINSTON & STAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 615-1819
          Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
          E-mail: sobi@winston.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Shahrashian" Suit Included in Supplements MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Victoria Shahrashian v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00978, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-05083 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Herbal Supplements Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2620.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
          Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Esq.
          Maria L. Weitz, Esq.
          BOUCHER LLP
          21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903
          Telephone: (818) 340-5400
          Facsimile: (818) 340-5401
          E-mail: ray@boucher.la
                  bhujwala@boucher.la
                  weitz@boucher.la

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

Defendant Target Corporation is represented by:

          Christopher Thomas Casamassima, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          E-mail: chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com

Defendant GNC Holdings, Inc. is represented by:

          Thomas A. Evans, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-8700
          Facsimile: (415) 391-8269
          E-mail: tevans@reedsmith.com


WEATHERPROOFING TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Klein, John Marks, Darrell Lewis, and Chad Laraway, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Weatherproofing Technologies Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04443
(E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

Weatherproofing Technologies Inc. is engaged in roof repair and
maintenance business in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 499-9100
      Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
      E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com


WELLS FARGO: Sued for Using Home-Loan Schemes Aimed at Minorities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Derick L. Berry v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., HSBC Bank, USA, N.A.,
as Trustee for NOMURA PMSR NHELI Asset Backed Certificate Series
2006-AF1, Case No. 1:15-cv-05269 (N.D. Ill., June 15, 2015) is
brought under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth
in Lending Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and,
Illinois common law.

The lawsuit seeks to correct the alleged widespread but
unnecessary and harmful home-loan schemes whereby minorities, like
the Plaintiff, are targeted as likely customers for illegal, high-
cost mortgage loans.  In addition, the Plaintiff challenges the
wide-spread practice of lenders, trustees or servicers, who sell,
transfer, assign, service or securitize mortgage loans among and
between parties with such haste and carelessness that dunning and
foreclosures are commenced by parties, who do not have clear title
to or actual knowledge of the terms and conditions of the mortgage
loans

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William F. Spielberger, Esq.
          SPIELBERGER & ASSOCIATES
          53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1231
          Chicago, IL 60615
          Telephone: (312) 834-0519
          E-mail: wm.spielberger@sbcglobal.lnet


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Settles Suit Over Contaminated Land in Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Seewer, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
lawsuit against Whirlpool Corp. has been settled over contaminated
land in northern Ohio near where dozens of children were sickened
with cancer.

The land owners settled their suit earlier this summer -- months
after the children's families dropped their lawsuit against
Whirlpool linking the company's washing machine plant with the
cancer cluster.

Terms of the settlement weren't released, said Tom Bowlus, an
attorney for the land owners, who had planned to build housing
there.  The deal was made after Whirlpool agreed to clean up
contaminated soil at the site near the Benton Harbor, Michigan-
based company's sprawling factory outside Clyde.

The lawsuit had accused the company of dumping potentially cancer-
causing waste from the plant at the site, which was once a
company-owned park.

The cleanup is underway but it was not part of the settlement,
Mr. Bowlus said.  The 26-acre parcel, which was once owned by
Whirlpool, should be clean and landscaped by the fall, he said.

Whirlpool spokeswoman Kristine Vernier said in a statement that
the company was pleased that resolving the lawsuit "allows us to
focus on our remediation efforts."

In February, the families dropped a lawsuit they filed in 2013
suggesting that smokestacks from Whirlpool's factory spewed a
suspected cancer-causing chemical into the neighborhoods of
several children who were among the first to be diagnosed.
Thirty-five children have been diagnosed with cancer in the area
and three have died since the mid-1990s.

Whirlpool has maintained from the beginning that the allegations
weren't based on scientific or medical fact.  It said test results
found no evidence that the factory has any connection to the
cancer cluster.

The families have until next February to decide whether they will
file the lawsuit again.  An attorney for the families would not
comment on Aug. 6 on whether the case will be brought back.

Ohio health and environmental investigators have spent years
testing the air and water around Clyde and talking with the
children and their families about where they live and work and
what they might have been exposed to.  But they've never come up
with the answer.


ZYNGA INC: Settles Class Action Over 2011 IPO for $23 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Zanki, Maya Rajamani and Linda Chiem, writing for Law360,
report that Zynga Inc. has reached a $23 million settlement ending
class action litigation with investors who accused the social
media gamemaker of misleading shareholders about its prospects
leading up to a 2011 initial public offering, according to a
regulatory filing on Aug. 7.

The FarmVille creator said the preliminary agreement, reached on
Aug. 4 after a mediation session overseen by retired federal judge
Edward Infante, still requires final approval in California
federal court.  The company said the settlement will be funded by
insurance and will have no impact on its financial statements if
finalized in its current form.

Zynga did not elaborate on terms of the settlement, which it
disclosed in its quarterly Securities and Exchanges Commission
filing.  Court records on Aug. 7 did not indicate a settlement.

"We are pleased with this significant step toward resolution of
this litigation," Zynga said in a statement.  "We believe it is
beneficial to Zynga and its shareholders to remove the distraction
of protracted litigation so that we can continue to focus on our
forward-looking business.  This settlement would have no financial
impact on Zynga."

The agreement comes months after Judge Jeffrey S. White refused to
reconsider his denial of Zynga's bid to dismiss the suit, ruling
that investors who bought shares between February and July 2012
sufficiently alleged that the company's misrepresentations cost
them money.  Lawyers for the plaintiffs were also happy with the
outcome.

"We are pleased with the result and believe it represents a
significant win for class members," plaintiffs attorney Jeffrey
Norton told Law360.

The class action, first filed in 2012 by shareholder David Fee,
claimed that Zynga misled investors about financial projections
around time of its 2011 IPO, as well as its secondary offering in
2012.

Investors alleged Zynga leaders, including co-founder Mark Pincus,
former Chief Financial Officer David M. Wehner and former Chief
Operating Officer John Schappert, concealed the fact that the
company's launch of its new Web games was delayed and
misrepresented its booking numbers, which investors did not
realize were fully dependent on Facebook's online gaming platform.

Investors also claimed the company promised they would see long-
term growth in 2012 thanks to investments in international market
development, mobile games and technology infrastructure.

That growth failed to happen, and investors say they lost money
when Zynga's stock took a dive in 2012, plummeting more than 37
percent in one day, down from a close of $5.08 per share on July
25 to $3.18 on July 26.  This was the result of an artificially
inflated stock price, the investors say.

When Zynga went public in December 2011, it offered its stocks at
$11 a share, with a market valuation of $10 billion.  Shareholders
of Zynga, which develops online social games including FarmVille,
Mafia Wars and Words with Friends, said that before that stock
dive, the company unloaded over half a billion dollars of
personally held stock in a second offering in April.

Judge White first rejected a motion to dismiss by Zynga in March,
stating that shareholder claims regarding the falsity and
materiality of the company's statements could be supported. He
also dismissed an earlier version of the consolidated class action
in February 2014, allowing the plaintiffs a chance to amend their
suit.

They then trimmed down their suit significantly by dropping
certain defendants, shortening the class period, abandoning all
claims they had raised under the Securities Act of 1933 and
tossing references to certain confidential witnesses, court
documents say.

Mr. Fee is represented by Nicole Lavallee --
nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com -- Joseph J. Tabacco Jr. --
jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com -- Victor S. Elias and Kristin Moody
of Berman DeValerio and Jeffrey Norton -- JNorton@nfllp.com -- and
Courtney Chenette of Newman Ferrara LLP.

Zynga is represented by Jordan Eth -- jeth@mofo.com -- Anna
Erickson White -- awhite@mofo.com -- and Kevin A. Calia of
Morrison & Foerster LLP.  Zynga counsel did not immediately return
messages seeking comment.

The consolidated case In re: Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation,
case number 4:12-cv-04007, in the U.S. District Court of the
Northern District of California


* Class Action Plaintiffs Lawyers Target Sports Organizations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that in the past two
years plaintiffs lawyers have gone on the offensive against major
sports, hitting some of the world's most powerful organizations
with suits that challenge the economic underpinnings of their
businesses and raise questions about the safety of players and
fans.

Stanford Law School professor William Gould IV hasn't taught his
sports law course since the spring semester of 2013.  It's time,
Gould said recently, to brush up his syllabus.

"These cases . . .  they'll keep me busy," said Mr. Gould, looking
at a list of recent class actions against institutions including
the National Collegiate Athletic Association, Major League
Baseball, the Professional Golf Association and the Federation
Internationale de Football Association.

The suits come in the wake of favorable rulings for plaintiffs in
cases challenging the NCAA's amateurism rules and a massive nine-
figure settlement in litigation against the National Football
League over player concussions.  The plaintiffs firms behind those
cases have scored big -- landing attorney fee awards in the tens
of millions of dollars -- and the promise of similar paydays is
starting to draw a crowd.

"There's no denying that this is a pot of gold and now everybody
wants to dip into it," said Jodi Balsam, an associate professor at
Brooklyn Law School and former in-house lawyer at the NFL.

As the sports business has become big business and profits and
television revenues have soared, owners, executives, coaches and
athletes have gotten rich.  But many of the people who have toiled
putting the entertainment product on the field -- college
athletes, minor league baseball players, cheerleaders and golf
caddies among them -- haven't.  Meanwhile, the medical concerns
and media scrutiny surrounding concussions in sports have grown.

"I just think that there's a growing recognition that athletes
aren't going to be cared for by the overseeing organization and
the plaintiffs bar is starting to step up and deal with it," said
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro's Steve Berman, who has suits pending
in the Northern District of California against the NCAA, Major
League Baseball and the United States Soccer Federation.

Lawyers who litigate against the leagues say that they're just as
aggressive as other deep-pocketed corporate defendants.  They hire
elite law firms and fight for every advantage they can get.  At
the same time, there are some signs the image-conscious
institutions may be responding to some of the issues that have
made them targets.  In recent years, for example, the NFL has
tweaked its rules repeatedly to cut down on player head injuries.
Many of the suits -- at least six in the past 18 months -- have
been filed in the Northern District of California.  That's at
least partly due to the success plaintiffs have had against the
NCAA in U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken's Oakland courtroom.
Last August in a seminal antitrust decision, Judge Wilken found
that the NCAA owed top college football and basketball players
compensation for the use of their names and likenesses in
broadcasts and video games.

With that ruling on appeal, Judge Wilken is overseeing a second
round of suits challenging NCAA caps on the amount of aid colleges
can offer student-athletes.  The latest round of NCAA suits
includes one spearheaded by Winston & Strawn's Jeffrey Kessler,
who has represented professional athletes and their players
associations in labor disputes with the leagues for decades.

"The sports industry is becoming bigger and bigger business and
it's become more of a target for class action lawsuits,"
Mr. Kessler said.  "Where billions of dollars are flowing there
are more likely going to be legal disputes."


* Securities Class Action Filings Remain Below Historical Average
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs brought 85 new federal class action securities cases in
the first half of 2015, according to Securities Class Action
Filings-2015 Midyear Assessment, a report compiled by Cornerstone
Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse.

This represents a decrease from the second half of 2014, when
plaintiffs filed 92 securities class actions.  The number of
filings in the first six months of 2015 remains 10 percent below
the semiannual average of 94 observed between 1997 and 2014-the
seventh consecutive semiannual period below the historical
average.

Despite this period of little overall change in filing activity,
securities class actions against companies headquartered outside
the United States increased in the first half of 2015.  Twenty
filings, or 24 percent of the total, targeted foreign firms.
Asian firms were named in more than half of these cases.

"Securities class actions continue to percolate at a relatively
low level, whether measured by the number of cases filed or the
dollar amounts at stake," observed Professor Joseph Grundfest,
director of the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse and a former SEC Commissioner.  "The interesting
question is 'why?' Some observers point to high stock price
valuations and the lack of volatility in equity markets.  Others
point to the fact that many of the major accounting scandals now
appear to be happening outside the United States.  A combination
of both factors could well be at work."

"Aggregate market capitalization losses in securities class
actions continued to dip below historical averages in the first
two quarters of 2015," said Dr. John Gould, senior vice president
of Cornerstone Research.  "Mega filings remained relatively rare,
and on an annualized basis only 2.5 percent of S&P 500 company
market capitalization was targeted by new filings during this
period."

Another notable development in the first half of 2015 was the
surge in class actions in the Ninth Circuit, driven primarily by
an increase in the Technology and Industrial sectors.

Filings in the Ninth Circuit (much of the western United States)
represented a 90 percent increase over the last six months of
2014.  In the Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York, and Vermont)
filings fell by one-third in comparison with the second half of
2014.  This was due in strong part to the decline in suits related
to financial, energy, and biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms.

Key Trends

   -- The total Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL), which calculates
investor losses at the time that an alleged fraud is disclosed,
remained at low levels.  Aggregate DDL was $34 billion in the
first half of 2015, 43 percent below the historical semiannual
average of $60 billion.

   -- The total Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL), a measure of the
largest amount that plaintiffs might seek to recover, was $105
billion, an amount 65 percent below the historical semiannual
average MDL of $304 billion.

   -- Filing activity against companies with large market
capitalizations, as represented by firms in the S&P 500, remained
well below average.  Only 1.6 percent of S&P 500 firms were the
subject of class actions in the first half of 2015.

   -- The median lag between the end of the alleged class period
and the filing of the lawsuit declined to 11 days, the third
lowest on record, suggesting intensifying competition for filings
by the plaintiff bar.

   -- Dismissals within the first three years of the filing of a
class action peaked for 2010 and 2011 filing cohorts.  In filing
cohort years 2012, 2013, and 2014, early dismissals (those within
the first year) have declined relative to 2010 and 2011 cohorts.

   -- Reversing trends noted at year-end 2014, filing activity
against Industrial and Technology firms increased to levels more
consistent with historical averages, while filings against Energy
companies declined to average historical levels.

   -- Biotechnology, healthcare, and pharmaceutical companies
(included in the Consumer Non-Cyclical sector) together accounted
for 19 percent of total filings in the first half of 2015.  Within
this group, filings against pharmaceutical firms were the most
common class action.

                     About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research provides economic and financial consulting
and expert testimony in all phases of complex litigation and
regulatory proceedings.  The firm works with an extensive

network of prominent faculty and industry practitioners to
identify the best-qualified expert for each assignment.
Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for consistent high
quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art
analysis for over 25 years.  The firm has more than 500 staff and
offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, Menlo Park,
New York, San Francisco, and Washington.

            About the Stanford Law School Securities
                 Class Action Clearinghouse

The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (SCAC) is an
authoritative source of data and analysis on the financial and
economic characteristics of federal securities fraud class action
litigation.  The SCAC maintains a database of more than 3,900
securities class action lawsuits filed since passage of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.  The database
also contains copies of more than 44,000 complaints, briefs,
filings, and other litigation-related materials filed in these
cases.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Enters Agreements With Excess Insurers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has entered into "coverage-in-place" agreements with 11
of its excess insurer groups, according to the Company's Form 8-K
dated April 27, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 30, 2015.

Prior to 2005, a significant portion of the Company's settlement
and defense costs were paid by its primary insurers. With the
exhaustion of that primary coverage, the Company began
negotiations with its excess insurers to reimburse the Company for
a portion of its settlement and/or defense costs as incurred. As
of April 27, 2015, the Company has entered into agreements
providing for such reimbursements, known as "coverage-in-place",
with eleven of its excess insurer groups. Under such coverage-in-
place agreements, an insurer's policies remain in force and the
insurer undertakes to provide coverage for the Company's present
and future asbestos claims on specified terms and conditions that
address, among other things, the share of asbestos claims costs to
be paid by the insurer, payment terms, claims handling procedures
and the expiration of the insurer's obligations. Similarly, under
a variant of coverage-in-place, the Company has entered into an
agreement with a group of insurers confirming the aggregate amount
of available coverage under the subject policies and setting forth
a schedule for future reimbursement payments to the Company based
on aggregate indemnity and defense payments made. In addition,
with ten of its excess insurer groups, the Company entered into
policy buyout agreements, settling all asbestos and other coverage
obligations for an agreed sum, totaling $82.5 million in
aggregate. Reimbursements from insurers for past and ongoing
settlement and defense costs allocable to their policies have been
made in accordance with these coverage-in-place and other
agreements. All of these agreements include provisions for mutual
releases, indemnification of the insurer and, for coverage-in-
place, claims handling procedures. With the agreements, the
Company has concluded settlements with all but one of its solvent
excess insurers whose policies are expected to respond to the
aggregate costs included in the updated liability estimate. That
insurer, which issued a single applicable policy, has been paying
the shares of defense and indemnity costs the Company has
allocated to it, subject to a reservation of rights. There are no
pending legal proceedings between the Company and any insurer
contesting the Company's asbestos claims under its insurance
policies.

In conjunction with developing the aggregate liability estimate,
the Company also developed an estimate of probable insurance
recoveries for its asbestos liabilities. In developing this
estimate, the Company considered its coverage-in-place and other
settlement agreements, as well as a number of additional factors.
These additional factors include the financial viability of the
insurance companies, the method by which losses will be allocated
to the various insurance policies and the years covered by those
policies, how settlement and defense costs will be covered by the
insurance policies and interpretation of the effect on coverage of
various policy terms and limits and their interrelationships. In
addition, the timing and amount of reimbursements will vary
because the Company's insurance coverage for asbestos claims
involves multiple insurers, with different policy terms and
certain gaps in coverage. In addition to consulting with legal
counsel on these insurance matters, the Company retained insurance
consultants to assist management in the estimation of probable
insurance recoveries based upon the aggregate liability estimate
and assuming the continued viability of all solvent insurance
carriers. Based upon the analysis of policy terms and other
factors by the Company's legal counsel, and incorporating risk
mitigation judgments by the Company where policy terms or other
factors were not certain, the Company's insurance consultants
compiled a model indicating how the Company's historical insurance
policies would respond to varying levels of asbestos settlement
and defense costs and the allocation of such costs between such
insurers and the Company. Using the estimated liability as of
December 31, 2011 (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021), the insurance consultant's model forecasted that
approximately 25% of the liability would be reimbursed by the
Company's insurers. While there are overall limits on the
aggregate amount of insurance available to the Company with
respect to asbestos claims, those overall limits were not reached
by the total estimated liability currently recorded by the
Company, and such overall limits did not influence the Company in
its determination of the asset amount to record. The proportion of
the asbestos liability that is allocated to certain insurance
coverage years, however, exceeds the limits of available insurance
in those years. The Company allocates to itself the amount of the
asbestos liability (for claims filed or expected to be filed
through 2021) that is in excess of available insurance coverage
allocated to such years. An asset of $225 million was recorded as
of December 31, 2011 representing the probable insurance
reimbursement for such claims expected through 2021. The asset is
reduced as reimbursements and other payments from insurers are
received. The asset was $144 million as of March 31, 2015.

The Company reviews the estimated reimbursement rate with its
insurance consultants on a periodic basis in order to confirm its
overall consistency with the Company's established reserves. The
reviews encompass consideration of the performance of the insurers
under coverage-in-place agreements and the effect of any
additional lump-sum payments under policy buyout agreements. Since
December 2011, there have been no developments that have caused
the Company to change the estimated 25% rate, although actual
insurance reimbursements vary from period to period, and will
decline over time, for certain reasons.

Estimation of the Company's ultimate exposure for asbestos-related
claims is subject to significant uncertainties, as there are
multiple variables that can affect the timing, severity and
quantity of claims and the manner of their resolution. The Company
cautions that its estimated liability is based on assumptions with
respect to future claims, settlement and defense costs based on
past experience that may not prove reliable as predictors. A
significant upward or downward trend in the number of claims
filed, depending on the nature of the alleged injury, the
jurisdiction where filed and the quality of the product
identification, or a significant upward or downward trend in the
costs of defending claims, could change the estimated liability,
as would substantial adverse verdicts at trial that withstand
appeal. A legislative solution, structured settlement transaction,
or significant change in relevant case law could also change the
estimated liability.

The same factors that affect developing estimates of probable
settlement and defense costs for asbestos-related liabilities also
affect estimates of the probable insurance reimbursements, as do a
number of additional factors. These additional factors include the
financial viability of the insurance companies, the method by
which losses will be allocated to the various insurance policies
and the years covered by those policies, how settlement and
defense costs will be covered by the insurance policies and
interpretation of the effect on coverage of various policy terms
and limits and their interrelationships. In addition, due to the
uncertainties inherent in litigation matters, no assurances can be
given regarding the outcome of any litigation, if necessary, to
enforce the Company's rights under its insurance policies or
settlement agreements.

Many uncertainties exist surrounding asbestos litigation, and the
Company will continue to evaluate its estimated asbestos-related
liability and corresponding estimated insurance reimbursement as
well as the underlying assumptions and process used to derive
these amounts. These uncertainties may result in the Company
incurring future charges or increases to income to adjust the
carrying value of recorded liabilities and assets, particularly if
the number of claims and settlement and defense costs change
significantly, or if there are significant developments in the
trend of case law or court procedures, or if legislation or
another alternative solution is implemented; however, the Company
is currently unable to estimate such future changes and,
accordingly, while it is probable that the Company will incur
additional charges for asbestos liabilities and defense costs in
excess of the amounts currently provided, the Company does not
believe that any such amount can be reasonably determined beyond
2021. Although the resolution of these claims may take many years,
the effect on the results of operations, financial position and
cash flow in any given period from a revision to these estimates
could be material.

Crane Co. is a manufacturer of engineered industrial products. The
Company operates in four segments: Aerospace & Electronics,
Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid Handling.
Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics, non-
residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Has 2 PI Cases Set for Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation reported that two of the pending asbestos-
related premises liability cases are set for trial against its
subsidiary, Baltimore Gas and Electric, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

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 467 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. 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 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.
Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities and investments in
generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing
activities. ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the
provision of transmission and distribution services to retail
customers in northern Illinois. PECO's energy delivery business in
southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: California Water Awaits CPUC Decision
------------------------------------------------------
California Water Service Group is awaiting the issuance of a
decision by the California Public Utilities Commission associated
with asbestos lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

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. On February 6, 2015, Cal Water and the Office of
Ratepayer Advocates filed a settlement resolving all issues, the
adoption of which would authorize Cal Water to track costs,
settlements, and judgments in an Asbestos Litigation Memorandum
Account for a 5-year period beginning January 1, 2015.  The
parties are awaiting the CPUC's issuance of a proposed decision.

California Water Service Group is a holding company. The Company
through its subsidiaries provides regulated and non-regulated
water and wastewater utility services. Its business is conducted
through six operating subsidiaries: 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 consists of the production,
purchase, storage, treatment, testing, distribution and sale of
water for domestic, industrial, public and irrigation uses, and
for fire protection.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Had 5,600 Maremont Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., reported that its subsidiary, Maremont Corporation
had 5,600 pending asbestos-related claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015.

Maremont Corporation, a subsidiary of Meritor, manufactured
friction products containing asbestos from 1953 through 1977, when
it sold its friction product business. Arvin Industries, Inc., a
predecessor of the company, acquired Maremont in 1986. Maremont
and many other companies are defendants in suits brought by
individuals claiming personal injuries as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing products.

Maremont had approximately 5,600 and 5,700 pending asbestos-
related claims at March 31, 2015 and September 30, 2014,
respectively. Although Maremont has been named in these cases, in
the cases where actual injury has been alleged, very few claimants
have established that a Maremont product caused their injuries.
Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue dozens or even hundreds of
defendants in individual lawsuits, seeking damages against all
named defendants irrespective of the disease or injury and
irrespective of any causal connection with a particular product.
For these reasons, the total number of claims filed is not
necessarily the most meaningful factor in determining Maremont's
asbestos-related liability.

Meritor, Inc. (Meritor), is a global supplier of a range of
integrated systems and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products
are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems.
Meritor serves a range of customers worldwide, including medium-
and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers,
certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. The Company operates
in two segments: Axles, Undercarriage & Drivelines and Brakes and
Braking Systems. On July 30, 2013, it completed the sale of its
overall 50 % ownership equity interest in Suspensys Sistemas
Automotivos LTDA (the Suspensys JV) to its joint venture partner,
Randon S.A. Implementos E Participacoes (Randon).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Meritor Unit Has $11-Mil. Fibro Recoveries
-----------------------------------------------------------
Meritor, Inc., disclosed that its subsidiary, Maremont
Corporation, had $11 million asbestos-related recoveries according
to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015.

The Company engages Bates White to assist with determining whether
it would be possible to estimate the cost of resolving pending and
future Rockwell legacy asbestos-related claims that have been, and
could reasonably be expected to be, filed against the company.
Bates White prepares these cost estimates annually in September.
As of September 30, 2014, Bates White provided a reasonable and
probable estimate that consisted of a range of equally likely
possibilities of Rockwell's obligation for asbestos personal
injury claims over the next ten years of $48 million to $62
million. Management recognized a liability for the pending and
future claims over the next ten years of $48 million as of March
31, 2015 and September 30, 2014. The ultimate cost of resolving
pending and future claims is estimated based on the history of
claims and expenses for plaintiffs represented by law firms in
jurisdictions with an established history with Rockwell.

The following assumptions were made by the company after
consultation with Bates White and are included in their study:

   * Pending and future claims were estimated for a ten-year
period ending in fiscal year 2024;

   * The company believes that the litigation environment could
change significantly beyond ten years and that the reliability of
estimates of future probable expenditures in connection with
asbestos-related personal injury claims will decline for each year
further in the future. As a result, estimating a probable
liability beyond ten years is difficult and uncertain;

   * On a per claim basis, defense and processing costs for
pending and future claims will be at the level consistent with the
company's prior experience;

   * Potential payments made to claimants from other sources,
including other defendants and 524(g) trusts favorably impact the
company's estimated liability in the future; and

   * The ultimate indemnity cost of resolving nonmalignant claims
with plaintiff's law firms in jurisdictions without an established
history with Rockwell cannot be reasonably estimated.

The insurance receivable related to asbestos-related liabilities
is $11 million as of each of March 31, 2015 and September 30,
2014. Included in these amounts are insurance receivables of $8
million as of each of March 31, 2015 and September 30, 2014 that
are associated with policies in dispute. Rockwell has insurance
coverage that management believes covers indemnity and defense
costs, over and above self-insurance retentions, for most of these
claims. The company has initiated claims against certain of these
carriers to enforce the insurance policies, which are in various
stages of the litigation process. The company expects to recover
some portion of defense and indemnity costs it has incurred to
date, over and above self-insured retentions, and some portion of
the costs for defending asbestos claims going forward. The amounts
recognized for policies in dispute are based on consultation with
advisors, status of settlement negotiations with certain insurers
and underlying analysis performed by management. The remaining
receivable recognized is related to coverage provided by one
carrier based on a coverage-in-place insurance arrangement. If the
assumptions with respect to the estimation period, the nature of
pending claims, the cost to resolve claims and the amount of
available insurance prove to be incorrect, the actual amount of
liability for Rockwell asbestos-related claims, and the effect on
the company, could differ materially from current estimates and,
therefore, could have a material impact on the company's financial
condition and results of operations.

Meritor, Inc. (Meritor), is a global supplier of a range of
integrated systems and components to original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs) and the aftermarket for the commercial
vehicle, transportation and industrial sectors. The company serves
commercial truck, trailer, off-highway, military, bus and coach
and other industrial OEMs and certain aftermarkets. Its products
are axles, undercarriages, drivelines, brakes and braking systems.
Meritor serves a range of customers worldwide, including medium-
and heavy-duty truck OEMs, specialty vehicle manufacturers,
certain aftermarkets, and trailer producers. The Company operates
in two segments: Axles, Undercarriage & Drivelines and Brakes and
Braking Systems. On July 30, 2013, it completed the sale of its
overall 50 % ownership equity interest in Suspensys Sistemas
Automotivos LTDA (the Suspensys JV) to its joint venture partner,
Randon S.A. Implementos E Participacoes (Randon).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Had 65,000 PI Claims at March 31
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc. had 65,000 asbestos-related personal injury claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015.

The claims alleging personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos
asserted against Ashland result primarily from indemnification
obligations undertaken in 1990 in connection with the sale of
Riley, a former subsidiary. The amount and timing of settlements
and number of open claims can fluctuate from period to period.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions to industries. The
Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers
products, technologies and resources in key markets including
personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage,
coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water
Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to
the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation,
refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal
markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create
substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing,
cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the
manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland
Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial
and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ashland Inc. Has $422-Mil. Fibro Claims Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashland Inc., had $422 million total reserves for asbestos claims,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015.

From the range of estimates, Ashland records the amount it
believes to be the best estimate of future payments for litigation
defense and claim settlement costs, which generally approximates
the mid-point of the estimated range of exposure from model
results. Ashland reviews this estimate and related assumptions
quarterly and annually updates the results of a non-inflated, non-
discounted approximate 50-year model developed with the assistance
of HR&A. As a result of the most recent annual update of this
estimate, completed during the June 2014 quarter, it was
determined that the liability for asbestos claims should be
increased by $4 million. Total reserves for asbestos claims were
$422 million at March 31, 2015 compared to $438 million at
September 30, 2014.

Ashland has insurance coverage for certain litigation defense and
claim settlement costs incurred in connection with its asbestos
claims, and coverage-in-place agreements exist with the insurance
companies that provide most of the coverage currently being
accessed.

For the Ashland asbestos-related obligations, Ashland has
estimated the value of probable insurance recoveries associated
with its asbestos reserve based on management's interpretations
and estimates surrounding the available or applicable insurance
coverage, including an assumption that all solvent insurance
carriers remain solvent. Substantially all of the estimated
receivables from insurance companies are expected to be due from
domestic insurers. Of the insurance companies rated by A. M. Best,
all have a credit rating of B+ or higher as of March 31, 2015. The
remainder of the insurance receivable is due from London insurance
companies, which generally have lower credit quality ratings.

In October 2012, Ashland and Hercules initiated various
arbitration proceedings against Underwriters at Lloyd's, certain
London companies and/or Chartis (AIG) member companies seeking to
enforce these insurers' contractual obligations to provide
indemnity for asbestos liabilities and defense costs under
existing coverage-in-place agreements. In addition, Ashland and
Hercules initiated a lawsuit in Kentucky state court against
certain Berkshire Hathaway entities (National Indemnity Company
and Resolute Management, Inc.) on grounds that these Berkshire
entities wrongfully interfered with Underwriters' and Chartis'
performance of their respective contractual obligations to provide
asbestos coverage by directing the insurers to reduce and delay
certain claim payments.

Ashland Inc. (Ashland) is a specialty chemical company that
provides products, services and solutions to industries. The
Company's segments are: Ashland Specialty Ingredients offers
products, technologies and resources in key markets including
personal and home care, pharmaceutical, food and beverage,
coatings, construction, energy and other industries; Ashland Water
Technologies is a supplier of specialty chemicals and services to
the pulp, paper, mining, food and beverage, power generation,
refining, chemical processing, general manufacturing and municipal
markets. Ashland Performance Materials helps customers to create
substitutes for traditional materials through higher performing,
cost-efficient resin and adhesive technologies that improve the
manufacturing, fabrication and design process, and Ashland
Consumer Markets delivers premium-branded automotive, commercial
and industrial lubricants, automotive chemicals and car-care
products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Cashio" Moved to Louisiana Court
--------------------------------------------------
Judge Todd J. Campbell of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, in a memorandum
dated Aug. 4, 2015, transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana in Shreveport the case captioned
MARK D. CASHIO, et al. v. 3M COMPANY, et al., NO. 3-15-0489 (M.D.
Tenn.).

Plaintiffs, who are residents of the Middle District of Tennessee,
filed the action in the Tennessee court, alleging that while
Plaintiff Mark Cashio was stationed at England Air Force Base in
Alexandria, Louisiana, he was exposed to asbestos fibers which
caused him to have malignant mesothelioma, a fatal cancer of the
lining of the lung and/or abdominal cavity.

The Plaintiffs then moved to transfer venue of the case to
Louisiana "in the interests of justice," pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1406(a) or 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  The Court granted
Plaintiffs' Motion based upon 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), for the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of
justice.

A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/jFV3Ywfrom Leagle.com.

Mark D. Cashio, Plaintiff, represented by Kathryn E. Barnett,
Morgan & Morgan - Nashville, PLLC, J. Dennis Weitzel, Morgan &
Morgan, P.A. & Samuel D. Elswick, Morgan & Morgan, P.A..

Kimberly W. Cashio, Plaintiff, represented by Kathryn E. Barnett,
Morgan & Morgan - Nashville, PLLC, J. Dennis Weitzel, Morgan &
Morgan, P.A. & Samuel D. Elswick, Morgan & Morgan, P.A..

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Russell B. Morgan, Esq. --
rmorgan@babc.com -- Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP & Joshua J.
Phillips, Esq. -- jphillips@babc.com -- Bradley Arant Boult
Cummings LLP.

Avco Corporation and its Division Lycoming Engines, Defendant,
represented by Hugh C. Lawley, Esq. -- Cannon@huielaw.com -- Huie,
Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP, Robert F. Chapski, Esq. --
rchapski@lewisthomason.com -- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg &
Waldrop, P.C., Bradley W. Craig, Esq. -- bcraig@lewisthomason.com
-- Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., Christopher S.
Rodgers, Esq. -- crodgers@huielaw.com -- Huie, Fernambucq &
Stewart, LLP & Stewart W. McCloud, Esq. -- smccloud@huielaw.com --
Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP.

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert F.
Chapski, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., Bradley W.
Craig, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., Christopher
S. Rodgers, Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP, Hugh C. Lawley, Huie,
Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP & Stewart W. McCloud, Huie, Fernambucq &
Stewart, LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael J. King, Esq. -
- mking@wmbac.com -- Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen & Carpenter,
PLLC.

Cytec Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brigid M.
Carpenter, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC.

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by John W. Elder, Esq.
-- jwe@painebickers.com -- Paine, Bickers, LLP.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Debra Leigh Fulton,
Esq. -- dfulton@fmsllp.com -- Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, LLP &
James E. Wagner, Esq. -- jwagner@fmsllp.com -- Frantz, McConnell &
Seymour, LLP.

General Dynamics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jessalyn
H. Zeigler, Esq. -- jzeigler@bassberry.com -- Bass, Berry & Sims,
John W. Dawson, IV, Esq. -- jdawson@bassberry.com -- Bass, Berry &
Sims & Kathryn Hannen Walker, Esq. -- kwalker@bassberry.com --
Bass, Berry & Sims.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John W. Elder,
Paine, Bickers, LLP.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Alexander J.
Winston, Esq. -- ajw@nortonluhn.com -- & William Mitchell Cramer,
Esq. -- wmc@nortonluhn.com -- Norton & Luhn.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by John W. Elder,
Paine, Bickers, LLP.

Goodrich Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael K. Atkins,
Esq. -- matkins@boatlf.com -- Baker, O'Kane, Atkins & Thompson.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Joy A.
Boyd, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC.

Harco, LLC, Defendant, represented by Carrie W. McCutcheon, Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC.

Henkel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brantley Cole
Rowlen, Esq. -- Brantley.Rowlen@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis,
Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew B.
Campbell, Esq. -- acampbell@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt, Tarrant &
Combs & Colby Block, Esq. -- cblock@wyattfirm.com -- Wyatt,
Tarrant & Combs.

Lockheed Martin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian T.
Clark, Glazier Yee, LLP, Guy P. Glazier, Glazier Yee, LLP, Laura
Patricia Yee, Glazier Yee, LLP & Michael David Smith, Glazier Yee,
LLP.

MetLife, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by C. Scott Taylor,
Esq. -- staylor@bsmlaw.com -- Bernstein, Stair & McAdams.

Northrop Grumman Corporation, Defendant, represented by T. Harold
Pinkley, Esq. -- harold.pinkley@butlersnow.com -- Butler Snow LLP
& Brett Hart Knight, Esq. -- hart.knight@butlersnow.com -- Butler
Snow LLP.

Parker Hannifan Corporation, Defendant, represented by William
Ritchie Pigue, Taylor, Pigue, Marchetti & Mink, Keith W. Blair,
Taylor, Pigue, Marchetti & Mink, PLLC & Louis Gino Marchetti, Jr.,
Taylor, Pigue, Marchetti & Mink.

Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, represented by T. Harold
Pinkley, Butler Snow LLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel T.
Swanson, London Amburn, P.C. & Robert Scott Durham, London &
Amburn, PC.

The Boeing Company, Defendant, represented by Michael K. Atkins,
Baker, O'Kane, Atkins & Thompson.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by John W.
Elder, Paine, Bickers, LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, and its Division Pratt & Whitney,
Defendant, represented by Benjamin S. Willson, Lightfoot, Franklin
& White, LLC, Sanford G. Hooper, Lightfoot, Franklin & White, LLC,
Thomas Anderton Wiseman, III, Wiseman Ashworth Law Group PLC & W.
Larkin Radney, IV, Lightfoot, Franklin & White, LLC.

BASF Corporation, Defendant, represented by T. Harold Pinkley,
Butler Snow LLP & Brett Hart Knight, Butler Snow LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Consolidates PI Cases for Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joan A. Madden of the Supreme Court, New York County, in an
order dated July 27, 2015, ordered that asbestos plaintiff's
Gwendoline Santos's motion to consolidate is granted to the extent
of consolidating for joint trial into Trial Group 1, Robert
Flahive Index No. 190135/2013 and Robert Germain, Index No.
190281/2012; and consolidating for joint trial into Trial Group 2,
Donald Joseph Izbicki and Zbigniew Thomas Jalowski Index No.
190474/2014; and ordered that asbestos plaintiff's Frances Valensi
Index No. 190340/2012 will be tried separately.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
GWENDOLINE SANTOS, as Executrix of the Estate of ROBERT FLAHIVE,
as deceased, et al. Plaintiffs, v. 3M COMPANY, Individually and as
Successor to Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, et al,
Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190043/2014 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Madden's Decision is available at http://is.gd/N8U92O
from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Schroeder" Parties Directed to File Case Status
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, in an order dated July
20, 2015, directed the parties in the asbestos-related lawsuit
styled PETER SCHROEDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PUGET SOUND
COMMERCE CENTER, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-02930-
HSG (N.D. Calif.), to file a brief statement summarizing the
status of the case and their plans for dismissal.  A full-text
copy of Judge Gilliam's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/fc9WYffrom Leagle.com.

Peter Schroeder, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Martin Grant,
Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP, David
R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP, Gilbert Lynn Purcell, Brayton
Purcell LLP, James Patrick Nevin, Jr., Brayton Purcell & Nancy
Teresa Williams, Brayton-Purcell.

Arcelia Schroeder, Plaintiff, represented by Richard Martin Grant,
Brayton Purcell LLP, Alan R. Brayton, Brayton Purcell LLP, David
R. Donadio, Brayton Purcell LLP, Gilbert Lynn Purcell, Brayton
Purcell LLP, James Patrick Nevin, Jr., Brayton Purcell & Nancy
Teresa Williams, Brayton-Purcell.

Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., Defendant, represented by
George D. Yaron, Yaron & Associates, Demian David Steele, Yaron &
Associates & Keith E. Patterson, Yaron & Associates.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Allows Discovery in Inmate Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Hutchinson, who is an inmate at San Quentin State Prison,
alleges that he has "industrial lung injury" as a result of being
exposed to asbestos while he was employed by the California Prison
Industry Authority.  The district judge found two claims that are
cognizable: (1) an Eighth Amendment claim against Andrew Deems,
the CEO of Health Care Services at San Quentin for creating a
policy, procedure or practice that prevented the testing and
treatment of inmates for symptoms from exposure to asbestos and
lead, and (2) an Eighth Amendment claim against five CALPIA
employees (Ron Glass, Gary Loredo, Philip Earley, Luu Rogers, and
Brad Smith) for concealing from Mr. Hutchinson and from Dr.
Cranshaw (Mr. Hutchinson's doctor at San Quentin) the fact that
Mr. Hutchinson had been exposed to asbestos or lead, thereby
preventing him from receiving a diagnosis and treatment for
industrial lung disease, aggravating the injury, and inducing him
to continue to work under hazardous conditions.  The district
court referred all discovery disputes to the undersigned for
resolution.  Mr. Smith moved to compel a meet-and-confer to stay
his deposition and to obtain a copy of his deposition transcript.

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
in an order dated July 23, 2015, grants Mr. Hutchinson's motion to
coompel a process for discovery disputes, motion to modify the
subpoena for medical records, and motion for a protective order.
Magistrate Beeler denies his motion for an original copy of his
deposition trranscript but orders the compromise of the provision
of a copy of the condensed version as soon as defense counsel
receives it.  The court also denies as moot the motion to continue
the deposition.

The case is EDWIN J. HUTCHINSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA
PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:13-CV-
04635-CW (LB)(N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy of Magistrate
Beeler's Decision is available at http://is.gd/qLJQNEfrom
Leagle.com.

Edwin Jay Hutchison, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

California Prison Industry Authority, Defendant, represented by
Caitlin Whitwell Noble, Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino,
California State Attorney General's Office.

Ron Glass, Defendant, represented by Nancy Eaton Hudgins, Law
Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins & Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Gary Loredo, Defendant, represented by Nancy Eaton Hudgins, Law
Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins & Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Philip Earley, Defendant, represented by Nancy Eaton Hudgins, Law
Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins & Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Luu Rogers, Defendant, represented by Nancy Eaton Hudgins, Law
Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins & Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

John Walker, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.

Elizabeth Babcock, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell
Noble, Department of Justice, Loran Michael Simon, California
State Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.

Brad Smith, Defendant, represented by Nancy Eaton Hudgins, Law
Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins, Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins & Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Charles Pattillo, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell
Noble, Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.

Kevin Chappell, Defendant, represented by Caitlin Whitwell Noble,
Department of Justice, Loran Michael Simon, California State
Department of Justice & Trace O. Maiorino, California State
Attorney General's Office.

Andrew W. Deems, Defendant, represented by J. Randall Andrada,
Andrada & Associates, Loran Michael Simon, California State
Department of Justice & Lynne Goldsberry Stocker, Andrada &
Associates.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Granted in Inmate Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Charles Beyett, a pro se prisoner, filed a civil rights
action and the defense filed a motion for summary judgment.  Judge
Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, in an order dated July 21, 2015,
granted in part and denied in part.

Specifically, Judge Chen granted the motion for summary judgment
in all respects except that it will denied as to the claim that
Joe Dobie, a supervisor of the mattress factory, was deliberately
indifferent to a risk to Mr. Carter's health posed by asbestos and
will be denied on the qualified immunity defense for Mr. Dobie
regarding the asbestos exposure.  This and five other related
cases will be sent to a magistrate judge for settlement
proceedings, Judge Chen ruled.

The case 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 Order is available at http://is.gd/FT4OoHfrom
Leagle.com.

Lynn Charles Beyett, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Philip Earley, Defendant, represented by Matthew M. Grigg, Esq. --
mmg@hudginslaw.com -- Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins & Carol B.
Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Gary Loredo, Defendant, represented by Matthew M. Grigg, Law
Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins & Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins.

Joe Dobie, Defendant, represented by Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices
of Nancy E. Hudgins & Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins.

Jeremy Young, Defendant, represented by Kenneth Robert Williams,
Kenneth R. Williams, Attorney at Law.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Wins Dismissal Bid in "Baumgartner"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis R. Baumgartner and Gail L. Baumgartner, both of whom are
Ohio residents, allege that Dennis R. Baumgartner was exposed to
American Standard, Inc., et al.'s asbestos-containing products,
which allegedly caused or contributed to his mesothelioma.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege, among others, that Mr.
Baumgartner was exposed to asbestos-containing products during the
course of his employment as an insulator helper and insulator at
various jobsites located in Ohio and Michigan.  The Defendants
also move for summary judgment pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. R.
56.

In a decision dated July 22, 2015, the Superior Court of Rhode
Island, Providence, SC, (1) grants Crane Co., Honeywell, and
Robertshaw's motions for summary judgment based upon the bare-
metal defense and the Plaintiffs' failure to provide any evidence
that exposure to the Defendants' products was a substantial factor
in causing Mr. Baumgartner's injury; and (2) grants G.E., C.B.S.,
Cleaver-Brooks, Foster Wheeler, Riley, and Oakfabco's motions for
summary judgment based upon Ohio's statute of repose.

The case is DENNIS R. BAUMGARTNER and GAIL L. BAUMGARTNER,
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., et al., Defendants, C.A.
NO. PC-13-4151 (R.I. Super.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/FTNcuXfrom Leagle.com.

Robert J. Sweeney, Esq.; Jeffrey S. Kanca, Esq., for Plaintiff.

Thomas W. Lyons, III, Esq.; Brian A. Fielding, Esq.; Bruce
Gladstone, Esq.; Mark O. Denehy, Esq.; Victoria M. Almeida, Esq.;
James R. Oswald, Esq.; Stephen T. Armato, Esq.; Lawrence G.
Cetrulo, Esq.; David A. Goldman, Esq.; Christopher R. van
Tienhoven, Esq.; Diane M. Kildea, Esq.; Mark J. Claflin, Esq.;
Philip T. Newbury, Jr., Esq.; David A. Brosnihan, Esq.; Jessica L.
Patch, Esq.; R. Bart Totten, Esq.; Elisar C. Hares, Esq.; Kenneth
R. Neal, Esq.; Crystal L. Fraser, Esq.; Peter F. Mathieu, Esq.;
Jason M. Saul, Esq.; Jeffrey M. Thomen, Esq.; James A. Ruggieri,
Esq.; Christopher R. Howe, Esq.; Richard P. Campbell, Esq.; Kevin
C. McCaffrey, Esq.; Todd S. Holbrook, Esq.; Zachary Weisberg,
Esq.; Timothy M. Zabbo, Esq.; Cassandra L. Feeney, Esq.; Kathryn
T. Rogers, Esq.; Theodorus Urbanski, Esq.; Mary C. Dunn, Esq.,
Danielle J. Mahoney, Esq.; Mark Nugent, Esq.; John B. Manning,
Esq.; Jonathan F. Tabasky, Esq., for Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Allows Discovery to Conclude in "Santos"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Soo Locks Boat Tours, Fire Island Ferries, Inc., Lake
Champlain Transportation Co. a/k/a Lake Champlain Ferries,
Champion's Auto Ferry, Inc., Fishers Island Ferry District, and
Casco Bay Lines a/k/a Casco Bay Island Transit District move for
summary judgment in the case NANCY SANTOS as Executrix of the
Estate of JOHN JOSEPH SOUZA, Plaintiff, v. A.C. McLOON OIL CO., et
al., Defendants, C.A. NO. PC-09-5475 (R.I. Super.).

In a decision dated July 30, 2015, the Superior Court of Rhode
Island, Providence, SC, without disposing of any other issues
raised by the parties, stays the motion for summary judgment so
that the Plaintiff may have the opportunity to complete relevant
discovery.  Specifically, the Court gives the Plaintiff three
months to complete any remaining depositions with Blount Marine as
it relates to whether the Defendants specified the use of
equipment and materials, including asbestos-containing products,
in the construction of the vessels they ultimately purchased.

A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/Agq34hfrom Leagle.com.

John E. Deaton, Esq., for Plaintiff.  Andrew R. Ferguson, Esq.,
for Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: LGS' Summary Judgment Bid Fails in Coverage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, in an order dated
July 31, 2015, adopted the Special Master's recommendation
regarding LGS Technologies, LP's second motion for summary
judgment in the insurance coverage case captioned LGS
TECHNOLOGIES, LP, as successor in interest to LGS Technologies,
Inc. f/k/a LONGHORN GASKET AND SUPPLY COMPANY, and LOMA ALTA
CORPORATION Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, CAUSE NO. 2:07-CV-399 (E.D. Tex.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Gilstrap's Decision is available at http://is.gd/qO3YNWfrom
Leagle.com.

Mark Tillman, Mediator, represented by Mark David Tillman, Esq. --
mark.tillman@tb-llp.com -- Tillman Batchelor LLP.

James D Blume, Mediator, Pro Se.

Richard D Faulkner, Mediator, Pro Se.

Joe Kendall, Special Master, represented by Elton Joe Kendall,
Esq. -- jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall Law Group, LLP.

Loma Alta Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Alan Smith,
Esq. -- bsmith@wsfirm.com -- Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Aaron Linzy
Mitchell, Esq. -- aaronm@tbmmlaw.com -- Tollefson Bradley Mitchell
& Melendi LLP, Beth D Bradley, Esq. -- bethb@tbmmlaw.com --
Tollefson Bradley Mitchell & Melendi LLP, Claire Abernathy Henry,
Esq. -- claire@wsfirm.com -- Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, R Brent
Cooper, Esq. -- brent.cooper@cooperscully.com -- Cooper & Scully &
Tarron Leigh Gartner-Ilai, Esq. -- tarron@amystewartlaw.com -- Amy
Stewart PC.

LGS Technologies, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Alan
Smith, Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Aaron Linzy Mitchell, Tollefson
Bradley Mitchell & Melendi LLP, Beth D Bradley, Tollefson Bradley
Mitchell & Melendi LLP, Claire Abernathy Henry, Ward, Smith &
Hill, PLLC, R Brent Cooper, Cooper & Scully & Tarron Leigh
Gartner-Ilai, Amy Stewart PC.

Trinity Lloyd's Insurance Company, Intervenor Plaintiff,
represented by R Brent Cooper, Cooper & Scully, Beth D Bradley,
Tollefson Bradley Mitchell & Melendi LLP, Damon Michael Young,
Young Pickett & Lee, John Michael Pickett, LAW OFFICES OF JOHN
PICKETT, Katherine Lynn McClelland, Cooper & Scully PC, Timothy
Micah Dortch, Esq. -- Micah.Dortch@cooperscully.com -- Cooper &
Scully PC & Wesley Glen Johnson, Esq. --
wes.johnson@cooperscully.com -- Cooper & Scully PC.

Trinity Universal Insurance Company, Intervenor Plaintiff,
represented by R Brent Cooper, Cooper & Scully, Beth D Bradley,
Tollefson Bradley Mitchell & Melendi LLP, Damon Michael Young,
Young Pickett & Lee, John Michael Pickett, LAW OFFICES OF JOHN
PICKETT, Katherine Lynn McClelland, Cooper & Scully PC, Timothy
Micah Dortch, Cooper & Scully PC & Wesley Glen Johnson, Cooper &
Scully PC.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Howard Louis Close, Esq. -- close@wrightclose.com -- Wright &
Close LLP, Beth D Bradley, Tollefson Bradley Mitchell & Melendi
LLP, Henry Sim Platts, Jr, Esq. -- platts@wrightclose.com --
Wright & Close, LLP, Joseph Andrew Love, Wright & Close LLP, R
Brent Cooper, Cooper & Scully, Tarron Leigh Gartner-Ilai, Amy
Stewart PC & Thomas Clark Wright, Esq. -- wright@wrightclose.com -
- Wright Brown & Close LLP.

Loma Alta Corporation, Intervenor Defendant, represented by Bruce
Alan Smith, Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Aaron Linzy Mitchell,
Tollefson Bradley Mitchell & Melendi LLP, Beth D Bradley,
Tollefson Bradley Mitchell & Melendi LLP & R Brent Cooper, Cooper
& Scully.

LGS Technologies, L.P., a s LGS successor in interest to LGS
Technologies, Inc. f/k/a Longhorn Gasket and Supply Company
formerly known as Loma Alta Corporation, Intervenor Defendant,
represented by Aaron Linzy Mitchell, Tollefson Bradley Mitchell &
Melendi LLP, Beth D Bradley, Tollefson Bradley Mitchell & Melendi
LLP, Bruce Alan Smith, Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC & R Brent Cooper,
Cooper & Scully.

United States Fire Insurance Company, Counter Claimant,
represented by Howard Louis Close, Wright & Close LLP, Beth D
Bradley, Tollefson Bradley Mitchell & Melendi LLP, Henry Sim
Platts, Jr, Wright & Close, LLP, Joseph Andrew Love, Wright &
Close LLP, R Brent Cooper, Cooper & Scully, Tarron Leigh Gartner-
Ilai, Amy Stewart PC & Thomas Clark Wright, Wright Brown & Close
LLP.

Trinity Lloyd's Insurance Company, Counter Defendant, represented
by R Brent Cooper, Cooper & Scully, Beth D Bradley, Tollefson
Bradley Mitchell & Melendi LLP, Damon Michael Young, Young Pickett
& Lee, John Michael Pickett, LAW OFFICES OF JOHN PICKETT,
Katherine Lynn McClelland, Cooper & Scully PC, Timothy Micah
Dortch, Cooper & Scully PC & Wesley Glen Johnson, Cooper & Scully
PC.

Trinity Universal Insurance Company, Counter Defendant,
represented by R Brent Cooper, Cooper & Scully, Beth D Bradley,
Tollefson Bradley Mitchell & Melendi LLP, Damon Michael Young,
Young Pickett & Lee, John Michael Pickett, LAW OFFICES OF JOHN
PICKETT, Katherine Lynn McClelland, Cooper & Scully PC, Timothy
Micah Dortch, Cooper & Scully PC & Wesley Glen Johnson, Cooper &
Scully PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pneumo Abex's Bid to Dismiss "Lee" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the asbestos-related case captioned LARRY WINSLOWE LEE and
SUSAN PROVOST LEE, Plaintiffs, v. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; GENUINE
PARTS COMPANY, d/b/a National Automotive Parts Association (a/k/a
NAPA); J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., sued individually and as
parent and alter ego to J-M A/C Pipe Corporation; KAWASAKI MOTORS
CORP., U.S.A.; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; PNEUMO ABEX
LLC, sued individually and as successor-in-interest to Abex
Corporation and as successor-in-interest to American Brakeblok;
and YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION, U.S.A.; Defendants, NO. 5:13-CV-826-
FL (E.D.N.C.), Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the nited States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western
Division, issued the following rulings:

   * Defendant Pneumo Abex LLC's Notice of Joinder, seeking to
adopt and incorporate "the Motions for Full and Partial Summary
Judgment, and Memoranda in Support, filed by other Defendants in
this matter," is denied, after Judge Flanagan determined that the
motion suffers a host of procedural infirmities.  A full-text copy
of Judge Flanagan's Order dated July 19, 2015 is available at
http://is.gd/xCsOCAfrom Leagle.com.

   * Defendant Genuine Parts Company's motion for partial summary
judgment as to the plaintiffs' willful and wanton conduct claim is
granted.  A full-text copy of Judge Flanagan's Order dated
July 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/vfXEFqfrom
Leagle.com.

Larry Winslowe Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black
Law.

Susan Provost Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon
Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, P.C. & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black
Law.

Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles M.
Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Moffatt G. McDonald,
Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A., Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth Sinkler
Boyd, P.A., William David Conner, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A. &
Elizabeth R. Geise, Schiff Hardin LLP.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Heather Bell
Adams, Alston & Bird LLP, Matthew Patrick McGuire, Alston & Bird
LLP, Richard Anthony McAvoy, Alston & Bird LLP & Ryan P. Ethridge,
Alston & Bird LLP.

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Carrie
Lin, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Christopher O. Massenburg,
Manion Gaynor & Manning LLP, Daniel B. White, Gallivan, White &
Boyd, P.A., James M. Dedman, IV, Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A.,
John T. Hugo, Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP & Stephanie G. Flynn,
Gallivan, White & Boyd, P.A..

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Keith E. Coltrain, Wall Templeton & Haldrup, P.A..

Pneumo Abex LLC, Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath
Bouch & Seekings.

Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., Defendant, represented by
Timothy W. Bouch, Leath Bouch & Seekings.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2nd Arrowood-Reinsurer Arbitration Enjoined
------------------------------------------------------------
Earlier this year, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London moved
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) to set aside a
January 2014 Order and Judgment confirming an arbitration award
entered in 2013 in favor of Arrowood Indemnity Company.  That
motion was denied as an impermissible collateral attack on the
Award.  While that motion was pending, Underwriters initiated a
second arbitration proceeding regarding the Award and the
contract.

In the 1980s, Arrowood began presenting asbestos claims to
Underwriters under their interpretation of the First Advised
Clause.  It sought reinsurance contributions for payments that
Arrowood made to its insureds on liability policies for products
that the insureds had placed into the market that contained
asbestos.  Underwriters denied Arrowood's claims on the ground
that its interpretation was wrong, and the parties commenced
arbitration in October 2010, presided over by a three-arbitrator
panel.  Arbitration proceedings took place in New York City in
March and April of 2013.

Arrowood now seeks to enjoin the Second Arbitration, to enforce
the Award Judgment, and to hold respondents in contempt of that
Judgment.  Underwriters crossmove for an order compelling
arbitration.

In a July 30, 2015 opinion and order, Judge Denise Cote of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York enjoins
the Second Arbitration.  Judge Cote held "Because allowing
boundless relitigation would call all arbitral awards into doubt
and subvert the FAA, parties "may not bypass [the FAA's] exclusive
and comprehensive nature . . . by attempting to arbitrate [their]
claims in a separate second arbitration proceeding.""

The case is ARROWOOD INDEMNITY COMPANY, formerly known as ROYAL
INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. EQUITAS INSURANCE LIMITED,
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S OF LONDON, (and Syndicates set
forth on Schedule A), Respondents, NO. 13CV7680 (DLC)(S.D.N.Y.).
A full-text copy of Judge Cote's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/EYqAwjfrom Leagle.com.

Robert Lewin, Esq. -- rlewin@stroock.com -- Michele L. Jacobson,
Esq. -- mjacobson@stroock.com -- and Beth K. Clark, Esq. --
bclark@stroock.com -- STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP, New York, NY,
For petitioner Arrowood Indemnity Company, formerly known as Royal
Indemnity Company.

Lloyd A. Gura, Esq. -- lgura@moundcotton.com -- Amy J. Kallal,
Esq. -- akallal@moundcotton.com -- and Andrea Fort, Esq. --
Afort@moundcotton.com -- MOUND COTTON WOLLAN & GREENGRASS, New
York, NY, For respondents Equitas Insurance Limited, Certain
Underwriters at Lloyd's of London, et al.



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, 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 2015. 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  * * *