CAR_Public/150925.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, September 25, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 192


                            Headlines


3D SYSTEMS: Faces "Pruitt" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
83 BROOKLYN: Faces "Silvestre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
720 OCEAN: "Vazquez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
A1 SOLAR: "Saravia" Suit Alleges California Labor Code Violation
ABENGOA SA: Faces "Francisco" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports

AETNA LIFE: Faces "Fick" Suit in Texas Over ERISA Violation
AETNA LIFE: Faces "Gibson" Suit Over LT Disability Benefits
AIRPORT MANAGEMENT: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations
ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Violation
ALLCONNECT INC: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act and FMLA

AMBERT MEDICAL: "Figueredo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "White" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY: Court Dismisses "Watson" Complaint
AMERIGAS PROPANE: Transferred "Shields" Suit to E.D. California

AMF BOWLING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages
AOL INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Amended "Derby" Complaint
ARKLATEX WIRELINE: "Todd" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
AUSTRALIA: Gov't Faces Potential Suit in WA Over Stolen Pay Scheme
B&B ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Donato" Suit Over Unpaid Wages

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Violations
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Williamsons File Suit in New York Ct.
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "Varner" Asserts Securities Manipulation
BERETANIA PROPERTY: Sued Over Disabled-Inaccessible Accommodation
BIG APPLE: Faces "Rugerio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

BLUE CROSS: Faces APCO Suit Over Plan Asset Misappropriation
BLUE CROSS: Faces Michigan Suit Over Plan Asset Misappropriation
BLUE WORLD POOLS: Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration Denied
CENTRAL TRANSPORT: "Young" Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages
CEQUENT PERFORMANCE: Recalls Four-Bike Carriers Due to Crash Risk

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: "Reilly" Suit Alleged Deceptive Marketing
CONNECT AMERICA: Court Approves Settlement Stipulation
CORNING INCOPORATED: Court Denies Request for Finality Language
CVS PHARMACY: Appeals Court Vacates August 2014 Discovery Order
CROSSROADS: Recalls Sunset Trail 2015 Model Due to Fire Risk

DELTA DENTAL: Faces "Buford" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DIVORCE SOURCE: Amended "Lowery" Complaint Partly Dismissed
EDGEWATER HOMES: Home Buyers Sue Over False, Misleading Conduct
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Biometrics Slurpage
FIESTA MART: "Rahman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

FIRST NATIONAL: Must Defend Against "Carter" FDCPA Suit
FORD MOTOR: "Deluca" Suit Included in Fuel Economy MDL
HOBART SERVICE: 9th Cir. Reinstates Commute-Time Claim
HONEST CO: $5MM Class Suit Baseless, Jessica Alba Says
JP MORGAN SECURITIES: Court Dismisses Suit v. Baumann

KAROUN DAIRIES: Recalls Cheese Products Due to Listeria
KAWASAKI: Recalls VULCAN 1700 Motorcycle Model Due to Crash Risk
LATIN FEVA: "Avendano" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
LES SOEURS: Recalls Mustard Seed Products Due to Sesame Seeds
LEWIS ENERGY: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

LUFTHANSA: Supreme Court Stays Penalty Order
LUIS GARCIA: Faces "Mesa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LYLE WILLIAMS: Sued for Discriminating Against African Americans
MAJOR LEAGUE: District Court Dismisses "Miranda" Class Suit
MCKESSON CORP: Court Grants Motion for Leave to File Surreply

MILLENNIAL MEDIA: "Wagner" Suit Objects to AOL Takeover
MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over AOL Takeover
MOTOR COACH: Recalls D Series 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
NEW BLUE: "Cervantes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEWMAR: Recalls Two Motorhome Models Due to Fire Risk

PANANG THAI: Faces "Shagui" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PATRICIA GROSVENOR-BUNN: "Lodato" Suit Included in Incretin MDL
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Court Reconsiders March 31 Order
PICNIC GOURMET: Recalls Yogurt Cheese Spreads Due to Listeria
POLK COUNTY, FL: Court Denies Sheriff's Bid for Sanctions

PORT OF SEATTLE: Court Says Oral Argument Unnecessary
RADIANCY INC: Falsely Marketed Hair Removal Device, Suit Claims
RITE AID: Removes "Mueller" Suit to California District Court
ROBINS FOOD: Faces "Xenophon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Faces "Ontiveros" Suit Over Unpaid Wages

SAFEWAY: Recalls Flight of Cheese Tray Products Due to Listeria
SANDS BETHWORKS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Mao" Suit Says
SARTAIN STRUCTURES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SIMON'S LAWN: Faces "Kennedy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STREAM ENERGY: "Basile" Suit Moved From E.D. to M.D. Pennsylvania

SWING PAINTS: Recalls Lacquer Thinner Products Due to Injury Risk
TEAMSTERS: Board Sued Over Disability Pension Benefits
TEKSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
TOYOTA: Recalls RAV4 2009 Model Due to Crash Risk
TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Cheese Products Due to Listeria

TRINET GROUP: Oct. 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid
UNITED STATES: OPM Faces "Hanagan" Suit Over Alleged Cyber Breach
UNITED STATES: Motion for Injunctive Relief in "Wise" Denied
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Remands "Hernandez" Petition to BIA
UPLAND CONTRACTING: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims

VEMMA NUTRITION: FTC Obtains Injunction for Temporary Shut Down
VILLAGE OF GLENWOOD: Appelate Court Reverses Ruling in "Mabry"
WESTBROOK GREENHOUSE: Recalls Boat Trailers Due to Injury Risk
WESTERN EXPRESS: "Smith" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
WESTERN RANGE: Former Shepherds Sue Over Wage Conspiracy

XTREME DRILLING: "Mendez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Calif. Inmate's Sanctions Bid
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CBS Summary Judgment in "Shiffer" Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conn. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Brochu"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Win Summary Judgment in "Walashek"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $4.5MM Verdict Against Caterpillar Affirmed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GRC Wins Prejudgment Interest in Coverage Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Wins Summary Judgment in "Laurent"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Suoja"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. App. Reverses "Anderson" Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Prevented from Intervening in "Moreau"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Spent $400K for Fibro Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had 5,200 Fibro Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Units Had 3,600 Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Had $243.6-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.73-Bil. Fibro Reserves

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had 22,003 Unresolved Fibro Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has $52.26-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 PI Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Accrues $80MM for Fibro Defense
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DCLLC Records $52-Mil. Insurance Recovery

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $123-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CB&I Has 5,800 Fibro Plaintiffs at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill Ex-Factory Worker Campaigns Fibro Awareness
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Court Reverses Judgment in Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Cites New Occupational Fibro Exposure Stats

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Problems Delay Aberdare Stadium
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFP Probes Leak of Mr. Fluffy Homeowners' Info
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Engineer Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pensioner Dies of Work Exposure to Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queenslanders Warned of New Wave of Fibro Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Draughtsman Diagnosed with Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairfax Area Soil Contains Natural Toxic Dust
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Delays Work on Lincoln Railway
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Opera House Worker Wins Fibro Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Scare Lead to NZ Site Closure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Toxic Dust at NZ Arts Centre
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Engr. Fined for Homeowners Put at Risk of Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Denies Damages to Widow
ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Action Taken Over Possible NY Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 51 North Lincolnshire Deaths Linked to Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas VA Hospital Violates Fibro Laws
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Fibro Victim Seeks Company Benefits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nggawha Spa Closed Due to Toxic Dust


                            *********


3D SYSTEMS: Faces "Pruitt" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Pruitt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 3D Systems Corporation, Abraham N. Reichental, and
Damon J. Gregoire, Case No. 0:15-cv-03138-MGL (D.S.C., August 10,
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.

3D Systems Corporation is a Delaware corporation that provides 3D
digital design and fabrication solutions, including 3D printers,
print materials and cloud-sourced custom parts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lindsey W. Cooper Jr., Esq.
      Margarete Linsay Allio, Esq.
      LW COOPER JR LAW OFFICES
      36 Broad Street
      Charleston, SC 29401
      Telephone: (843) 723-5152
      Facsimile: (843) 375-6623
      E-mail: lwc@lwcooper.com
              mla@lwcooper.com

         - and -

      Brian Murray, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 E 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com


83 BROOKLYN: Faces "Silvestre" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Renardo Delgado Silvestre and all others similarly situated v. 83
Brooklyn Bagel Company, LLC d/b/a Toasted Bagelry and Deli, Khaled
Mohamed, and Islam Mohamed, Case No. 1:15-cv-23476-KMM (S.D. Fla.,
September 16,2015), 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 restaurant in Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. Zidell, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


720 OCEAN: "Vazquez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------
Jorge Vazquez, and all others similarly situated v. 720 Ocean
Drive, LLC dba The Place and Stefano Frittella, Case No. 1:15-cv-
23422 (S.D. Fla., September 10, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation and minimum
wages as required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and its
implementing regulations.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County,
Florida doing business as The Place.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roderick V. Hannah, Esq.
      RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A.
      8751 W. Broward Blvd., Suite 303
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Tel: (954) 362-3800
      Fax: (954) 362-3779

          - and -

      Pelayo M. Duran, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A.
      4640 N.W. 7th Street
      Miami, FL 33126-2309
      Tel: (305) 266-9780
      Fax: (305) 269-8311


A1 SOLAR: "Saravia" Suit Alleges California Labor Code Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Saravia, Nicolas Afable, and all others similarly situated
v. A1 Solar Power, Inc. and Does 1-10, Case No. 115CV285413 (Cal.
Super., September 9, 2015), seeks relief pursuant to the
applicable provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable
Wage Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission to remedy the
Defendants' failure to pay all wages due, indemnify for necessary
expenses and losses, and to pay waiting penalties, in addition to
injunctive relief.

The Defendant sells solar energy systems. It is a corporation
headquartered in California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Robert Ottinger, Esq.
      THE OTTINGER FIRM, P.C.
      535 Mission Street
      San Francisco, CA 94133
      Tel: (415) 262-0096
      Fax: (415) 520-0555
      E-mail: robert@ottingerlaw.com


ABENGOA SA: Faces "Francisco" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Francisco, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Abengoa, S.A., Santiago Seage, Manuel
Sanchez Ortega, Barbara Zubiria and Ignacio Garcia Alvear, Case
No. 1:15-cv-06279-ER (S.D.N.Y., August 10, 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.

Abengoa, S.A. is an engineering and clean technology company that
purports to apply innovative technology solutions for
sustainability in the energy and environment sectors, generating
electricity from renewable resources, converting biomass into
biofuels and producing drinking water from sea water.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
      Julia J. Sun, Esq.
      Adam M. Apton, Esq.
      Michael B. Ershowsky, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com
              jsun@zlk.com
              aapton@zlk.com
              mershowsky@zlk.com


AETNA LIFE: Faces "Fick" Suit in Texas Over ERISA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Miranda L. Fick v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-
01529 (E.D. Tex., September 16, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's unlawful denial and refusal to provide Plan members
with long-term disability benefits, in violation of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

Aetna Life Insurance Company operates a life and health insurance
company in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. Goodman, Jr.
      KILGORE & KILGORE, PLLC
      3109 Carlisle Street
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Telephone: (214) 379-0823
      Facsimile: (214) 379-0840
      E-mail: reg@kilgorelaw.com


AETNA LIFE: Faces "Gibson" Suit Over LT Disability Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gibson v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-
01530, arises out of the Defendant's unlawful denial and refusal
to provide Plan members with long-term disability benefits, in
violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Aetna Life Insurance Company operates a life and health insurance
company in Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. Goodman, Jr.
      KILGORE & KILGORE, PLLC
      3109 Carlisle Street
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Telephone: (214) 379-0823
      Facsimile: (214) 379-0840
      E-mail: reg@kilgorelaw.com


AIRPORT MANAGEMENT: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Mariyah Scott, and all others similarly situated v. Airport
Management Services, LLC, Hudson Group (HG) Retail, LLC and Does 1
through 100 inclusive, Case No. BC593927 (Cal. Super., September
9, 2015), seeks monetary damages and restitution, penalties,
wages, premium pay, and pro rata share of attorneys' fees pursuant
to Private Attorneys General Act and California Labor Code.

The Defendants provide business services such as bondspersons,
drafting services, lecture bureaus, and notaries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Tel: (818) 265-1020
      Fax: (818) 265-1021


ALCON LABORATORIES: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Lanzarotti, and all others similarly situated v. Alcon
Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care,
Inc., Cooper Vision, Inc., and ABB Optical Group, Case No. 3:15-
cv-01099 (N.D. Calif., August 27, 2015), seeks damages for the
Defendants' violations of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act and the
Unfair Competition Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Manufacturer Defendants conspired
with each other and with Defendant ABB Optical Group, a
wholesaler, as well as independent eye care professionals
represented by ABB and their trade association, the American
Optometric Association, to impose minimum resale prices on certain
contact lens lines by subjecting them to so-called "Unilateral
Pricing Policies" ("UPPs") and thereby eliminate price competition
on those products by "big box" stores, buying clubs, and internet-
based retailers by substantially preventing them from discounting
those products.

Alcon Laboratories, Inc. is a United States company headquartered
in Fort Worth, Texas that is owned by Novartis. Alcon makes eye
care products, including contact lenses.

Bausch + Lomb is a United States company founded in Rochester, New
York and now headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey. It is now
owned by Valeant. Bausch + Lomb makes eye care products, including
contact lenses.

Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc is a United States company
headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. J&J makes eye care
products, including contact lenses.

Cooper Vision, Inc. is a United States company headquartered in
Pleasanton, California. CV makes eye care products, including
contact lenses.

ABB Optical Group is a United States company headquartered in
Coral Springs, Florida that has its contact lens manufacturing
operation and one of its distribution centers in Alameda,
California. ABB wholesales the contact lenses sold by the
Manufacturer Defendants and services over 19,000 ECPs nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      555 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Tel: (877) 500-8780
      Fax: (877) 500-8781
      E-mail: chris.ridout@zimmreed.com

          - and -

      Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
      MURRAY LAW FIRM
      650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 525-8100
      Fax: (504) 584-5249
      E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com


ALLCONNECT INC: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act and FMLA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Casselli v. Allconnect, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00557-PMW
(D. Utah, August 4, 2015) is brought under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Ms. Casselli was a disabled person as defined by the ADA at the
time she was fired by the Defendant.

Allconnect, Inc. is a corporation registered in the state of
Delaware and based out of the state of Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marcus B. Smith, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARCUS B. SMITH
          685 North Main Street, Suite 689
          Richfield, UT 84701
          Telephone: (801) 634-2942
          E-mail: marcus@marcussmithlaw.com


AMBERT MEDICAL: "Figueredo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yanlei Figueredo, and others similarly situated v. Ambert Medical
Care Center, Corp. and Ivan Lambert, Case No. 32054085 (D. Fla.,
September 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and cost
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a medical services company in Miami
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305)416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
              bshulman@rgpattorneys.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "White" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha White, and all others similarly-situated v. American
Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and
United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-07104 (S.D.N.Y., September
9, 2015), seeks damages and injunctive relief under the federal
antitrust laws arising from Defendants' alleged conspiracy to
restrict available flight capacity and thereby to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize prices of passenger airline tickets.

American Airlines Group Inc. is a holding company and the parent
company of Defendant American Airlines, Inc. Both American
Airlines Group Inc. and American Airlines, Inc., are Delaware
corporations with their principal places of business located in
Fort Worth, Texas.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more
than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest carries the
most domestic passengers of any U.S. airline. It operates more
than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States
and six additional countries.

United Continental Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and the
parent company of Defendant United Airlines, Inc. Both United
Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc. are Delaware
corporations with their principal places of business located in
Chicago, Illinois. United operates more than 5,300 flights per day
to 369 locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
      THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM, P.C.
      29 Broadway, Suite 2400
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 952-0602
      Fax: (212) 952-0608
      E-mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Williams, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
04223 (N.D. Cal., September 16, 2015), arises from the Defendants'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain or stabilize prices for Domestic Airfare in the
United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence G. Papale, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE G. PAPALE
      1308 Main Street, Suite 117
      Saint Helena, CA 94574
      Telephone: (707) 963-1704
      E-mail: lgpspale@papalelaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph M. Alioto, Esq.
      Theresa D. Moore, Esq.
      Jamie L. Miller, Esq.
      ALIOTO LAW FIRM
      225 Bush Street, 16th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 434-8900

         - and -

      Robert G. Methvin Jr., Esq.
      James Terrell, Esq.
      McCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
      The Highland Building
      2201 Arlington Avenue South
      Birmingham, AL 35205
      E-mail: rgm@mmlaw.net
              jterell@mmlaw.net


AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY: Court Dismisses "Watson" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Arthur J. Schwab of the United States District
Court for Western District of Pennsylvania granted Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint in the case
captioned, JUSTIN WATSON, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY
AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 15CV0888.

Defendant insured Plaintiff's motor vehicles. The motor vehicle
policy indicated that Plaintiff had rejected underinsured motorist
(UIM) coverage. In order to reject the UIM coverage, Plaintiff
signed a rejection form prepared by Defendant. Plaintiff's
Complaint alleges (on his behalf and others similarly situated)
that the rejection form provided by Defendant is invalid because
the wording on the form fails to conform, word for word, with
statutorily prescribed language. The action is brought as a class
action and the Court is requested to certify the following class:
(a) all Pennsylvania citizens on the date of the filing of the
complaint1; (b) who were ANPAC insureds as defined by MVFRL or the
applicable ANPAC policy; (c) which ANPAC policy provided that UIM
benefits were rejected; (d) for whom ANPAC cannot produce a valid
rejection form for UIM coverage as required by Section 1731(c. I)
of MVFRL; and (e) who were injured in motor vehicle accidents by
an underinsured motorist on or after June 5, 2009.

In the motion, Defendant argues that unpublished federal court
case law controls this issue, while Plaintiff counters that
intermediate state court case law controls the matter.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated September 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/tLu1Cofrom Leagle.com, Judge Schwab agreed with the
Court of Appeals' decision in Robinson holding that "to find the
rejection form void because of the addition of one word -- a word
that appears elsewhere in the statutory text many times -- would
be to elevate form over substance in a hyperliteral interpretation
of the MVFRL that defies common sense.

Justin Watson is represented by William M. Radcliffe, Esq. --
wmr@rightlawfirm.com -- William M. Martin, Esq. --
wmm@rightlawfirm.com -- RADCLIFFE & DEHAAS, L.L.P.

American National Property and Casualty Company is represented by
Jay M. Lonero, Esq. -- jlonero@lpwsl.com, Christopher R. Pennison,
Esq. -- cpennison@lpwsl.com & Jennifer Kretschmann, Esq. --
jkretschmann@lpwsl.com -- LARZELERE PICOU WELLS SIMPSON LONERO LLC
& Sheila M. Burke, Esq. -- sburke@bccattorneys.com -- BURKE CROMER
CREMONESE


AMERIGAS PROPANE: Transferred "Shields" Suit to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Shields, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Amerigas
Propane, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case No. CV13-05813-MMM was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-CV-
00754-KJM-EFB to the proceeding.

The complaint states a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act.


AMF BOWLING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmin Adkisson, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. AMF Bowling Centers, Inc. d/b/a
Bowlmor AMF Centers, Strike Holdings, LLC, and Does 1-100, Case
No. BC594790 (D. Cal., September 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate and own bowling alleys, charging fees to
consumers for usage of their facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      Cody R. Kennedy, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 991 -8080
      Facsimile: (818)991-8081
      E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
              kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
              ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com

         - and -

      Young W. Ryu, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF YOUNG W. RYU
      9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (888) 365-8686
      Facsimile: (800)576-1170
      E-mail: ryu7210@gmail.com


AOL INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Amended "Derby" Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the United States District for
Northern District of California granted Defendant AOL's motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in the case captioned,
NICHOLAS DERBY, Plaintiff, v. AOL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:15-
CV-000452-RMW.

Defendant AOL, a mobile and computer social networking and
internet company, operates an instant messaging system called AIM.
The case arises out of three unsolicited text messages that
plaintiff received through defendant's AOL Instant Messenger (AIM)
service, and a confirmation text from AOL to plaintiff following
plaintiff's request to block future messages from AIM. According
to the complaint, sometime in the last several years AOL
implemented the ability to send messages from AIM to cellular
telephones via Short Message Services (SMS), also known as text
messaging. Plaintiff alleges that AOL's practice of permitting AIM
users to send text messages to mobile phone numbers without
obtaining the recipients' prior express consent violates Section
227(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Plaintiff proposes to represent a class of persons who received
unsolicited text messages, defined as follows: "All persons in the
United States and its Territories whose cellular telephones were
sent one or more text messages by Defendant's AIM system where the
called party did not provide express consent to Defendant to send
such text messages."

On July 1, 2015, the court dismissed plaintiff's initial complaint
concluding that the three initial text messages plaintiff received
did not violate the TCPA because they were sent via human
intervention, not via an "automatic telephone dialing system"
required for TCPA liability and that plaintiff's own request to
opt out precipitated the confirmation message and that plaintiff
knowingly released his phone number to AOL, thereby consenting to
be texted back at that number. Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint which repeats the allegations about the three messages
plaintiff received and the confirmation he received after opting
out.

In the motion, Defendant moves to dismiss the FAC for failure to
state a claim on which relief can be granted because these newly
described features, like those described in the original
complaint, require human intervention, precluding a claim under
the TCPA  and the auto-reply and status update messages are sent
to AIM "users," a group from which plaintiff has excluded himself
and thus cannot represent.  Plaintiff opposes, arguing that as
long as a system has the potential capacity to dial numbers
without human intervention, messages received from that system
violate the TCPA.

In his Order dated September 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/t5ooYAfrom Leagle.com, Judge Whyte found that the
2015 TCPA Order does not support plaintiff's argument that the FAC
adequately states a claim on which relief can be granted, and the
arguments plaintiff raises in opposition to dismissal are
unpersuasive.

Nicholas Derby is represented by:

Evan Matthew Meyers, Esq.
Yevgeniy Y. Turin, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel:(312)893-7002

     - and -

David Christopher Parisi, Esq.
Suzanne L. Havens Beckman, Esq.
PARISI & HAVENS LLP
15233 Valleyheart Dr N,
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Tel: (818)990-1299

AOL, Inc. is represented by Eric C. Bosset, Esq. --
ebosset@cov.com -- Simon J. Frankel, Esq. -- sfrankel@cov.com --
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP


ARKLATEX WIRELINE: "Todd" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coty Todd and Colt Mcentyre, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Arklatex Wireline Services, LLC,
Arklatex Energy Services, LLC, and predator pressure control and
Crane services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00674-RP (W.D. Tex., August
10, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs,
including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing products and
services in the oil and gas industry, throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford-Ste 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


AUSTRALIA: Gov't Faces Potential Suit in WA Over Stolen Pay Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Bullock, writing for ABC News, reported that up until the
1970s, generations of Aboriginal workers in WA had their wages
systematically stolen over decades, and only a small minority
received reparation -- just $2,000 in 2012. Sarah Dingle reveals
the secret calculations that recommended a much higher sum, and
government efforts to minimise payouts.

In Western Australia the government is facing a potential class
action over its controversial stolen wages reparations scheme,
which paid Aboriginal people a maximum of $2,000 each after
decades of wages withheld by government, child labour, and in some
cases slavery.

Now a Background Briefing investigation has uncovered secret
financial modelling, commissioned by government, on just how much
the state of Western Australia owes its Aboriginal workers.

At one workplace alone the documents put the amount of Aboriginal
wages kept by government at $63 million.

And a whistleblower says in initial discussions, state treasury
agreed that individual payouts would be as high as $78,000.

He believes the Barnett government kept the work of a stolen wages
taskforce quiet for four years, waiting for potential claimants to
die.

In her 80s, Mabel Juli is now a famous artist. But for decades
under a WA government system she laboured on an East Kimberley
pastoral station without ever being paid.

'We don't know the money,' she says. 'We [were] just working for
bread and tea and meat. We don't know the money; we never get the
money.'

Through a permit system, the government rented Aboriginal people
to pastoral stations as free labourers who didn't have to be paid,
only fed. Others had their wages stolen.

Until 1972, if an Aboriginal person earned a wage the state could
legally withhold up to 75 per cent in government trust accounts --
but that money has simply vanished.

Three years ago, WA conducted a stolen wages reparations scheme,
with a maximum payout of two thousand dollars each.

Dr Rosalind Kidd is a national expert on Aboriginal stolen wages.

'Can you imagine the CEO of Westpac or ANZ saying, "We got no idea
how much of your money is missing, we're offering $2,000?"' she
says.

Indigenous affairs minister Peter Collier told parliament a
government stolen wages taskforce had investigated, but there
wasn't enough evidence to prove people were owed any more than
$2,000 each.

'Unfortunately, due to the complexity of trust accounts in Western
Australia, the significant lack of surviving records and the
passage of time, the task force could not develop an actuarial
model that could illuminate the true value or full impact of any
compensation,' he says.

But there was detailed actuarial modelling done by Perth firm
Barton Consultancy for the taskforce, delivered to government and
obtained by Background Briefing.

At just one workplace alone, Moore River Native Settlement, the
actuaries estimate Aboriginal wages kept in trust by government at
more than $63 million.

niversity of Notre Dame researcher Steve Kinnane's grandmother
worked at Moore River.

'Their own actuarial studies have revealed that the potential
compensation that should have been paid would have been in the
vicinity of millions and millions of dollars, probably even
hundreds of millions of dollars,' he says.

And a whistleblower who worked with that taskforce, Howard Riley,
says state treasury initially agreed to individual payouts of
$78,000.

'The treasury at the time said, "Well, maybe we can handle
seventy-eight." That's when we said, "Well, leave it at $78,000."'

Background Briefing has also obtained calculations of the amount
of Commonwealth benefits stolen from Aboriginal people en masse
under a state government system.

The WA government gave Aboriginal pensions, maternity payments and
child endowments not to the Aboriginal beneficiaries themselves
but to pastoral stations and churches, sometimes sending entire
pensions to church headquarters interstate.

The actuaries calculated that in the 30s and 60s, $24.5 million
was stolen from Aboriginal pensioners in the Kimberley alone.

Confidential documents show the taskforce's final recommendations
to government in 2008 was a stolen wages reparation scheme costing
$71 million, with up to 3,000 workers thought to be still alive
who could make a claim. But the work of the taskforce was shelved
for four years, and Mr Riley believes the delay was deliberate.

'They waited for the people to die,' Mr Riley says.

'They wanted those people to die so that the state coffers weren't
being emptied out on black people whose wages they deserved to
have back.'

Mr Riley tells the story of an old uncle of his who lived at Tom
Price, in the Pilbara, and recently died of mesothelioma.

'He used to work at Wittenoom, he used to dig asbestos, blue
asbestos out of the ground,' he says.

'He was one of the first people that I thought might have got a
payout because I told them how sick he was.

'The thing that he wanted most was for a dialysis machine in his
house so he could stay home and die with his family. Never got
that.'

In 2012 the total amount paid out by the West Australian
government for decades of Aboriginal stolen wages was not $71
million, but just $2.5 million.

The state indigenous affairs minister refused an interview with
Background Briefing.

In a written response to questions he said it took time to 'assess
the report properly'.

The chief executive of the state's Aboriginal Legal Service,
Dennis Eggington, says what happened in WA was slavery.

'You've got people working for nothing. That is a fair definition
of slavery in my terms,' he says.

'You hear time and time again, "oh Aboriginal people wouldn't work
in an iron lung." Well, Aboriginal people did work ... and they
never got paid for it.'

The Aboriginal Legal Service is now considering a potential class
action.


B&B ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Donato" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Donato and all others similarly-situated v. B&B
Entertainment, LLC dba The Playhouse, Case No. 15-cv-61894 (S.D.
Fla., September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendant owns and operates the adult entertainment club
called the "The Playhouse," which is located in West Park, Florida
33023.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      6541 NE 21st Way
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
      Tel: (561) 676-6370
      Fax: (561) 320-0285
      E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com

         - and -

      Denzle G. Latty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DENZLE G LATTY ESQ
      746 NE 3rd Avenue
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304
      Tel: (954) 888-8998
      Fax: (954) 888-8991
      E-mail: denzle.latty@dlattylaw.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund, and all others
similarly-situated v. Bank Of Nova Scotia, New York Agency; BMO
Capital Markets Corp.; BNP Paribas Securities Corp.; Barclays
Capital Inc.; Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.; Citigroup Global Markets
Inc.; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC; Daiwa Capital Markets
America Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.; Goldman, Sachs & Co.;
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.; Jefferies LLC; J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated; Mizuho
Securities USA Inc.; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Nomura Securities
International, Inc.; RBC Capital Markets, LLC; RBS Securities
Inc.; SG Americas Securities, LLC; TD Securities (USA) LLC; and
UBS Securities LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-07111 (S.D.N.Y., September
10, 2015), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and other
relief for the substantial injuries it sustained as a result of
Defendants' unlawful conduct to restrain competition in the market
for Treasury Instruments in the United States from at least as
early as January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2012 in violations of the
Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Commodity Exchange Act, and state common
law.

This antitrust and commodities class action concerns Defendants'
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. Treasury securities are debt
instruments issued by the U.S. Treasury Department to help finance
the operations of the U.S. government.

The Defendants are registered primary dealer of Treasury
securities with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stanley D. Bernstein, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
      10 East 40th Street
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 779-1414
      Fax: (212) 779-3218
      E-mail: bernstein@bernlieb.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Williamsons File Suit in New York Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
Jane Franklin and Jonathan Richard Williamson, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bank of Nova
Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07329 (S.D.N.Y., September 16,
2015), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful combinations,
agreements and conspiracies to manipulate the market for U.S.
Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and related debt instruments issued
by the United States Treasury Department and financial products
benchmarked to Treasury security rates.

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:

      Scott M. Riemer, Esq.
      RIEMER & ASSOCIATES LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1750
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 297-0700
      E-mail: sriemer@riemerlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Richard Grossman, Esq.
      Ingrid Leverett, Esq.
      Daniel Veroff, Esq.
      PILLSBURY & COLEMAN, LLP
      600 Montgomery St., 31st Fl.
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 433-8000


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: "Varner" Asserts Securities Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
H. Rogers Varner, Jr., on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-07325-UA (S.D.N.Y., September 16, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' unlawful combinations, agreements and conspiracies to
manipulate the market for U.S. Treasury bills, notes, bonds, and
related debt instruments issued by the United States Treasury
Department and financial products benchmarked to Treasury security
rates.

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:

      Michael J. Guzman, Esq.
      Kevin J. Miller, Esq.
      Joseph S. Hall, Esq.
      KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C.
      Sumner Square
      1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 326-7900
      E-mail: mguzman@khhte.com
              kmiller@khhte.com
              jhall@khhte.com

         - and -

      R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
      Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
      McCULLEY McCLUER PLLC
      1022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300
      Isle of Palms, SC 29451
      Telephone: (662) 550-4511
      E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
              smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey S. Istvan, Esq.
      Matthew Duncan, Esq.
      Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
      FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C
      1 South Broad St., 23rd Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      E-mail: mduncan@finekaplan.com
              apessin@finekaplan.com

         - and -

      Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
      BONI & ZACK LLC
      15 St. Asaphs Road
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Telephone: (610) 822-0200
      E-mail: jsnyder@bonizack.com


BERETANIA PROPERTY: Sued Over Disabled-Inaccessible Accommodation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Van Winkle v. Beretania Property Investments LLC, Case No.
4:15-cv-02280 (S.D. Tex., August 10, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to make reasonable accommodations in
policies, practices and procedures to provide full and equal
enjoyment of disabled individuals.

Beretania Property Investments LLC operates a place of public
accommodation located at 1201 Nasa Parkway, Webster, Texas 77598.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald Julius Smeberg, Esq.
      THE SMEBERG LAW FIRM, PLLC
      2010 West Kings Highway
      San Antonio, TX 78231
      Telephone: (832) 605-6769
      Facsimile: (281) 293-9902
      E-mail: ronaldsmeberg@yahoo.com

         - and -

      John P. Fuller, Esq.
      FULLER, FULLER AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502
      North Miami, FL 33181
      Telephone: (305) 891-5199
      Facsimile: (305) 893-9505
      E-mail: jpf@fullerfuller.com


BIG APPLE: Faces "Rugerio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Sous Rugerio, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Big Apple Meat Market Inc. d/b/a Big Apple
Meat Market, Peter Castellana, and Michael Castellana, Case No.
1:15-cv-06253-KDF (S.D.N.Y., August 10, 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 butcher shop and grocery store
located at 529 Ninth Avenue, New York, New York 10018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces APCO Suit Over Plan Asset Misappropriation
------------------------------------------------------------
APCO, Inc. and APCO, Inc. Benefit plan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Michigan, Case No. 2:15-cv-13253-MOB-EAS (E.D. Mich., September
16, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's
alleged misappropriation of self-insured employee benefit Plan
assets.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a Michigan non-profit health
care corporation organized under the Nonprofit Health Care
Corporation Reform Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Perrin Rynders, Esq.
      Aaron M. Phelps, Esq.
      Kyle P. Konwinski, Esq.
      VARNUM LLP
      Bridgewater Place, PO Box 352
      Grand Rapids, MI, 49501-0352
      Telephone: (616) 336-6000
      Facsimile: (616) 336-7000
      E-mail: prynders@varnumlaw.com
              amphelps@varnumlaw.com
              kpkonwinski@varnumlaw.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces Michigan Suit Over Plan Asset Misappropriation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Paving and Materials Company and Michigan Paving and
Materials & Affiliated Health Plan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Michigan, Case No. 2:15-cv-13281-MAG-RSW (E.D. Mich., September
16, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's
alleged misappropriation of self-insured employee benefit Plan
assets.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a Michigan non-profit health
care corporation organized under the Nonprofit Health Care
Corporation Reform Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Perrin Rynders, Esq.
      Aaron M. Phelps, Esq.
      Kyle P. Konwinski, Esq.
      VARNUM LLP
      Bridgewater Place, PO Box 352
      Grand Rapids, MI, 49501-0352
      Telephone: (616) 336-6000
      Facsimile: (616) 336-7000
      E-mail: prynders@varnumlaw.com
              amphelps@varnumlaw.com
              kpkonwinski@varnumlaw.com


BLUE WORLD POOLS: Defendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Thomas B. Russell of the United States
District for Western District of Kentucky denied defendant's
motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned, ANDREW
ROBERTS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BLUE WORLD POOLS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:15-CV-00335-TBR.

Plaintiffs are a collection of pool owners who purchased and
financed their pools from Defendant Blue World Pools, Inc. Blue
World allegedly advertised "that a consumer can buy a pool from
Blue World Pools and have the pool installed for a total of
$399.00." Plaintiffs availed from said promo but found out that
the $399 price did not include the costs of delivery, preparing a
site for installation, and "hiring an attorney to execute a full
liability release." Any customer who objected was told they could
no longer rescind the purchase. Plaintiffs filed a putative class
action against the Blue World on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals for misrepresentation of terms of financing in
violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act and the Truth in
Lending Act.

In the motion, Blue World moves to compel arbitration, stating the
contracts signed by the respective Plaintiffs contained an
arbitration clause. Plaintiffs argue these arbitration agreements
should be not enforced because they are both substantively and
procedurally unconscionable. Plaintiffs also request additional
time for discovery on the issue of whether the arbitration
agreement is valid.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 11, 2015
available at http://is.gd/8WLwBrfrom Leagle.com, Judge Russell
found that the arbitration agreement and class action waiver is
not procedurally unconscionable because it is brief, relatively
devoid of legalese, and contained in a separate document. The
Court allows Plaintiff to conduct discovery on the claim of
substantive unconscionability and complete such discovery by
October 8, 2015 and must file a brief on or before October 13,
2015. The matter is set for a telephonic conference on December
15, 2015 at 9:45 am.

Plaintiffs are represented by Aaron J. Bentley, Esq. --
abentley@craighenrylaw.com -- James Robert Craig, Esq. --
jcraig@craighenrylaw.com -- CRAIG HENRY PLC

Blue World Pools, Inc. is represented by Gregory E. Mayes, Jr.,
Esq. -- jmayes@steptoe.com & Jeffrey K. Phillips, Esq. --
jphillips@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON, PLLC


CENTRAL TRANSPORT: "Young" Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Young, Dominique Wilson, Deric Leabough, Francis Taylor, and
all others similarly situated v. Central Transport, LLC and
Central Transport International, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00548
(E.D. Va., September 10, 2015), seeks to recover back wages,
permanent injunctive relief and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants provide transportation and logistics services to 98
percent of the major manufacturing areas in North America.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Tim Schulte, Esq.
      SHELLEY CUPP SCHULTE, P.C.
      2020 Monument Avenue, First Floor
      Richmond VA 23220
      Tel: (804) 644-9700
      Fax: (804) 278-9634
      E-mail: schulte@scs-work.com


CEQUENT PERFORMANCE: Recalls Four-Bike Carriers Due to Crash Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 22, 2015
Posting date: September 22, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-55040

This recall involves the Reese Explore hitch mounted four-bike
carrier identified by model number 63144 and UPC 042899139317. The
bike carrier is black in colour and labelled with "REESE EXPLORE"
on the vertical bar.  There are eight cradles on the top of the
bike carrier that hold the bikes.

The cradles on the recalled bike carriers may fail, which may
cause a bike to become partially or fully disengaged from the bike
rack.  If a bike fully disengages and falls onto the roadway, the
resulting road hazard may cause a vehicle crash or property
damage.

Neither Health Canada nor Cequent Performance Products has
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to
the use of this product.

A total of 50 bike carriers were sold primarily to U-Haul dealers
across Canada, but there were also individual sales to consumers.

The recalled bike carriers were sold from July 2, 2015 to July 22,
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Hangzhou-Xinsheng- Aluminum Co. Ltd.
              Shouxiang Town, Fuyang Country
              Hangzhou
              CHINA

Importer: Cequent Performance Products, Inc.
          Solon
          Ohio
          UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected bike carrier
and contact Cequent Performance Products to obtain a repair kit.

For more information, consumers can contact Cequent Customer
Service by telephone at 1-877-208-2573 or by email.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/78nwzJ


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: "Reilly" Suit Alleged Deceptive Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Reilly, and all others similarly situated v. Chipotle
Mexican Grill, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-23425 (S.D. Fla., September
10, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for alleged deceptive
marketing of its products in violation of Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and common law.

The Defendant owns and operates a national chain of Mexican fast-
food "burrito" restaurants. Chipotle's headquarters is located in
Denver, Colorado. Chipotle markets, advertises, and sells food
products to tens of thousands of consumers nationwide, including
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lance A. Harke, Esq.
      HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
      9699 NE Second Avenue
      Miami Shores, FL 33138
      Tel: (305) 536-8220
      Fax: (305) 536-8229
      E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com


CONNECT AMERICA: Court Approves Settlement Stipulation
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Plaintiffs'
motion to approve the parties' settlement in the case captioned,
MATTHEW LOVETT, et al. v. CONNECT AMERICA.COM t/a CONNECTAMERICA,
Case No. 14-2596.

Plaintiffs, current and former Senior Safety Consultants of
Defendant, brought the collective action on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, alleging overtime and other
compensation violations.  Specifically, Plaintiffs complained that
Defendant failed to pay class members the applicable minimum wage
in violation of section 206(a) and overtime in violation of
section 207(a)(1). All of the Plaintiffs are current or former
employees of Defendant, having worked for Defendant at some point
between May 1, 2011 and October 1, 2013, who held the title of
Senior Safety Consultant and who were paid on a commission basis
only to solicit sales over the phone of interactive (2-way) home
medical emergency monitoring to consumers across the country. In
the case, Judge Bartle originally set a certification discovery
deadline of December 19, 2014. Doc. 30. Prior to that date,
counsel negotiated a mutually acceptable collective action notice
and process, and Judge Bartle approved the parties' stipulation
regarding the notice and the appointment of a claims
administrator.

On June 30, 2015, Defendant filed an unopposed motion to file the
parties' settlement agreement under seal, or in the alternative,
to redact the monetary amounts from the agreement and accompanying
paperwork.  On July 28, 2015, I denied Defendant's motion to the
extent it sought to file the settlement agreement under seal, but
I allowed counsel to file the agreement and accompanying paperwork
with the settlement amounts redacted. On August 11, 2015,
Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for approval of the
settlement, redacting the settlement figures from all the
accompanying paperwork, while providing me with an unredacted
version.

In her Memorandum and Order dated September 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ZC5H0Ofrom Leagle.com, Judge Hey found that the
agreement does not frustrate implementation of the FLSA, counsel's
fee and the incentive payments as set forth in the settlement
agreement are reasonable.

Plaintiffs are represented by Mitchell L. Paul, Esq. --
bgoldbergerlaw@aol.com -- Samuel A. Dion, Esq. --
samueldion@aol.com -- DION & GOLDBERGER

Connect America.Com is represented by Brian W. Sullivan, Esq. --
brian.sullivan@morganlewis.com -- Michael Jonathan Puma, Esq. --
mpuma@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP


CORNING INCOPORATED: Court Denies Request for Finality Language
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the United States
District Court for Eastern District of Kentucky denied Plaintiffs'
motion for the entry of finality language as to the dismissal of
the strict liability and negligent misrepresentation claims in the
case captioned, MODERN HOLDINGS, LLC, GAY BOWEN, GREENLEAF PLANT
FOOD WHOLESALE, INC., BOBBIE LEMONS, OTIS FORD, CHARLES FORD,
ROSETTA FORD, and GARY FORD, Plaintiffs, v. CORNING INCOPORATED
and PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendants,
Case No. 13-405-GFVT.

Defendants Corning and Philips are the former successive owners
and operators of the Danville, Ky., glass manufacturing plant.
Plaintiffs, residents and landowners in the area, allege that
Defendants intentionally or negligently emitted and disposed of
hazardous chemicals during the sixty years of the facility's
operation, polluting the groundwater, air, and soil within a five-
mile radius. That contamination, they allege, caused personal
injury, including illnesses such as Multiple Sclerosis, as well as
property damage. Plaintiffs' Second Amended Class Action Complaint
can be grouped into three categories: (1) claims for negligence,
gross negligence, recklessness, and negligent infliction of
emotional distress alleged that toxic exposure has caused them
physical and emotional injury, including cancer, autoimmune
deficiencies, respiratory problems, dermatitis, and central
nervous system problems; (2) claims for nuisance, trespass,
battery, and strict liability alleged that their property has been
damaged, resulting in diminution in property values, loss of the
use and enjoyment or their property, loss of the use of their
groundwater, and damaging "stigma associated with being located in
the vicinity of the site; and (3) claims for fraudulent
concealment and negligent misrepresentation alleged that the
Defendants failed to inform state and federal regulatory agencies
of the fact that (according to Plaintiffs) they were illegally
dumping hazardous materials.

Defendants Corning and Philips moved to dismiss the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In a Memorandum Opinion and
Order issued March 31, 2015, the Court granted that motion in part
and, in pertinent part, dismissed Plaintiffs' strict liability and
the negligent misrepresentation claims. As to the strict liability
claim, the Court determined that the Kentucky Supreme Court would
decline to extend the doctrine of strict liability for
ultrahazardous activities to include the use, disposal, and
resulting emission of hazardous substances in the course of
manufacturing activities like those of the Defendants, and it
dismissed the claim. The Court dismissed the negligent
misrepresentation claim since Plaintiffs' complaint failed to
establish a sufficiently direct business or contractual
relationship as required under Kentucky law.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek that the March 31, 2015 Opinion be
certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) as a final
and appealable order.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 11, 2015
available at http://is.gd/N2zb6Ifrom Leagle.com, Judge Van
Tatenhove concluded that certification is warranted in the case
because similarity of legal or factual issues among the dismissed
and unadjudicated claims weighs heavily against entry of judgment
under Rule 54(b) and because an immediate appeal risks both an
advisory opinion and an inefficient piecemeal appeal.

Plaintiffs are represented by Evan McDonald Rice, Esq. --
erice@gettylawgroup.com -- Jessica Katherine Winters, Esq. --
jwinters@gettylawgroup.com -- Mary Ann Getty, Esq. --
mgetty@gettylawgroup.com -- Richard A. Getty, Esq. --
rgetty@gettylawgroup.com -- THE GETTY LAW GROUP, PLLC

Defendants are represented by George L. Seay, Jr., Esq. --
gseay@wyattfirm.com -- M. Stephen Pitt, Esq. --
mspitt@wyattfirm.com -- George J. Miller, Esq. --
gmiller@wyattfirm.com -- WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS LLP Joseph F.
Madonia, Esq. -- joseph.madonia@btlaw.com -- Mark L. Durbin, Esq.
-- mark.durbin@btlaw.com -- Peter N. Moore, Esq. --
peter.moore@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG


CVS PHARMACY: Appeals Court Vacates August 2014 Discovery Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Vance W. Raye of the Court of Appeals of
California, Third District ordered Superior Court of Sacramento
County to vacate its discovery order of August 29, 2014 in the
case captioned, CVS PHARMACY, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. THE
SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY, Respondent; CHARLENE DELUCA,
Real Party in Interest, Case No. C077622.

Real party in interest Charlene Deluca filed a complaint alleging
defendants CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and Longs Drug Stores California,
LLC (CVS), have a corporate policy of automatically terminating
employees who do not work any hours for 45 consecutive days.
Deluca sought injunctive relief to challenge the policy, which she
argued discriminated against qualified individuals with
disabilities in violation of the California Fair Employment and
Housing Act. Deluca, an employee of Longs, was not disabled, nor
had she been terminated under the alleged 45-day policy. CVS
demurred to Deluca's complaint. The trial court sustained CVS's
demurrer based on Deluca's lack of standing and dismissed her
individually without leave to amend, but granted 90 days' leave to
amend for Deluca to find a substitute plaintiff and granted her
motion to compel discovery.

In the present case, the trial court complied with the procedural
obligation. The court performed the weighing test and found
neither Deluca nor her counsel lacked a reasonable, good faith
belief that she lacked standing when she filed her complaint. In
addition, the court considered the possibility of abuse and found
it outweighed by the rights and interests of the potential class
members for whose benefit Deluca filed her complaint. Accordingly,
the court allowed Deluca time to locate a substitute plaintiff.

On appeal, CVS filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging
the trial court's ruling.

In the Order dated September 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/C8Hdfofrom Leagle.com, Judge Raye found that the
trial court abused its discretion in allowing the proposed
precertification discovery and that the actual or potential abuse
of the class action procedure outweighs the potential benefits
that might be gained.


CROSSROADS: Recalls Sunset Trail 2015 Model Due to Fire Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 15, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 26
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015406TC
ID number: 2015406

On certain travel trailers, the liner which seals the back of the
propane cooking range may have been omitted during vehicle
assembly. This gap may allow air to move to and from the range
area, creating a draft that can affect the safe operation of the
range increasing the risk of fire, causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will install a divider wall panel to
separate the range from the trailer body.

  Make         Model          Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----          ----------------------
  CROSSROADS   SUNSET TRAIL   2015


DELTA DENTAL: Faces "Buford" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Buford, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Delta Dental Insurance Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02805-MHC (N.D. Ga., August 10, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Delta Dental Insurance Company is an Illinois company that
provides dental products and plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda A. Farahany, Esq.
      Tequiero M. Smith, Esq.
      BARRETT & FARAHANY, LLP
      1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 500
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 214-0120
      Facsimile: (404) 214-0125
      E-mail: amanda@bf-llp.com
              tksmith@tksmithlaw.com


DIVORCE SOURCE: Amended "Lowery" Complaint Partly Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court
for Eastern District of Louisiana granted in part Defendant's
motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and denied
Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file for class
certification in the case captioned, ANTHONY LOWERY, v. DIVORCE
SOURCE, INC., Section: "J" (2), Case No. 15-1120.

The matter arises from Plaintiff's use of Defendant's website,
www.3stepdivorce.com. In August of 2014, Plaintiff wished to
obtain a divorce. For that purpose, he visited Defendant's
website, which described itself as a money-saving alternative to
lawyers.  Plaintiff answered a series of questions and received
automatically generated forms that Defendant's website claimed
were "ready to be filed."  Defendant charged Plaintiff $299.00 for
its services   Plaintiff filed the present lawsuit on April 8,
2014. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a
Claim on June 19, 2015. Plaintiff subsequently filed an Ex Parte
Motion to Amend Complaint on August 4, 2015, as well as a Motion
for Extension of Time to File for Class Certification. The Court
granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff's Motion to
Amend on August 5.

The same day, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint,
alleging causes of action against Defendant sounding in contract.
Plaintiff alleged (1) that the contract between himself and
defendant was absolutely null and (2) that the contract was
relatively null because Defendant committed fraud. The Plaintiff
also asserted class action claims.

The Defendant requested that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
The Defendant argues that Plaintiff fails to state a claim and to
allege that Defendant engaged in the unauthorized practice of law
as defined by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

In his Order and Reasons dated September 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/FKeYWOfrom Leagle.com, Judge Barbier found that
Plaintiff failed to show good cause and due diligence and that the
motion was untimely. The Court denied in part Defendant's motion
as to Defendant's argument that Plaintiff has not asserted any
valid individual claims and lacks a right to seek class relief.

The Court directed the parties' to submit additional briefing
addressing the issue of whether federal subject matter
jurisdiction exists over Plaintiff's claims on or before Friday,
September 25, 2015.

Anthony Lowery is represented by:

William Henry Beaumont, Esq.
Roberto L. Costales, Esq.
COSTALES LAW OFFICE
3801 Canal St
New Orleans, LA 70119
Tel: (504)534-5005

Divorce Source, Inc. is represented by Bryan C. Reuter, Esq. --
bcr@stanleyreuter.com -- Cassandra Hewlings, Esq. --
crh@stanleyreuter.com -- Thomas P. Owen, Jr., Esq. --
tpo@stanleyreuter.com -- STANLEY, REUTER, ROSS, THORNTON & ALFORD,
LLC


EDGEWATER HOMES: Home Buyers Sue Over False, Misleading Conduct
---------------------------------------------------------------
News.com.au reported that when Suraj Siddique bought a house-and-
land package 15 minutes from western Sydney's Penrith in July, he
thought it would be the ideal family home for his wife and two
young children.

The 37-year-old systems engineer purchased the pre-sale lots from
Henley Group's Edgewater Homes along with 14 other families, who
were promised they'd be moving into the Werrington development by
Christmas.

More than a year later, Mr Siddique is locked in a messy three-way
legal battle with Edgewater and the property developer,
Parramatta-based Settlers Estate Pty Ltd, facing mounting legal
costs, and the very real possibility of losing everything.

Settlers Estate, a private property development company, had pre-
sold 15 out of the planned 106 lots to Edgewater, which then sold
the house-and-land packages.

By February, the group were growing concerned that construction
had not even begun. Mr Siddique began to panic when he realised
his contract's March 31 sunset date was fast approaching.

Neither Mr Siddique nor Edgewater could get a straight answer from
Settlers Estate about the status of the subdivision. Frantic
emails to the local council revealed no subdivision plan had been
registered.

Mr Siddique and the other 14 families, who had purchased their
450sqm house-and-land packages for just under $620,000, were even
more alarmed to see new 220sqm lots in the subdivision being pre-
sold for $600,000-$700,000.

To all appearances, Settlers Estate was on a 'go slow'.

Fearing he would lose his family home, Mr Siddique launched urgent
legal action against Edgewater Homes and Settlers Estate in the
Supreme Court, alleging false and misleading conduct under the
Australian Consumer Law.

He was seeking an injunction, possible damages, but mainly what's
called 'specific performance' -- he just wants the home he paid
for in good faith.

The matter was complicated when not long after, Edgewater Homes
launched its own case against Settlers Estate to stop the
rescission of the contracts. Having made the sales, Edgewater has
just as much to lose if the contracts are torn up, but the Mr
Siddique now finds himself wedged in the middle.

"I'm in a situation where if I lose, I'll lose the property, I'll
lose the $24,000 I've paid to my solicitors, and I'll have to pay
costs for the other side," Mr Siddique told news.com.au.

To make things worse, he's sacked his solicitor, but was
instructed by the judge during a court appearance that he would
need to find a new one by October 9. Already mired in debt, he's
praying a lawyer will take on his case pro-bono.

Mr Siddique said the effect on his family and his health has been
devastating. "We are on fire, we don't know what to do. My wife is
taking sleeping medication, I'm depressed, my kids keep asking
when we will be moving into our new house," he said.

Settlers Estate has been contacted for comment. Edgewater Homes
declined to comment.

'DON'T BUY OFF-THE-PLAN, EVER'

One Sydney solicitor said the issue of property developers selling
off-the-plan and then reselling the properties at higher prices
has reached epidemic levels.

Sunset clauses allow either party to rescind a contract if certain
conditions are not met, but are increasingly being used by
developers, leaving buyers priced out of the market with their
original deposits. The clauses are standard in such contracts and
are perfectly legal.

"This is a major problem in the industry," said Leverage Group's
Bailey Compton, who is currently running a class action on behalf
of a separate group of families who purchased lots in a
subdivision in western Sydney's Kellyville in late 2013.

The group launched legal action against the developer, Parkview
Estate Pty Ltd, earlier after it informed them it would consider
extending the sunset date only if each purchaser agreed to pay an
additional 10 to 15 per cent on the original contract price to
make up for "cost blowouts".

The Kellyville buyers were asked for an additional $50,000 on top
of the initial $420,000. Some had sold their family homes to
finance the new venture, leaving them in the lurch and paying rent
for two years.

"I cannot understand how you can buy a property in good faith and
then find out down the line that you don't actually own it, and
that now you need to fight for it," one buyer, who did not wish to
be named, told news.com.au.

They allege the developer breached its contract by not using
"reasonable endeavours" to get the subdivision plan registered
before the sunset date.

"This is the second class action I've run and I've got another two
I could run," Mr Compton said. "Throughout Sydney developers have
been selling and dragging their feet."

Mr Compton said the problem had become so bad he would advise
people to never buy off-the-plan property anywhere in Australia,
but particularly Sydney and Melbourne.

"Even though I won the last case, the compensation wasn't
sufficient to get them back into the property market," he said.

The developer blamed the failure to register the plan for the
subdivision on "ongoing issues", including delays caused by the
local council relating to a stormwater drain needing to be
constructed through an adjacent development.

The council refuted this, telling buyers in a letter it had
"actively tried to facilitate an outcome" between the two parties
to get the easement built, and that the developer had not even
applied for a subdivision certificate.

"Our clients [sic] preliminary calculation is that the costs of
the project have increased by about 20 per cent," the letter from
the selling agent dated April 27 reads. "Our clients [sic] current
thoughts are that it may have no choice but to rescind the current
contracts as the current sale prices are unsustainable and unable
to meet the cost blowouts.

"It seems that at the very least, if our client is in a position .
. . to further extend the Sunset Date, it would be on condition
that there be an increase in the current contract price to be paid
by each purchaser of between 10 per cent to 15 per cent."

Other lots in the 29-lot subdivision are currently being sold for
offers over $630,000, and lots in an adjacent development have
appreciated by about $300,000 in the same period.

In June, the Supreme Court granted a temporary injunction to
prevent the Kellyville developer onselling the lots ahead of a
hearing date which has yet to be set.

Parkview Estate declined to comment.

It follows a separate class action launched by a group of 34
buyers who entered into off-the-plan contracts for units in a
luxury apartment complex in Sydney's Wolli Creek. That case
returned to the Supreme Court.

In an unrelated matter, a company connected with controversial
Auburn deputy mayor Salim Mehajer is also facing questions, with
one investor in Lidcombe's Sky Point Towers development claiming
the off-the-plan unit he paid nearly $600,000 for has been reduced
in size by 36 per cent.

The Daily Telegraph reported the company told him the price would
not be discounted but the investor was offered the option of
withdrawing from the contract.


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Biometrics Slurpage
-------------------------------------------------------
Alexander J Martin, writing for The Register, reported that
Facebook has been hit with a class-action complaint over its
biometrics slurpage, with millions of possible plaintiffs who may
claim damages if the advertising giant is found to have acted
unlawfully.

The complaint states that "Facebook has created, collected and
stored over a billion 'face templates' (or 'face prints')", which,
ostensibly, are as uniquely identifiable as fingerprints. These
have been gathered "from over a billion individuals, millions of
whom reside in the State of Illinois".

It is alleged that in doing this, the ZuckerBorg is in violation
of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), which
was passed by the state legislature in 2008.

As noted in the complaint, under BIPA a private entity such as
Facebook is prohibited from obtaining or possessing an
individual's biometrics unless it achieves suitable consent, which
is constituted by:

Informing that person in writing that biometric identifiers or
information will be collected or stored

Informing that person in writing of the specific purpose and
length of term for which such biometric identifiers or biometric
information is being collected, stored and used

Receiving a written release from the person for the collection of
his or her biometric identifiers or information

Publishing publicly available written retention schedules and
guidelines for permanently destroying biometric identifiers and
biometric information

The complaint alleges that:

"In direct violation of . . . BIPA, Facebook is actively
collecting, storing, and using -- without providing notice,
obtaining informed written consent or publishing data retention
policies -- the biometrics of its users and unwitting non-users."

The plaintiff asserts that he does not have, and has never had, a
Facebook account, but notes that a Facebook user uploaded to
Facebook at least one photograph depicting him which has resulted
in the non-consensual creation of a biometric template of his
face. The action is brought on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, defined as:

"All non-Facebook users who, while residing in the State of
Illinois, had their biometric identifiers, including "face
templates" (or "face prints"), collected, captured, received, or
otherwise obtained by Facebook."

There's previous -- so we're told

Back in July 2012, a hearing was held before the United States
Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law,
specifically to address what facial recognition technology may
mean for privacy and civil liberties.

In the opening statement of the hearing (PDF) to the subcommittee,
Senator Al Franken (D-MN) commented:

"In 2010, Facebook, the largest social network, began signing up
all of its then 800 million users in a programme called Tag
Suggestions. Tag Suggestions made it easier to tag friends in
photos, and that is a good thing."

But the feature did this by creating a unique faceprint for every
one of those friends. And in doing so, Facebook may have created
the world's largest privately held database of faceprints --
without the explicit consent of its users. To date, Tag
Suggestions is an opt-out program. Unless you have taken the time
to turn it off, it may have already been used to generate your
faceprint.

Similar concerns were raised by a German data protection authority
in 2011. At the time, a Facebook spokesperson said that the
ZuckerBorg "firmly reject any claim that we are not meeting our
obligations under European Union data protection law."

Facial recognition remains a key interest for the Facebook
Artificial-Intelligence Research Team (FART), however, which
presented a paper on "Web-Scale Training for Face Identification"
at the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
in June. The paper, notably, makes no mention of the words
"consent" or "legal".

More recently, an attempt to establish a voluntary code of conduct
for the commercial use of facial recognition technology on a
federal level in the US came to a practical halt in June when
privacy advocates withdrew from the talks en masse.

The advocates, including the ACLU and EFF, complained of failing
to get industry stakeholders "to agree on any concrete scenario
where companies should employ facial recognition only with a
consumer's permission."


FIESTA MART: "Rahman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rahman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fiesta Mart, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-02295 (S.D. Tex.,
August 10, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Fiesta Mart, LLC owns and operates grocery stores in the Houston,
Austin, Dallas, and Fort Worth markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Starzyk, Esq.
      Stephen R. Ricks, Esq.
      April L. Walter, Esq.
      Megan M. Mitchell, Esq.
      STARZYK AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      10200 Grogans Mill Rd, Suite 300
      The Woodlands, TX 77380
      Telephone: (281) 364-7261
      E-mail: mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com
              sricks@starzyklaw.com
              awalter@starzyklaw.com
              mmitchell@starzyklaw.com


FIRST NATIONAL: Must Defend Against "Carter" FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Keith P. Ellison of the United States Distrcit
Court for Southern District of Texas denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, MARJORIE CARTER, Plaintiff, v.
FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., et al, Defendants, Case
No. 4:15-CV-1695.

Plaintiff Marjorie Carter (Plaintiff) brings a putative class
action against Defendants First National Collection Bureau, Inc.,
LVNV Funding, LLC, Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., and Alegis
Group, LLC, (collectively, Defendants). Plaintiff alleges that she
received a debt collection letter from Defendants that violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1692, et seq. Plaintiff alleges that by extending a settlement
offer on a time-barred debt, without disclosing that the debt is
time-barred, Defendants falsely suggested that they could file
suit to enforce the debt.  To imply, in this manner, that a time-
barred debt is legally enforceable is, Plaintiff claims, a
deceptive and unfair practice in violation of Sec. 1692e and Sec.
1692f of the FDCPA.

In the motion, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's suit for
failure to state a claim.

In his Memorandum and Order dated September 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Mc74Lffrom Leagle.com, Judge Ellison found a debt
collector's misrepresentation as to its right to sue on a debt is
itself sufficient to violate Sec. 1692; the statute imposes no
additional requirement that the debt collector actually threaten
to sue. He also found that it is plausible that an unsophisticated
consumer could believe that an offer of settlement on a debt
(where there is no disclosure that the debt is time-barred)
implies that the debt collector has a right to sue on the debt.

Marjorie Carter is represented by:

Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
Francis Richard Greene, Esq.
EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
20 S Clark St #1500
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel:(312)-739-4200

Defendant is represented by:

Robbie LuAnn Malone, Esq.
ROBBIE MALONE PLLC
8750 N Central Expy # 1850
Dallas, TX 75231
Tel: (214)346-2630


FORD MOTOR: "Deluca" Suit Included in Fuel Economy MDL
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dave Deluca v. Ford Motor Company,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05432, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains).  The
New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:15-cv-06107-KMK
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Ford Fusion and C-Max Fuel Economy Litigation,
MDL No. 7:13-md-02450-KMK.

The litigation concerns the marketing, sale and advertising of the
mileage estimates of Ford Fusion Hybrid and C-Max Hybrid vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather M. Mason-McKeon, Esq.
          Michael L. Cohen, Esq.
          COHEN MCKEON LLP
          1910 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 440
          Los Angeles, CA 90026
          Telephone: (213) 413-6400
          Facsimile: (213) 403-6405
          E-mail: mckeon@cohenmckeon.com
                  cohen@cohenmckeon.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher M. Young, Esq.
          Ryan T. Hansen, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101-4297
          Telephone: (619) 699-2700
          Facsimile: (619) 699-2701
          E-mail: christopher.young@dlapiper.com
                  ryan.hansen@dlapiper.com

               - and -

          Joel Allen Dewey, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP
          6225 Smith Avenue
          Baltimore, MD 21209-3600
          Telephone: (410) 580-3000
          Facsimile: (410) 580-4135
          E-mail: joel.dewey@dlapiper.com


HOBART SERVICE: 9th Cir. Reinstates Commute-Time Claim
------------------------------------------------------
The divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit affirmed a judgment in part, and reversed and remanded in
part in the case captioned, JOSELUIS ALCANTAR, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
HOBART SERVICE; ITW FOOD EQUIPMENT GROUP, LLC, Defendants-
Appellees, Case No. 13-55400.

In the case, Joseluis Alcantar wishes to represent a class of
service technicians in his suit against his employer, Hobart
Service ("Hobart"), and its parent company, ITW Food Equipment
Group ("ITW"). Alcantar alleges that Hobart did not compensate its
technicians for the time they spent commuting in Hobart's service
vehicles from their homes to their job sites and from those job
sites back home. Alcantar also alleges that Hobart failed to
provide its technicians with meal and rest breaks in violations of
California Labor Code Sec. 1194, Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and
PAGA, Cal. Lab. Code Sections 2698.

Alcantar sought certification of a class of service technicians
employed by Hobart in the four years preceding the filing of the
lawsuit. Hobart and ITW opposed class certification and moved for
summary judgment on all claims. The district court denied
Alcantar's motion for class certification, explaining that
Alcantar failed to satisfy the commonality requirement of Federal
Rule of Procedure 23(a)(2) and the predominance requirement of
Federal Rule of Procedure 23(b)(3). The court then granted the
motion for summary judgment as to Alcantar's overtime claim for
commute time but held that there was a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether Hobart complied with California's meal- and
rest-break requirements. The district court concluded that the
derivative UCL and PAGA claims survived to the same extent as the
overtime claim. Hobart and ITW moved for summary judgment a second
time, arguing that Alcantar had not complied with PAGA's notice
requirements. The district court agreed.

On appeal, Alcantar appeals from the district court's denial of
class certification and its grant of partial summary judgment, as
well as its determination that Alcantar did not comply with the
notice requirements of California's Private Attorneys General Act
("PAGA") contending that the district court improperly reached the
merits of his claims in denying class certification under Rule
23(a)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3).

The Ninth Circuit's decision was penned by Senior District Judge
Lefkow of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, sitting by designation.  In the Opinion dated September
3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/C7oQQOfrom Leagle.com, Judge
Lefkow held that the district court's conclusion is incorrect
because there is a question of fact as to whether Hobart requires
technicians to use its vehicles for their commute and it asks too
much of Alcantar, who need only show that there is a common
contention capable of classwide resolution. It erred in denying
class certification because it evaluated the merits rather than
focusing on whether the questions presented meritorious or not
were common to the class.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed the district court's
summary judgment in favor of the employer on plaintiff's commute-
time claim because there was a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether technicians were required to commute in the employer's
vehicles.

The Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the district court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of the employer on the plaintiff's PAGA
claim because the letter in which the plaintiff disclosed his
allegations did not contain sufficient facts to comply with the
statute's notice requirements.

Judge N.R. Smith concurred in the majority's rejection of the
plaintiff's contentions regarding the denial of class
certification on his meal break claim and the grant of summary
judgment to the employer on the PAGA claim.  Judge N.R. dissented
in part, and would hold that there is no genuine issue of material
fact on the commute time claim, and he would not remand the case.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Robin G. Workman Esq.
Daniel H. Qualls, Esq.
Aviva N. Roller, Esq.
QUALLS & WORKMAN, LLP
177 Post St Suite 900,
San Francisco, CA 94108
Tel: (415)782-3660

Defendants are represented by Thomas E. Hill, Esq. --
thill@reedsmith.com -- Mara D. Matheke, Esq. --
mmatheke@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP


HONEST CO: $5MM Class Suit Baseless, Jessica Alba Says
------------------------------------------------------
Philly.com, reported that Jessica Alba has fired back at a new
class action lawsuit filed against her successful The Honest
Company brand, insisting allegations the firm's products are not
as natural as advertised are "baseless and without merit."

The actress and her partners have turned The Honest Company into a
$1 billion-plus success story in recent years, producing household
items, beauty and cosmetics that so not include harmful
substances, but in his $5 million suit, one consumer, Jonathan D.
Rubin, insists Alba's company is anything but honest.  He claims
Honest's 'all natural' advertising is deceptive, because most of
the firm's items contain synthetic additives. Rubin also mentions
the ineffectiveness of the company's sunscreen, which was the
subject of a series of complaints earlier this summer.

Firing back against lawsuit, Alba has released a statement to The
Hollywood Reporter. It reads: "I started The Honest Company to
develop safe and effective products not just for my children, but
for families everywhere. I am very proud that we have built this
company into an industry leader focused on using natural
ingredients and developing products that people love."

"We believe that consumers deserve to know what's in their
products -- whether it's diapers for their children, cleaning
products for their families or beauty products for themselves. Our
formulations are made with integrity and strict standards of
safety, and we label each ingredient that goes into every product
-- not because we have to, but because it's the right thing to do.

"The allegations against us are baseless and without merit. We
strongly stand behind our products and the responsibility we have
to our consumers. We are steadfast in our commitment to
transparency and openness. "I know my children, Honor and Haven,
are growing up in a safer home because of our products."


JP MORGAN SECURITIES: Court Dismisses Suit v. Baumann
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to
dismiss the case captioned, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, LLC as the
successor in interest to CHASE INVESTMENT SERVICES, CORP.,
Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH BAUMANN, individually and his purported
capacity as an agent of the State of California and the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency pursuant to the Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 Defendant, Case No. 5:15-CV-
0410-AB-FFM.

On July 8, 2011, Joseph Baumann filed a representative action
under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 against Chase
Investment Services Corp., JPMorgan Chase Bank and JPMorgan Chase
& Co. for claims related to his employment. See Baumann v. Chase
Investment Services Corporation, Los Angeles Superior Case No.
BC464979.  JPMorgan et al. removed the Baumann Action to federal
court under the Class Action Fairness Act and Mr. Baumann moved to
remand. The district court denied Mr. Baumann's motion to remand,
which Mr. Baumann appealed. The Ninth Circuit ultimately reversed
the district court's ruling.

JPMorgan Securities, LLC (JPMS) initiated the present action
against Mr. Baumann for equitable, declaratory, and prospective
injunctive relief concerning the terms of an arbitration agreement
in his employment contract.  According to JPMS, Mr. Baumann agreed
to arbitrate all Covered Claims through binding arbitration,
including the claims pending in the Baumann Action. JPMS alleged
that "In violation of his obligations under the Arbitration
Agreement, Baumann brought and continues to bring his claims in
court and on a representative basis. JPMS further alleged that
"Bauman breached, and continues to breach, the arbitration
agreement by filing, and continuing to pursue, the State Court
Lawsuit."

Mr. Baumann moved to dismiss JPMS' claims.

In the Judgment dated September 1, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/hk6vkIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Birotte, Jr. held that
Chase's claims fail because the Federal Arbitration Act does not
preempt the plaintiff's right to pursue representative PAGA
claims. Because this failure cannot be cured by the pleading of
additional facts, the Court granted Mr. Baumann's Motion to
Dismiss with prejudice and that the Court ruled that the Federal
Anti-Injunction Act and Younger Doctrine bar JPMS' claims.

Plaintiffs are represented by Carrie A. Gonell, Esq. --
cgonell@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP

Joseph Baumann is represented by Bevin Allen Pike, Esq. --
Bevin.Pike@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Jonathan Sing Lee, Esq. --
Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert J. Drexler, Jr., Esq.
-- Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Stan Karas, Esq. --
Stan.Karas@CapstoneLawyers.com -- CAPSTONE LAW APC


KAROUN DAIRIES: Recalls Cheese Products Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------
Karoun Dairies, Inc. announced that it is voluntarily recalling a
variety of cheeses it distributes due to possible contamination
with Listeria monocytogenes. To date, no product has tested
positive for Listeria but in view of the association with
listeriosis cases Karoun Dairies Inc. is initiating a voluntary
recall in the interest of protecting public health.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism, which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The products are vacuum packed, in jars or in pails under the
following brands; Karoun, Arz, Gopi, Queso Del Valle, Central
Valley Creamery, Gopi, and Yanni. Weights vary from 5 ounces to 30
pounds.

This recall is limited to cheese with the UPC codes in the table
below sold nationwide. No other Karoun Dairies product is affected
by this recall. The products being recalled are listed below and
were distributed to retail outlets, including food service
accounts and supermarkets in the U.S. Consumers can find UPC code
and use by dates on each package.

  Item Name      UPC Codes          Affected     Use by Dates
  ---------      ---------          Areas        up to
                                    --------     ------------
  Ackawi         7 96252 00123 9,   US           1/6/2016
                 7 96252 01123 8,
                 7 96252 00325 7,
                 7 96252 02223 4,
                 7 96252 03223 3
  California     7 96252 90030 3    US           1/5/2016
  Cotija         7 96252 80037 5,   US           2/29/2016
                 7 96252 80036 8,
                 7 96252 80032 0
  Farmers Goat   7 96252 50016 9    US           11/26/2015
  Fresh
  Fresco         7 96252 80083 2,   US           11/8/2015
                 7 96252 80081 8
  Fresh Cheese/  7 96252 03226 4,   US           12/31/2015
  Panela         7 96252 03227 1,
                 7 96252 00227 4,
                 7 96252 00226 7,
                 7 96252 00228 1,
                 7 96252 00122 2,
                 7 96252 00126 0,
                 7 96252 60001 2,
                 7 96252 80074 0,
                 7 96252 22003 6,
                 7 96252 80070 2,
                 7 96252 00127 7
  Feta           7 96252 22004 3,   US           3/7/2016
                 7 96252 22006 7,
                 7 96252 22007 4,
                 7 96252 22005 0,
                 7 96252 22022 7,
                 7 96252 22002 9,
                 7 96252 11003 0,
                 7 96252 40003 2,
                 7 96252 11024 5,
                 7 96252 11025 2,
                 7 96252 22012 8,
                 7 96252 40025 4,
                 7 96252 12034 2
  Goat Milk Feta 7 96252 50001 5    US           3/2/2016
  Mozzarella     7 96252 70012 5,   US           1/2/2016
                 7 96252 70013 2,
                 7 96252 12014 5,
                 7 96252 12015 2
  Paneer         7 96252 70008 8,   US           1/7/2016
                 7 96252 70014 9,
                 7 96252 70019 4,
                 7 96252 70018 7
  Queso Blanco   7 96252 80004 7,   US
                 7 96252 80005 4,
                 7 96252 80043 6
  String Cheese  7 96252 00019 5,   US           3/16/2016
                 7 96252 00020 1,
                 7 96252 00035 5,
                 7 96252 00015 7,
                 7 96252 00025 6,
                 7 96252 00041 6,
                 7 96252 00042 3,
                 7 96252 00040 9,
                 7 96252 00005 8,
                 7 96252 00008 9,
                 7 96252 00038 6,
                 7 96252 00028 7,
                 7 96252 00018 8,
                 7 96252 00013 3,
                 7 96252 00017 1,
                 7 96252 00016 4,
                 7 96252 00039 3,
                 7 96252 00022 5
  Ani            7 96252 01125 2,    US          1/5/2016
                 7 96252 00323 3
  Nabulsi        7 96252 03225 7,    US          12/29/2016
                 7 96252 00225 0,
                 7 96252 00223 6,
                 7 96252 00125 3
  Yanni Grilling 7 96252 90024 2,    US          12/23/2015
                 7 96252 90029 7

Karoun Dairies was made aware of a possible association of their
cheese products with several recent cases of listeriosis by FDA
and CDC. The company has ceased distribution of above cheeses and
is working closely with FDA to continue to investigate the problem
further.

Consumers who have purchased any of these products are urged to
dispose of or return it to theplace of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with any questions may call toll free 1-866-272-9393
toll free, Monday - Friday 8:00AM to 6:00PM PST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm462984.htm


KAWASAKI: Recalls VULCAN 1700 Motorcycle Model Due to Crash Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 15, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 2426
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015405TC
ID number: 2015405
Manufacturer recall number: MC15-10

On certain motorcycles, the ignition switch wires could chafe
against the bottom of the fuel tank creating an electrical short.
This could cause the engine to stall without warning resulting in
a loss of motive power, increasing the risk of a crash causing
injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will inspect
the ignition switch for damaged wires and replace them as
necessary. Additional shielding and padding will be installed.

  Make          Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----         ----------------------
  KAWASAKI      VULCAN 1700   2012, 2012, 2012, 2012, 2012
                VOYAGER


LATIN FEVA: "Avendano" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
Miguel Avendano, and all others similarly situated v. Latin Feva,
Inc. dba El Carribe Restaurant, Maria A. Alvarado, Jose Milton
Alvarado and Juan J. Alvarado, Case No. 1:15-cv-23411 (Fla. Cir.,
September 9, 2015), seeks damages, attorneys' fees or costs for
unpaid wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County, Florida
doing business as El Carribe Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Courthouse Tower
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 416-5000
      Fax: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


LES SOEURS: Recalls Mustard Seed Products Due to Sesame Seeds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Les Soeurs en Vrac
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10047

  Brand       Common name     Size    Code(s) on   UPC
  name        -----------     ----    product      ---
  -----                               ----------
  Les Soeurs  Mustard Seeds   90 g    698196      23157 07110 7
  en Vrac


LEWIS ENERGY: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lewis Energy Group, LP, Case No. 5:15-cv-00671-FB
(W.D. Tex., August 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Lewis Energy Group, LP is in the oil and gas business and operates
in the Eagle Ford Shale formation in the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael K. Burke, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA, BURKE & KHIRALLAH, LLP
      3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850
      McAllen, TX 78501
      Telephone: (956) 682-5999
      Facsimile: (888) 317-8802
      E-mail: mburke@mmguerra.com


LUFTHANSA: Supreme Court Stays Penalty Order
--------------------------------------------
Samanwaya Rautray, writing for The Economic Times, reported that
The Supreme Court (SC) has stayed a consumer court order
penalising German airline Lufthansa, which a business-class
passenger complained had misled him by advertising lie-flat seats
which weren't actually flat.

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in April asked
the airline to pay the passenger, Vivek Talwar, Rs 50,000 as
compensation and deposit Rs 20 lakh with the Consumer Welfare
Fund. It had also asked Lufthansa to pay Rs 10,000 as the cost of
litigation.


LUIS GARCIA: Faces "Mesa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Javier Hernandez Mesa and all others similarly situated
v. Luis Garcia Land Service, Co. and Luis E. Garcia, Case No.
1:15-cv-22995-KMW (S.D. Fla., August 10, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Luis Garcia Land Service, Co. is a corporation that regularly
transacts business within Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven C. Fraser, Esq.
      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: steven.fraser.esq@gmail.com
              ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


LYLE WILLIAMS: Sued for Discriminating Against African Americans
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States of America v. Lyle Williams, Kyle Williams and David
Williams, Case No. 3:15-cv-00859 (S.D. Ill., August 5, 2015) is
brought by the United States to enforce the Civil Rights Act of
1968, as amended by the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988.

Williams Trailer Court is a mobile home community with 81 mobile
home lots located in Marion, Illinois.  A number of the mobile
homes located on Williams Trailer Court are owned by the
Defendants and are rented out to residents.

The United States alleges that the Defendants treat African
Americans, who visit Williams Trailer Court and inquire about
renting a mobile home, differently and less favorably than
similarly-situated white persons, who visit Williams Trailer Court
for that purpose.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Loretta E. Lynch, Esq.
          Attorney General

          Vanita Gupta, Esq.
          Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
          Civil Rights Division

          Steven H. Rosenbaum, Esq.
          Chief, Housing and Civil
          Enforcement Section

          Timothy J. Moran, Esq.
          Deputy Chief

          Alan A. Martinson, Esq.
          Lead Counsel

          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
          HOUSING AND CIVIL ENFORCEMENT SECTION
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
          Northwestern Building, 7th Floor
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 616-2191
          Facsimile: (202) 514-1116
          E-mail: Alan.Martinson@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Stephen R. Wigginton, Esq.
          UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
          SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

          Jennifer Hudson Steven H. Rosenbaum, Esq.
          ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

          9 Executive Drive
          Fairview Heights, IL 62208
          Telephone: (618)-628-3700
          Facsimile: (618)-628-3730
          E-mail: Jennifer.Hudson2@usdoj.gov


MAJOR LEAGUE: District Court Dismisses "Miranda" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States
District Court for Northern District of California granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, SERGIO
MIRANDA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALLAN HUBER SELIG, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-05349-HSG.

The putative class action lawsuit in which four minor league
baseball players challenge restrictions imposed by the Office of
the Commissioner of Baseball and the thirty major league baseball
clubs on the pay and mobility of minor league baseball players.
Pending before the Court is the Defendants' motion to dismiss on
the ground that the federal antitrust causes of action asserted in
the case are barred by baseball's historic antitrust exemption.

The Court's resolution of this motion is guided and ultimately
determined by the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in City of San
Jose v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, 776 F.3d 686 (9th
Cir. 2015).  In that case, the City of San Jose asserted federal
antitrust and various state law claims against Major League
Baseball concerning its attempts to prevent the relocation of the
Oakland Athletics to San Jose.  The district court granted the
Major League Baseball's motion to dismiss San Jose's claims (save
for its state-law tort claims) as barred by baseball's historic
antitrust exemption.

In his Order dated September 14, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/xrhBbNfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gilliam, Jr. found that
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) the motion to
dismiss is granted because baseball's historic antitrust exemption
bars any antitrust claims arising from Plaintiffs' employment as
minor league baseball players, the Court finds that any amendment
of Plaintiffs' Complaint would be futile.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Samuel Kornhauser, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL KORNHAUSER
155 Jackson St # 1807,
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel: (415)981-6281

     - and -

Brian A. David, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN DAVID
1930 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 306
Los Angeles, CA 90057
Tel: (323)454-7591

Defendants are represented by Robert Adam Lauridsen, Esq. --
alauridsen@kvn.com -- Thomas Edward Gorman, Esq. --
tgorman@kvn.com -- KEKER & VAN NEST LLP


MCKESSON CORP: Court Grants Motion for Leave to File Surreply
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the United States District Court
for Northern District of New York granted Defendants McKesson
Corporation's (McKesson) and McKesson Technologies, Inc.'s (MTI)
motion for leave to file a surreply to the motion for sanctions
and granted in part Plaintiffs True Health Chiropractic, Inc.'s
and McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc.'s  motion for
sanctions in the case captioned, TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC INC, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. MCKESSON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 13-CV-02219-HSG(DMR).

True Health filed a putative class action against Defendants'
alleged practice of sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements,
or so-called "junk faxes," in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227.

In the motion for sanctions, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants
hid the existence of third-party fax broadcaster Slingshot
Technologies (Slingshot) and its role in sending or providing a
software platform to send the faxes that form the basis of
Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs seek several forms of sanctions:
(1) preclusion of Defendants' affirmative defenses that the fax
recipients had established business relationships with Defendants
and/or they gave prior express permissions to Defendants to send
the faxes; (2) repudiation of a common interest agreement contract
between Slingshot and Defendants; and (3) attorneys' fees and
costs caused by Defendants' late disclosure of the existence of
Holloway and Slingshot and of documents obtained from Slingshot.

In her Order dated September 12, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/I1ixU1from Leagle.com, Judge Ryu found that at least
some of Defendants' conduct is sanctionable. With respect to the
disclosure of Holloway, McKesson knew of Holloway's identity at
least as of July 2014, but failed to supplement its initial
disclosures or identify her in its discovery responses and
Defendants' failure to timely supplement their discovery responses
to disclose Holloway and Slingshot was without good cause, and is
therefore subject to sanctions. The court imposes monetary
sanctions on Defendants in the amount of $15,000 and shall pay the
amount to Plaintiffs' counsel within 14 days upon issuance of the
Order.

Plaintiffs are represented by Brian John Wanca, Esq. --
BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Ross Michael Good, Esq. --
RGood@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON + WANCA & Willem F. Jonckheer,
Esq. -- wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -- Dustin Lamm Schubert,
Esq. -- dschubert@schubertlawfirm.com -- SCHUBERT JONCKHEER &
KOLBE LLP

Defendants are represented by Benjamin French Patterson, Esq. --
bpatterson@mofo.com -- Tiffany Cheung, Esq. -- tcheung@mofo.com --
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP


MILLENNIAL MEDIA: "Wagner" Suit Objects to AOL Takeover
-------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Wagner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Millennial Media Inc., et al., Case No. 11503 (D.
Del., September 16, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Millennial Media Inc., to enjoin the sale of the
Company to AOL, Inc., for inadequate consideration and through a
flawed process.

Millennial Media, Inc. is an independent mobile advertising
marketplace delivering products and services to advertisers and
developers.

AOL, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a mass media
company based in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com


MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over AOL Takeover
-------------------------------------------------------
An Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Millennial Media Inc., et al., Case No. 11511 (D.
Del., September 16, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Millennial Media Inc., to enjoin the sale of the
Company to AOL, Inc., for inadequate consideration and through a
flawed process.

Millennial Media, Inc. is an independent mobile advertising
marketplace delivering products and services to advertisers and
developers.

AOL, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a mass media
company based in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Banko, Esq.
      Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 482-3182
      Facsimile: (302) 482-3612
      E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
              dfarrell@faruqilaw.com


MOTOR COACH: Recalls D Series 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 15, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 11
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015408TC
ID number: 2015408

On certain buses, the fuse assembly for the Heating Ventilation
and Air Conditioning (HVAC) motors in the battery compartment may
have been assembled incorrectly. This could cause an increased
resistance in the circuit resulting in localized heating, which
would increase the risk of fire causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will inspect and affect repairs as
necessary.

  Make        Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----         ----------------------
  MCI         D SERIES      2015


NEW BLUE: "Cervantes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Cervantes, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class v. New Blue Flowers Gourmet Corp. d/b/a Cafe Alice,
74 Fifth Ave Market Corp. d/b/a U Way Cafe, Valent & Cook at 57
Street Corp. d/b/a C'Est Bon Cafe, Byung Nak Lim and Byung Sik
Lim, Case No. 1:15-cv-06283-AT (S.D.N.Y., August 10, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant enterprise in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


NEWMAR: Recalls Two Motorhome Models Due to Fire Risk
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 15, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Emissions
Units affected: 28
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015404TC
ID number: 2015404

On certain motorhomes, the exhaust tube could tear without
warning. If this occurs, hot exhaust gas could blow against other
components or materials increasing the risk of fire causing injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the
exhaust tube.

  Make         Model               Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----               ----------------------
  NEWMAR       DUTCH STAR          2010, 2010
               CLASS A MOTORHOME
  NEWMAR       KING AIRE CLASS A   2012
               MOTORHOME


PANANG THAI: Faces "Shagui" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darwin Shagui, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Panang Thai Cuisine, Inc. and Piyasit
Suwatthee, Case No. 1:15-cv-06995 (N.D. Ill., August 10, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PATRICIA GROSVENOR-BUNN: "Lodato" Suit Included in Incretin MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Lodato, et al. v. Patricia Grosvenor-Bunn,
P.A., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05156, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego).  The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-01725 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Incretin Mimetics Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
3:13-md-02452-AJB-MDD.

The Plaintiffs in the litigation allege that the use of one or
more of four anti-diabetic incretin-based medications -- Janumet
(sitagliptin combined with metformin), Januvia (sitagliptin),
Byetta (exenatide) and Victoza (liraglutide) -- caused them or
their decedent to develop pancreatic cancer.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shayna E. Sacks, Esq.
          NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK & ASSOCIATES, LLP
          350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 267-3700
          Facsimile: (212) 587-0031
          E-mail: SSacks@NapoliBern.com

Defendant Amylin Pharmaceuticals LLC f/k/a Amylin Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. is represented by:

          Vincent Shane Weisband, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Times Square Tower
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 326-2228
          Facsimile: (212) 326-2061
          E-mail: vweisband@omm.com


PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Court Reconsiders March 31 Order
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the United States
District Court for Eastern District of Kentucky granted Defendant
Philips Electronics' motion for reconsideration of a portion of
the Court's March 31, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order and
withdrew in part the March 31, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order
to the extent of the discussion and conclusions in Part II(C)(2)
relating to Plaintiffs' fraud and fraudulent concealment claims in
the case captioned, ELBERT COX, JR., CECIL WAYNE FRANKLIN, JOHN
SPEARS, WANDA BEASLEY, DONALD KING, LINDSEY PENNINGTON, TERESA
PRESTON, and BEVERLY PRESLEY, Personal Representative of the
Estate of Annabell Gordon, Plaintiffs, v. PHILIPS ELECTRONICS
NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 13-406-GFVT.

Plaintiffs, former employees at a glass manufacturing facility in
Danville, Kentucky, brought a class action against their former
employer, Philips, for injuries that allegedly arose from exposure
to hazardous chemicals in their workplace. In all, Plaintiffs'
Tendered Second Amended Class Action Complaint set forth claims
for "deliberate intention," negligence, strict liability,
negligent infliction of emotional distress, fraudulent
concealment, fraud, and "medical monitoring." Most of Plaintiffs'
claims alleged that Philips deliberately and intentionally
violated safety regulations and exposed them to hazardous
chemicals, causing them physical injury and emotional distress.

Philips moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Court heard oral argument on
February 9, 2015, and in a Memorandum Opinion and Order issued on
March 31, 2015, this Court granted the motion in part and denied
it in part. The Court first concluded that Plaintiffs' claims for
"deliberate intention" and negligence, gross negligence, and
recklessness were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the
Kentucky Workers' Compensation Act, since it could not be
reasonably inferred from the complaint that Philips maintained an
unsafe workplace because it "harbored a specific, deliberate
intent to cause harm to the Plaintiffs." The Court went on to
conclude that Plaintiffs' fraud and fraudulent concealment claims
were not precluded by the exclusive remedy provision because they
had pled sufficient facts to "make it at least plausible that
Philips specifically intended to cause harm to the plaintiffs by
withholding, concealing, or misrepresenting this information.
Plaintiffs' remaining claims for strict liability, medical
monitoring, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and a
proposed negligence per se claim were also dismissed.

In the motion, Philips contends that, to the extent the Court
found that the fraud and fraudulent concealment claims, as
intentional tort claims, contained sufficient factual allegations
to state a claim that fell within the deliberate intention
exception, the March 31, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order
contained a clear error of law. Because, Philips argues, stating a
claim for an intentional tort does not necessarily mean that one
has pleaded a "specific intention to injure the Philips employees
and because it contends Plaintiffs have made no plausible
allegation to that effect in their Tendered Second Amended Class
Action Complaint, Philips insists that their fraud claims should
have been dismissed.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 11, 2015,
available at http://is.gd/HAbLkafrom Leagle.com, Judge Van
Tatenhove concluded that there is no allegation that Philips
specifically intended to injure the Plaintiffs when it allegedly
misrepresented or failed to disclose information about the risks
and nature of chemicals in the facility. The Court found that
Plaintiffs' allegations of intentional actions do not, and cannot,
satisfy the exacting deliberate intention exception under Kentucky
law, their fraud and fraudulent concealment claims must be
dismissed so that Plaintiffs' fraud-related allegations were
sufficient to satisfy the deliberate intention exception was
therefore in error and contrary to clear authority set forth in
the Kentucky Supreme Court's opinion in Moore and direct guidance
from the Sixth Circuit in Rainer.

Plaintiffs are represented by Evan McDonald Rice, Esq. --
erice@gettylawgroup.com, Jessica Katherine Winters, Esq. -
jwinters@gettylawgroup.com, Mary Ann Getty, Esq. --
mgetty@gettylawgroup.com & Richard A. Getty, Esq. -
rgetty@gettylawgroup.com -- THE GETTY LAW GROUP, PLLC

Philips Electronics is represented by Brian M. Johnson, Esq. --
BJohnson@dickinsonwright.com, Emma R. Wolfe, Esq. --
Ewolfe@dickinsonwright.com & Matthew A. Stinnett, Esq. --
Mstinnett@dickinsonwright.com -- DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC


PICNIC GOURMET: Recalls Yogurt Cheese Spreads Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------------
Picnic Gourmet Spreads is issuing a recall on their yogurt cheese
spreads. These spreads could potentially be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes.

Listeria bacteria can cause a serious infection called
listeriosis. Listeriosis is caused by eating food contaminated
with Listeria bacteria and typically occurs within three days to
10 weeks of consumption (usually within three weeks). Symptoms of
listeriosis include fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance, and convulsions, which can be preceded
by nausea or diarrhea. Listeria infection can be treated with
antibiotics.

Persons at higher risk for disease include pregnant women,
newborns, elderly persons, and individuals with a weakened immune
system (for example: persons with AIDS, cancer, diabetes, or
kidney disease). Listeriosis in pregnant women may cause fever and
other flu-like symptoms, which can be mild. However, because
Listeria infection can cause premature labor, premature delivery,
miscarriage, stillbirth or severe infection of newborns, it is
especially important that pregnant women avoid these products.

The recall was a result of routine retail sampling by the DHMH
Office of Food Protection, and subsequent analysis by the DHMH
Laboratories Administration which revealed the presence of
Listeria monocytogenes in the product.

The potentially contaminated products include Red Pepper Feta
Cheese Spread, Moroccan Cilantro Cheese Spread, Tandoori Garlic
Cheese spread, Herbed Goat Cheese, Parmesan Cheese Spread, and
Chipotle Sage Cheese Spread.

These products were distributed to retail stores in Maryland,
Kentucky, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington,
D.C. , Minnesota and Illinois and have a "Best By" date of October
6th.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with any of
these products.

Consumers who have purchased any of these products are urged to
dispose of the product immediately. Consumers with questions may
contact Picnic Gourmet Spreads at info@picnicspreads.com

Media Contact: Brady Marz, Picnic Gourmet Spreads, 301-983-1241,
brady@picnicspreads.com

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm463542.htm


POLK COUNTY, FL: Court Denies Sheriff's Bid for Sanctions
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Steven D. Merryday of the United States District
Court for Middle District of Florida says a sheriff may not
recover both an attorney's fee and costs as sanction against the
plaintiffs' lawyers in the case captioned, CHANDA HUGHES, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. GRADY JUDD, et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:12-CV-
568-T-23MAP.

After successfully defending the class action, which challenged
the constitutionality of the conditions of confinement for
juvenile detainees at Polk County's Central County Jail in Bartow,
Florida, Sheriff Grady Judd moves for sanction equal to the
attorney's fee and the costs the Sheriff incurred after the close
of discovery. Based on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927 and the "inherent
authority" of the court, the Sheriff asserts the claim against the
plaintiffs' lawyers rather than against the plaintiffs. The
Sheriff asserts that, in light of the information revealed during
the extensive discovery, the plaintiffs' lawyers by maintaining
the action "intentionally" engaged in "unreasonable and vexatious
conduct" that "multiplied the proceedings" to such an extent as to
establish the lawyers' sanctionable "bad faith." Further, the
Sheriff asserts that the plaintiffs' lawyers in "bad faith,
vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons" maintained
"objectively untenable" claims.

Judge Merryday ruled: "Pursued in the interest of the taxpayers of
Polk County, Florida, the Sheriff's motion presents a claim not at
all lacking in force and certainly understandable from the
Sheriff's vantage (out more than a million dollars of the
taxpayers' money). But, given the law's 'demanding standard for
imposing sanctions,' the Sheriff's claim falls (barely) short.
Before levying a sanction of the kind and magnitude sought in this
instance, a judge must harbor a firm conviction, well-established
in the record, that the lawyers affirmatively violated the
applicable standard. . . . Arriving at the 'firm conviction'
requires evidence of a quality, quantity, and specificity not
present in this record. In other words, the Sheriff's motion for
the recovery of both an attorney's fee and costs as a sanction
against the plaintiffs' lawyers is DENIED because the Sheriff's
claim of the bad faith and vexatious maintenance of the
plaintiffs' claims, although certainly colorable in the
circumstance, is insufficiently evidenced in the record."

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 1, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/U3fJZcfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by Joseph Peter Rindone, Esq.
Joseph.Rindone@bakermckenzie.com -- Steven M. Chasin, Esq. --
Steven.Chasin@bakermckenzie.com -- BAKER & MCKENZIE, LLP

     - and -

Maria V. Morris, Esq.
Jody E. Owens, II, Esq.
SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER
400 Washington Ave.
Montgomery, AL 36104
Tel:(334) 956-8200

Defendants are represented by:

Hank B. Campbell, Esq.
Jonathan Barnet Trohn, Esq.
Robert J. Aranda, Esq.
Jennifer Megan Vasquez, Esq.
VALENTI, CAMPBELL, TROHN, TAMAYO & ARANDA, PA
1701 S Florida Ave
Lakeland, FL 33803
Tel: (863)686-0043


PORT OF SEATTLE: Court Says Oral Argument Unnecessary
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge John C. Coughenour of the United States District
Court for Western District of Washington granted Defendant King
County's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Plaintiffs'
sole remaining claim for inverse condemnation against King County
and Sound Transit in the case captioned, JOSEPH A. IOPPOLO, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. PORT OF SEATTLE, et al., Defendants, Case No.
C15-0358-JCC.

Plaintiffs, on behalf of all landowners who owned land adjacent to
the Eastside rail corridor, brought this putative class action
against several state and municipal entities, namely the Port of
Seattle, King County, Central Puget Sound Regional Transit
Authority (Sound Transit), and Cascade Water Alliance, and also
against a for-profit, private corporation, Puget Sound Energy,
Inc. Plaintiffs brought several tort-based claims: conspiracy to
illegally utilize the Trails Act to defraud Plaintiffs of their
property rights (against all Defendants); trespass (against King
County, Puget Sound Energy, Sound Transit, and Cascade); inverse
condemnation (against King County, Puget Sound Energy, Sound
Transit, and Cascade); slander of title (against all Defendants);
and unjust enrichment (against the Port).

After this Court's ruling on multiple motions to dismiss, the sole
remaining claim is for inverse condemnation against King County
and Sound Transit. Plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claim stems
from their allegation that the Port granted aerial and subsurface
rights to King County and Sound Transit, outside the scope of the
Trails Act and the BNSF easement. Plaintiffs allege that King
County's interest in the railway corridor pursuant to its Quit
Claim Deed from the Port was limited to surface rights and any
purported ownership of subsurface or aerial rights by King County
are therefore invalid and unenforceable.

In the motion, King County moves for summary judgment in its favor
over this inverse condemnation claim, and Sound Transit joins.

In his Order dated September 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/OJe63pfrom Leagle.com, Judge Coughenour concludes
that there remains no genuine issue of material fact as to whether
King County or Sound Transit may be liable to Plaintiffs under an
inverse condemnation claim. The Court rules in two reasons: (1)
based on undisputed facts before this Court, a "taking" has not
occurred, or at least, has not yet occurred; and (2) to the extent
that the expansion of the BNSF easement exceeded its original
scope and amounted to a taking, Plaintiffs have already received
just compensation under the settlement in Haggart.

Plaintiffs are represented by Daryl Allan Deutsch, Esq. --
daryl@rdtlaw.com -- RODGERS DEUTSCH & TURNER, Elizabeth G.
McCulley, Esq. -- McCulley@swm.legal, Michael J. Smith, Esq. --
Smith@swm.legal -- Thomas S. Stewart, Esq. -- Stewart@swm.legal --
STEWART WALD & MCCULLEY LLC

Defendants are represented by Kristin Elizabeth Ballinger, Esq. --
kristinb@calfoharrigan.com -- Randall Thor Thomsen, Esq. --
randallt@calfoharrigan.com -- Timothy G. Leyh, Esq. --
timl@calfoharrigan.com -- CALFO HARRIGAN LEYH & EAKES, LLP


RADIANCY INC: Falsely Marketed Hair Removal Device, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yesenia Olivo and Kendllena Kurdi & Scott Muir, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Radiancy, Inc. and
Dolev Rafaeli, Case No. 7:15-cv-06281-KMK (S.D.N.Y., August 10,
2015), is brought on behalf of all other purchasers of the
no!no!(TM) Hair removal device, that is falsely marketed by the
Defendants as a device that suppresses, slows, or reduces hair
regrowth on a long-term or permanent basis.

The product at issue is a device containing a heated wire that
merely singes the hair off of a user's body and does not destroy
the hair follicle or suppress the hair's ability to regrow.

Radiancy, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that develops and
manufactures home-use and professional aesthetic and
dermatological devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Martin, Esq.
      Irving Scher, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      165 Broadway, Suite 2301
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (646) 357-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
      E-mail: ischer@hausfeld.com
              smartin@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      James Pizzirusso, Esq.
      Stephanie Berger, Esq.
      HAUSFELD, LLP
      1700 K Street N.W., Suite 650
      Washington, D.C. 20006
      Telephone: (202)540-7200
      Facsimile: (202)540-7201
      E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
              sberger@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Aaron M. Levine, Esq.
      Brandon J. Levine, Esq.
      AARON LEVINE & ASSOCIATES
      1111 16th Street N.W., Suite 400
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202)833-8040
      Facsimile: (202)833-8046
      E-mail: aaronlevinelaw@gmail.com

         - and -

      Patrick A. Malone, Esq.
      PATRICK MALONE & ASSOCIATES
      1111 16th Street N.W., Suite 400
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202)742-1500
      Facsimile: (202)742-1515
      E-mail: pmalone@patickmalonelaw.com


RITE AID: Removes "Mueller" Suit to California District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit entitled Mueller v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., Case
No. RG15758092, was removed from the Alameda County Superior Court
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(Oakland).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-
03595-DMR to the proceeding.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Rite Aid
misclassified him as exempt from the overtime pay and related
requirements of state law. The Plaintiff asserts (1) failure to
pay overtime wages; (2) unfair business practices; and (3) failure
to pay timely wages upon termination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Glugoski, Esq.
          Matthew Righetti, Esq.
          Michael C. Righetti, Esq.
          RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
          456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 983-0900
          Facsimile: (415) 397-9005
          E-mail: jglugoski@righettilaw.com
                  matt@righettilaw.com
                  mike@righettilaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey David Wohl, Esq.
          Sophie J. Sung, Esq.
          Rishi N. Sharma, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          55 Second Street, 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-3441
          Telephone: (415) 856-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
          E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com
                  sophiesung@paulhastings.com
                  rishisharma@paulhastings.com


ROBINS FOOD: Faces "Xenophon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Xenophon, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Robins Food Corporation d/b/a Uncle Bill's, and
Alexandra Botos, Case No. 1:15-cv-04659-ILG-RER (E.D.N.Y., August
10, 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 restaurant located at 30-17
Stratton Street, Flushing, New York 11354.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Mironis, Esq.
      STEFANIDIS & MIRONIS, LLP
      31-10 37th Avenue, Suite 303
      Long Island City, NY 11101
      Telephone: (718) 545-5518
      Facsimile: (718) 545-5087
      E-mail: peter@smpilaw.com


SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Faces "Ontiveros" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yadir A. Ontiveros, and all others similarly-situated v. Safelite
Fulfillment, Inc., Safelite Group, Inc., Safelite Glass
Corp., and DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-07118 (C.D. Calif.,
September 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and penalties
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Business and
Professions Code, Labor Code, and California Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order No. 4-2001, in addition to seeking
declaratory relief and restitution.

The Defendants manufacture, install and service automotive
windshields and glass within the Central District and State of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, California 90245
      Tel: (310) 322-2220
      Fax: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com


SAFEWAY: Recalls Flight of Cheese Tray Products Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Safeway
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10050

Safeway is recalling Flight of Cheese trays prepared in store at
Safeway which may contain recalled Yanni and Gopi brand cheese
products due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below.

This recall applies to Flight of Cheese trays prepared in-store
that may contain the following affected products; Yanni brand
Hand-Braided String Cheese Olive Oil Garlic & Herbs, Yanni brand
Hand-Braided String Cheese Original, and Gopi brand Paneer,
purchased from Safeway on or before September 17th, 2015.
Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased affected products
should check with their Safeway store.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses in Canada associated with
the consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand    Common name       Size      Code(s) on        UPC
  name     -----------       ----      product           ---
  -----                                ----------
  Safeway  Flight of Cheese  Variable  Any tray that may Variable
           (plastic wrapped            contain the
           on Styrofoam tray)          affected cheese
                                       products:
                                       -Yanni brand Hand-
                                       Braided String
                                       Cheese Olive Oil
                                       Garlic & Herbs
                                       -Yanni brand Hand-
                                       Braided String
                                       Cheese Original
                                       -Gopi brand Paneer
                                       purchased from
                                       Safeway on or before
                                       September 17, 2015

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/AteG2G


SANDS BETHWORKS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Mao" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lin Wai Mao a/k/a Daisy Mao and Chin Chiu a/k/a Wendy Chiu, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Sands
Bethworks Gaming LLC. d/b/a Sands Bethlehem, Sands Bethworks
Retail LLC. d/b/a Sands Bethlehem, Lucky 9 Enterprise, Inc.,
John Doe 001-100 Corporations, Jason Chen, and David Wong, Case
No. 1:15-cv-06252-JMF (S.D.N.Y., August 10, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation
for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a travel agency that transports
customers exclusively from Chinatown, Manhattan and Flushing,
Queens to Sands Bethlehem in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com


SARTAIN STRUCTURES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schnetzer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sartain Structures, Inc. and Robert Sartain, Case No.
6:15-cv-00736-MHS (E.D. Tex., August 10, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants provide products and services to the building
construction industry and maintain an operational office in
Gladewater, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
      BARON & BUDD, PC
      3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


SIMON'S LAWN: Faces "Kennedy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elliott Kennedy, for himself and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Simon's Lawn Care, Inc. and A.J. Simon, Case No. 2:15-
cv-00476-JES-CM (M.D. Fla., August 10, 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 lawn care service and maintenance
company in Lee County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angeli Murthy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 967-5377
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3016
      E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com


STREAM ENERGY: "Basile" Suit Moved From E.D. to M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Basile v. Stream Energy
Pennsylvania, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03204, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania (Harrisburg).  The Middle District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01518-YK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com

               - and -

          Troy M. Frederick, Esq.
          MARCUS & MACK PC
          57 South Sixth St.
          Indiana, PA 15701
          Telephone: (724) 349-5602
          E-mail: TFrederick@marcusandmack.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Prerak Shah, Esq.
          Robert C. Walters, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          2100 McKinney Ave., Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 698-3193
          E-mail: pshah@gibsondunn.com
                  rwalters@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Voshell, Esq.
          John P. Elliott, Esq.
          ELLIOTT GREENLEAF & SIEDZIKOWSKI, P.C.
          925 Harvest Dr., Suite 300
          Blue Bell, PA 19422
          Telephone: (215) 977-1000
          E-mail: gsv@elliottgreenleaf.com
                  jpe@elliottgreenleaf.com


SWING PAINTS: Recalls Lacquer Thinner Products Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 15, 2015
Posting date: September 15, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Chemical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54986

This recall involves Klenk's Lacquer Thinner sold in 1 L (UPC
6809789991) and 3.98 L (UPC 6809789994) formats. The product is
packaged in a metal can with a red plastic twist-off cap with two
lateral depressible tabs and a black cap base.

The product does not meet child-resistant packaging requirements
for consumer chemical products required by the Consumer Chemicals
and Containers Regulations, 2001 under the Canada Consumer Product
Safety Act. The cap can be opened without having to engage the
child-resistant tabs on the sides of the cap. This could result in
unintentional exposure to the product and lead to serious illness,
injury, or death.

Neither Health Canada nor Swing Paints Ltd. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
this product.

Approximately 1,764 units were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from June 2014 to August 2015 at
various locations Canada.

Manufactured in Canada.

Manufacturer: Swing Paints Ltd.
              Montreal
              Quebec
              CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
return unopened product to the point of purchase OR dispose of it
according to municipal Hazardous Waste Guidelines.

For additional information, consumers may contact Swing Paints
Ltd. at 514-932-2157.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/mpPERt


TEAMSTERS: Board Sued Over Disability Pension Benefits
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Marino Jr., and all other similarly-situated Plan members
v. The Joint Board of Administrative Trustees, Teamsters Local
Union No. 134 Pension and Death Benefit Plan, Case No. 2:15-cv-
06933-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September 16, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's unlawful failure and refusal to provide Plan members
with disability pension benefits, in violation of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

The Joint Board of Administrative Trustees, Teamsters Local Union
No. 134 Pension and Death Benefit Plan is responsible for
providing benefits and managing and administering the Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William B. Hildebrand, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM B. HILDEBRAND LLC
      36 Tanner Street, Suite 300
      Haddonfield, NJ 08033
      Telephone: (856) 482-8428


TEKSYSTEMS MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Littleton v. Teksystems Management, Inc., Case No. 9:15-
cv-81113-DMM (S.D. Fla., August 10, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Teksystems Management, Inc. operates an IT staffing solutions
company in Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Scott Minick, Esq.
      JONATHAN S. MINICK, P.A.
      1850 SW 8th Street, Suite 307
      Miami, FL 33135
      Telephone: (786) 441-8909
      Facsimile: (786) 523-0610
      E-mail: jminick@jsmlawpa.com


TOYOTA: Recalls RAV4 2009 Model Due to Crash Risk
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 93652
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015409TC
ID number: 2015409
Manufacturer recall number: SRC R09

On certain vehicles equipped with a water channel located
underneath the cowl louver at the base of the windshield and above
the windshield wiper link assembly, due to stresses applied to the
water channel during the manufacturing process, a section of the
channel in some vehicles may become deformed and prevent water
from draining properly. If water were to collect in the channel,
it may drip onto the joint that connects the windshield wiper link
and wiper motor. Over time, water dripping on this joint could
result in corrosion and/or wear to the joint, which could result
in the separation of the wiper link from the wiper motor crank
arm. If separation were to occur, the windshield wipers could
become inoperative, which could limit the driver's visibility
under certain operating conditions which may increase the risk of
a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction:
Dealers will replace the water channel, the wiper link and wiper
motor crank arm with ones of an improved design.

  Make        Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----      ----------------------
  TOYOTA      RAV4       2009


TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Cheese Products Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Tree of Life Canada
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10049

Tree of Life Canada is recalling Yanni and Gopi brand cheese
products from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume the
recalled products described below.
Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses in Canada associated with
the consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand   Common name      Size    Code(s) on     UPC
  name    -----------      ----    product        ---
  -----                            ----------
  Yanni   Hand-Braided     226 g   All codes      7 96252 99012 0
          String Cheese -
          Olive Oil,
          Garlic & Herbs
  Yanni   Hand-Braided     226 g   All codes      7 96252 99011 3
          String Cheese -
          Original
  Yanni   Hand-Braided     226 g   All codes      7 96252 99005 2
          String Cheese -
          Natural Hickory
          Smoked
  Yanni   Feta Basket      226 g   All codes      7 96252 99007 6
  Yanni   Feta Basket
          with Sundried    226 g   All codes      7 96252 99009 0
          Tomato & Thyme
  Yanni   Goat Feta Basket 226 g   All codes      7 96252 99008 3
  Yanni   Grilling Cheese  226 g   All codes      7 96252 99010 6
          - Jalapeno &
          spices
  Yanni   Grilling Cheese  226 g   All codes      7 96252 99013 7
          - Original
  Gopi    Paneer           226 g   All codes      7 96252 99006 9

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/xMKHlS


TRINET GROUP: Oct. 6 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District
Court for Northern District of California adopted the parties'
stipulation in the proposed schedule in the case captioned, HOWARD
WELGUS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. TRINET GROUP, INC., BURTON M. GOLDFIELD
and WILLIAM PORTER Defendants, Case Nos. 5:15-CV-03625-BLF.

On August 7, 2015 by Plaintiff Howard Welgus, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative federal
securities class action against Defendants TriNet Group, Inc.
(TriNet), Burton Goldfield, and William Porter in violation of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).

To avoid the unnecessary expenditure of effort by the parties and
the Court prior to the appointment of lead plaintiff and the
filing of an amended complaint, the parties have agreed that:

     1. Defendants need not answer, move, or otherwise respond to
the Complaint in this action or any related, subsequently filed
actions transferred to this Court until a date to be set following
the appointment of a lead plaintiff pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78u-4(a)(3)(B) and following the filing by such lead plaintiff of
a consolidated amended complaint;

     2. Within 60 days from the date the Court appoints lead
plaintiff(s) and lead counsel pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-
4(3)(B), such lead plaintiff(s) shall file an consolidated amended
complaint (the "Amended Complaint");

     3. Within 60 days from the date that an Amended Complaint is
filed and served by the Court-appointed lead plaintiff(s),
Defendants shall file and serve a motion to dismiss, answer, or
other response to such Amended Complaint;

     4. In the event the Defendants file a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint, lead plaintiff(s) shall have 60 days from the
filing and service of such motion to file and serve papers in
opposition to the motion;

     5. Defendants shall have 30 days from the filing and service
of lead plaintiff(s)' opposition papers to file reply papers; and

     6. The case management conference presently scheduled for
December 10, 2015, along with any associated deadlines under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules (including ADR
deadlines), shall be vacated and reset to a date after the Court
rules on Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint.

In the Stipulation and Order dated September 1, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/BBDJfcfrom Leagle.com, Judge Freeman adopted the
parties' proposed schedule with one exception: the December 10,
2015 Initial Case Management Conference is continued to April 21,
2016 at 11:00 a.m. Any member of the putative class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff no later than October 6, 2015,
pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3)(A)-(B) and Civil L.R. 23-
1(b)

Howard Welgus is represented by Shawn A. Williams, Esq. -
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

Defendants are represented by Richard L. Gallagher, Esq. --
Richard.Gallagher@ropesgray.com, Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. --
Anne.Palmer@ropesgray.com & Matthew A. Tolve, Esq. --
Matthew.Tolve@ropesgray.com -- ROPES & GRAY LLP


UNITED STATES: OPM Faces "Hanagan" Suit Over Alleged Cyber Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hanagan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. United States Office of Personnel
Management, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06045-AB-AS (C.D. Cal.,
August 10, 2015), arises out of the cyber-breach of OPM's systems
that compromised the security of sensitive personal information of
approximately 21.5 million background investigation applicants,
spouses, co-habitants, and additional close friends and relatives.

United States Office of Personnel Management is a U.S. agency that
handles many aspects of the Federal employee recruitment process,
including managing Federal job announcements, conducting
background investigations and security clearances, overseeing
Federal merit systems, managing personal retirement and health
benefits, providing training and development programs, and
developing government personnel policies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Graham B. LippSmith, Esq.
      Celene S. Chan, Esq.
      Jaclyn L. Anderson, Esq.
      KASDAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
      500 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1310
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 254-4800
      Facsimile: (213) 254-4801
      E-mail: glippsmith@klwtlaw.com
              cchan@klwtlaw.com
              janderson@klwtlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Motion for Injunctive Relief in "Wise" Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United States
District Court for District of Columbia denied Plaintiffs' motion
for preliminary injunctive relief in the case captioned, EDDIE
WISE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 15-01331(CKK).

Pro se Plaintiffs, Eddie and Dorothy Wise, are the operators of a
livestock farm in Nash County, North Carolina. Plaintiffs have
previously received farm operating loans under the USDA-FSA Farm
Loan Program. In September 1997, the Farm Service Agency Loan
Manager assigned to Plaintiffs was relocated, and Plaintiffs were
assigned a new Loan Manager. Plaintiffs allege that despite a
request for assistance, their new Loan Manager did not provide any
help in developing Plaintiffs' 2012 farm operating plan. On March
27, 2012, Plaintiffs' Loan Manager prepared a farm operating plan
based on the information provided by Plaintiffs that "projected
negative net operating inflows and negative net cash available
from the projected livestock and poultry sales" from their farm.
Based on this projection, Plaintiffs' Loan Manager informed them
that they did not qualify for any FSA Primary Loan Servicing
programs and they were required to make monthly debt payments of
$3,100.00 to the USDA to avoid foreclosure on the deed of trust
held by the USDA-FSA for the plaintiffs' farm and home in Nash
County, North Carolina. Because Plaintiffs' farm does not generate
sufficient income to pay $3,100.00 per month, they have defaulted
on their obligations due under the promissory note.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Foreclosure Action
until a separate case brought by Plaintiffs in the Court of
Federal Claims "has commenced and/or the case has been resolved.
Plaintiffs argue that they are likely to succeed on the merits,
citing to the facts alleged in the Complaint. Defendants argue
that the Plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on the merits because
Plaintiffs' claims are barred under the first-to-file rule and the
doctrine of res judicata.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated September 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/rLWhINfrom Leagle.com, Judge Kollar-Kotelly found
that the Order sought by the Plaintiffs to enjoining another
federal court from adjudicating matters that have been briefed by
the parties would violate the principles of comity that govern
relationships among federal district courts and that an injunction
would not be in the public interest. Plaintiffs' claims are likely
barred by res judicata.

Defendants are represented by Fred Elmore Haynes, Esq., at U.S.
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Remands "Hernandez" Petition to BIA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Balmore Alcides Hernandez challenges the Board of Immigration
Appeals' (BIA) dismissal of his request for administrative closure
of his removal proceedings pursuant to paragraph 19 of the
settlement agreement entered in American Baptist Churches v.
Thornburgh, 760 F.Supp. 796, 805-06 (N.D. Cal. 1991).  According
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the plain
language of the ABC agreement entitles an ABC class member to "ask
. . . the BIA to administratively close his or her case."
Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit grants Hernandez's petition for
review and remand for the BIA to adjudicate his request for
administrative closure on its merits.

The case is captioned, BALMORE A. HERNANDEZ, AKA Jose Hernandez-
Rodriguez, AKA Cirilo Rodriguez-Herandez, Petitioner, v. LORETTA
E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent, Case No. 12-71986.

The complaint alleged that the government had systematically
violated the Refugee Act of 1980 in the processing of Salvadoran
and Guatemalan asylum applications.  On January 31, 1991, the
district court approved a settlement agreement, which it published
as part of its order.  The agreement provides that "all
Salvadorans in the United States as of September 19, 1990," who
have not been convicted of an aggravated felony and who have
perfected their rights by taking steps specified in the agreement,
are eligible for "a de novo, unappealable asylum adjudication
before an Asylum Officer, including a new interview, under the
regulations in effect on October 1, 1990.

At issue in the case is a class member's right under paragraph 19
of the ABC agreement to request administrative closure of
adversarial removal "proceedings before an Immigration Judge or
the BIA pending a new asylum adjudication" before the U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS). The government does
not dispute that Hernandez is an ABC class member who is entitled
to request administrative closure of his removal proceedings.
Rather, the government argues that Hernandez waived his request
for administrative closure by not exhausting administrative
remedies before the BIA.

In the Memorandum dated September 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/5gnuvZfrom Leagle.com, Ninth Circuit Judges Stephen
Reinhardt, John T. Noonan and Consuelo Maria Callahan concluded
that the government's argument that Hernandez waived his request
for administrative closure by not exhausting administrative
remedies before the BIA is without merit and remanded the case for
the BIA to determine Hernandez's entitlement to administrative
closure in the first instance, consistent with the Ninth Circuit's
decision.


UPLAND CONTRACTING: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Manrique, Carmen Ulloa, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Upland Contracting LLC and Ricardo
Sablon, Case No. 1:15-cv-02817-MHC (N.D. Ga., August 10, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay federally
mandated minimum wages and overtime wages to the Plaintiff in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a general contracting company
engaged in remodeling projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Joseph Sharman, Esq.
      THE SHARMAN LAW FIRM, LLC
      Suite 100, 11175 Cicero Drive
      Alpharetta, GA 30022
      Telephone: (678) 242-5297
      Facsimile: (678) 802-2129
      E-mail: paul@sharman-law.com


VEMMA NUTRITION: FTC Obtains Injunction for Temporary Shut Down
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Anglen and Amber Hunt, writing for AZ Central, reported
that Vemma Nutrition Company founder and CEO Benson Boreyko is
sitting at the top of a $221 million multi-level-marketing company
that he has built into one of Arizona's fastest-growing
enterprises.

Federal regulators, however, call Vemma an illegal pyramid scheme
and contend its revenue is based less on the sale of "health and
wellness drinks" than an army of student "affiliates" who buy
their way into the company and whose main job is recruiting
others.

The Federal Trade Commission sued Vemma and obtained a federal
court injunction to temporarily shut down the Tempe-based
operation, maker of the energy drink Verve and other products,
saying its unlawful business practices affected consumers
throughout the United States and 50 other countries,

The FTC accused Vemma of luring student recruits with marketing
materials showing "prosperous young people with luxury cars, jets,
and yachts" and false claims that they could earn as much as
$50,000 per week.

In addition to Verve, the company sells nutritional supplements
and vitamin drinks under the Vemma name. It also markets meal
replacement shakes and weight-loss products called Bod-e and a
nutrient blend for children called Next.

Neither Boreyko nor other Vemma officials could be reached for
comment. Phones at Vemma's headquarters were answered with a
recorded phone message saying, "The U.S. District Court has
appointed a temporary receiver to assume full control of the Vemma
companies" until a Sept. 15 injunction hearing in Phoenix.

But on social media, the force behind the company's explosive
growth and its go-to tool for connecting with recruits, Boreyko --
or BK, as he is known to followers -- vowed to fight the
injunction. His messages to the "Vemma faithful" include the
hashtag #IAmNotDone.

"I think we're gonna get a win September 15th!" Boreyko posted on
Twitter.

In a Sept. 2 Instagram post, Boreyko encouraged supporters to
"hold tight" while his legal team prepared "to defend your right
to market the finest wellness products on the planet." He said the
case would provide him an opportunity to tell his story to the
world.

"Vemma was the number 1 trending story on Facebook. Not quite the
way I thought we'd get there, but an epic stage has been set for
us to defend Vemma, this amazing industry and the millions that
count on it along with myself," Boreyko wrote. "Thank you and
through all of this, I continue to give praise to God!"

Boreyko, 53, has invoked God's name and spiritual conscience to
sell products since the 1990s. Since that time, he has transformed
into a multimillionaire, minimizing federal enforcement actions,
lawsuits and media investigations, brushing off allegations of
wrongdoing and calling critics haters.

"Fifteen years ago, the FTC investigated my first company called
New Vision for some health claims made by some of the
distributors," Boreyko said in a 2013 YouTube video titled 'Vemma
CEO, BK Boreyko, addresses the scam accusations.'

"Here's what the FTC asked me not to do anymore: Don't make health
claims. And they didn't fine me," he said, adding that he isn't
trying to hide from his past. "Stop and think about it. I don't
think a guy running a scam would be that transparent."

The FTC tells a different story. In 1999, it accused Boreyko and
New Vision International of marketing a product called "God's
Recipe" as a cure for attention-deficit disorder and an
alternative to traditional medicine.

"The ads exploited parents' fears of prescription drugs like
Ritalin by making claims that God's Recipe was a natural, safer
alternative for treating ADD and ADHD," FTC officials said at the
time.

As part of the settlement, Boreyko was permanently barred from
making false claims about nutritional supplements. He also was
prohibited from using testimonials or product endorsements to
suggest results are typical and represent ordinary experiences.

The FTC lawsuit against Vemma accused the company of falsely
representing that affiliates were likely to earn hefty incomes.
Vemma told students they could make $50,000 per week and said
joining the company could help them bypass college.

In reality, more than 97 percent of Vemma's affiliates earned
$12,000 a year or less, according to the lawsuit.

"Rather than focusing on selling products, Vemma uses false
promises of high income potential to convince consumers to pay
money to join their organization," Jessica Rich, Director of the
FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection said in a statement.

In a pyramid scheme, money from new investors is used to pay those
who invested previously.

Despite Vemma's line of nutrition drinks, the FTC alleges the
company's primary source of revenue comes from the buy-in of new
affiliates.

"The defendants provide affiliates little guidance for selling
products, but instead teach them to give away products as samples
when recruiting new participants," according to the FTC lawsuit.
"Vemma offers no meaningful discounts or incentives to encourage
retail sales."

For years, Vemma flew under most people's radar. The line of
energy drinks was launched in 2004 and at first barely made a
blip, according to the company's own sales reports.

In 2008, Vemma heightened its profile by partnering with the
Phoenix Suns to sponsor a swanky lounge at the U.S. Airways
Center.

In 2011 and 2012 Vemma started zeroing in on college-age recruits
and launched its so-called Young People's Revolution; #YPR in
Twitter parlance.

Young adults were encouraged to leverage their social media
networks to become their own bosses and sell drinks to friends.
They also were told by the ever-upbeat Boreyko and other company
leaders that college was a waste of time.

"I read this article in Forbes magazine and they were calling the
college education system in this country a pyramid scheme,"
Boreyko said in one YouTube video. "Do you realize that 40 percent
of those college graduates that have found jobs work in jobs that
don't require a college degree, yet they're still stuck with the
debt?"

That message caught the attention of parents -- and the media.
Truth in Advertising, a nonprofit consumer protection agency in
Connecticut, began posting stories and gathering evidence that
later would help the FTC in its case.

Several national and local media outlets also launched
investigations into Vemma, including "Today Show," "Al Jazeera
America," and "Rolling Stone." The Cincinnati Enquirer published
an investigation about Vemma's growing presence on Cincinnati-area
campuses.

Other countries also cracked down on Vemma. The Italian government
declared Vemma a pyramid scheme in April 2014, and a spokesman for
Switzerland's State Secretariat for Economic Affairs confirmed
that prosecutors there are investigating the company. Consumer
protection agencies in Germany and Austria also issued warnings
about the company and advised young adults to steer clear.

The Phoenix Suns terminated their Vemma affiliation, Suns
spokeswoman Maria Baier said.

Lawsuit alleges false claims

The foundation of Vemma's success lies its "clinically studied,
single-formula product line," according to the company's website.

Vemma, or Vitamins Essential Minerals Mangosteen Aloe, takes its
name from an Asian fruit called Garcinia mangostana.

Veema in 2014 was the target of a class-action lawsuit in New York
accusing the company of false and misleading marketing,
advertising, and sale of their Vemma product line, including
Verve.

The federal lawsuit accuses Vemma of violating the 1999 FTC order
by claiming its products improve immune function, reduce protein
levels, increase blood levels, increase antioxidants in the blood
and increase health.

Veema countered in court documents that the case was brought by a
former affiliate who is contractually barred from filing a lawsuit
and broke his member agreement. It asked the court to dismiss the
case, which has since been transferred to Arizona and is ongoing.

Veema boasts that its core mission is "to help others by enhancing
their well-being, and offering an income stream to people who
introduce others to a product line they believe in."

Vemma's website said Boreyko started the company by leveraging 20-
plus years of "experience in the wellness industry with his
passion for creating unique ways to keep people healthy and
founded Vemma."

Boreyko, is the divorced father of six children and has homes in
Scottsdale and Southern California.  "Al Jazeera America" found he
made about $12 million in 2013, according to his divorce records.

Boreyko was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. According to Vemma's
website, his parents came from small rural communities but made
millions in the multi-level-marketing business.

Ben and Dottie Boreyko and their four children "built a
multimillion-dollar networking business with thousands of team
members spanning several countries," the website states, adding
that as an outgrowth of their success they supported "countless
charitable organizations."

Vemma also claims to be dedicated to charitable and improving "the
lives of children around the world." Through the Ben and Dottie
Boreyko Foundation, Vemma claims it works with deserving nonprofit
organizations to help the world's children live healthier lives.

But the foundation's most recently available tax returns show that
in 2011, 2012 and 2013 very little went to charities.

The foundation reported $34,819 total revenues in those years and
made three donations for $17,500.

Those included: $5,000 to the Phoenix Children's Hospital and
$2,500 to a Paradise Valley foundation called Out of the Shadows
in 2011; and $10,000 to the Freedom Academy North in Scottsdale in
2013.

Wide implications

The FTC action could have broader implications for the
controversial industry, and it's sparked renewed calls for tighter
industry regulations -- even from people who support multilevel,
or "network," marketing.

"I have been pushing for more standards that lead to a more
predictable marketplace in network marketing," Kevin Thompson, a
lawyer who represents multilevel marketing companies, said in an
online video he posted on Vemma. "This is what happens when you
push for an environment of no standards, no regulation. When
there's no regulation, the regulators can sue anybody."

Multilevel marketing draws comparisons to pyramid schemes because
both rely on members recruiting other people to make money for
those above them. Some people try to boil the legality down to
whether a company sells a real product, but that's too simplistic,
said William Keep, a pyramid scheme expert and dean of the School
of Business at the College of New Jersey.

"The issue of product efficacy is by and large a non-issue in
court. It's a red herring," Keep said. "Real companies sell real
products, that's true. But so do schemes."

It's impossible for everyday people to determine whether a
business is a pyramid scheme because you'd need a complete
disclosure of the company's finances -- which companies aren't
required to provide the general public -- to accurately make the
call.

Shana Mueller, a spokeswoman for Truth in Advertising, said Vemma
is going to have a hard time recovering from the FTC action.

"This is not going away," she said. "Vemma could get the order
lifted, they could go back into operations, but it's never going
to be the same. . . . It's not blowing over."

'Cult-like' and pervasive

Some students describe Vemma affiliates as being "cult-like."

Austin Neff, a 23-year-old recent college graduate from Portland,
said it it's hard to describe to outsiders just how pervasive
Vemma became on campuses nationwide.

Neff and Rob Liggins said they invited to numerous college parties
that were Vemma sales pitches in disguise. They became so
frustrated they launched a Twitter account mocking Vemma and the
Young People's Revolution.

"It got to a point where we would tell people we weren't down with
the idea of the business, and people would be so pushy about it,"
said Liggins, 23, who described being driven to Vemma recruiters'
houses under the guise of going out to a friendly lunch.

"I'd say, 'Where are we going?' And they'd say, 'You should just
come to this meeting. It'll be, like, 30 minutes and then we'll go
do whatever.' I'd say, 'Let me out of the car.'"

It's unclear how many Arizona students the company had recruited
to sell its product.

When 21-year-old Scottsdale Community College student Chris Benson
signed up to sell Vemma juice drinks, he said something didn't
feel right.

He said he invested less than $50 to become an "affiliate" based
on promises of quick money and the possibility of a free car if he
sold enough. It was a huge mistake, he said.

"When they started talking about ranks, that's what really got me
as it's a little bit sketch in my opinion," he said. "I was like,
yeah, no one is going to give me a free BMW."

Benson said the company presentation was enticing and made people
want to be a part of the company.

"They use all these things like colorful words, helping people
retire early," he said. "You know, these things that make you kind
of what to join into it. And I have to admit it seems appealing,
which is probably what got me."

Benson said he didn't have a lot of money to spend at the time,
and he had just graduated from high school. He said some of his
friends invested up to $500 into the company.

Benson said he received no help in selling the product, and the
company emphasized recruiting new people.

"It's not right, you just gotta work hard and do what most people
do for money. There are no shortcuts in life," he said.

Arcadia High School senior Musthafa Mahmood, a former Vemma
affiliate, said he stands by the product.

"Maybe the setup is wrong "but the product itself is a good
product," he said.

Mahmood said even though he put $500 into it, he doesn't see it as
a loss. He did not recruit enough people to make his investment
back, but he views that as his own fault, not Vemma's. He said he
still has Vemma nutritional drinks and vitamins that he uses.

Other Vemma supporters also defended the products and criticized
federal regulators for cutting off access.

"The sad thing is that Vemma closed its doors so that those of us
who really liked the product now have no place to get it," an
unidentified person wrote on the FTC website.  "The marketing plan
may have been faulty, but the product was not."


VILLAGE OF GLENWOOD: Appelate Court Reverses Ruling in "Mabry"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joy V. Cunningham of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First
District, First Division reversed the judgment of the Circuit
Court of Cook County dismissed Plaintiffs' claims as time-barred
the judgment of the Superior Court in the case captioned, DANIEL
and DENISE MABRY; DAVID and DANETTE COOPER, Plaintiffs, v. VILLAGE
OF GLENWOOD, Defendant-Appellee, (Latasha Baker; Sandra Brown;
Claudette Burchett; Lillian Cann; Sandra Chapman; Cathie
Cranfield; Kerry Durkin; Gwen Durkin; Robert Farr; Rochelle Farr;
Kevin Holliday; Tasha Holliday; Cornelius Jones; Robyn Jones;
Latanya Jones; Dwayne Lockette; Carolyn Lockette; Maria Lopez;
Patricia Moore; Antionne Davis; Barbara Pawlowski; Shirley
Richmond; Janice Rockette; Harold Ross; Vanessa Ross; John Stehle;
Marjorie Reckley; Yvonne Williams; Arthur Wynn; Carmela Wynn;
Thomas Yuskus; and Barbara Yuskus, InterveningPlaintiffs-
Appellants), Case No. 2015 IL App (1st)140356.

On April 16, 2007, plaintiffs Daniel and Denise Mabry, and David
and Danette Cooper (collectively, Mabry-Cooper) filed a proposed
class action complaint against Glenwood and seven other
defendants. The complaint alleged that Mabry-Cooper had suffered
property damage after a heavy rainstorm caused sewage and sewer
water to back up into their residences on April 16, 2006. Mabry-
Cooper brought the claim on their own behalf and as
representatives of a purported class constituting all Glenwood
residents who had suffered similar property damages as a result of
the sewer backup. The original complaint contained seven counts,
all but one of which was brought against all of the defendants. On
August 28, 2007, after several named defendants each filed a
motion to dismiss the claims against them, the circuit court, on
Mabry-Cooper's own motion, entered an order dismissing without
prejudice the claims against all of the defendants except for
Glenwood. On March 28, 2013, Mabry-Cooper filed a second amended
complaint against Glenwood, alleging common law trespass and
negligent operation of the sewer system. The second amended
complaint withdrew the class action allegations and added the 32
intervening plaintiffs.

On April 30, 2013, Glenwood filed a section 2-619 motion to
dismiss, arguing that the intervening plaintiffs' claims were
governed by section 8-101(a) of the Local Governmental and
Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Tort Immunity Act) (745
ILCS 10/8-101(a) (West 2012)), which bars any claim filed against
a governmental entity that is not brought within one year of the
date on which the cause of action accrued. Glenwood claims,
because Mabry-Cooper did not move to certify the class as soon as
practicable after their proposed class action lawsuit was filed,
the tolling rule did not preserve the claims of the intervening
plaintiffs. On December 17, 2013, the circuit court granted
Glenwood's motion to dismiss the claims of the intervening
plaintiffs as time-barred under section 8-101(a) of the Tort
Immunity Act.

On appeal, the intervening plaintiffs argue that the Circuit Court
erred in granting Glenwood's motion to dismiss. In support of this
contention, the intervening plaintiffs present three arguments as
to why their claims were not time-barred under the Tort Immunity
Act. The intervening plaintiffs allege that their claims were
preserved due to the application of (1) the relation-back
doctrine; (2) the equitable tolling doctrine; or (3) the class-
action tolling rule.

In the Opinion dated September 14, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/0lPaZNfrom Leagle.com, Judge Cunningham found that
the class action tolling rule served to protect the claims of the
intervening plaintiffs and that it was error for the circuit court
to grant Glenwood's motion to dismiss. The Court reverse the
judgment of the circuit court of Cook County and remand the
intervening plaintiffs' cause to the circuit court for further
proceedings.

Plaintiff is represented by Paul D. Cullen, Sr., Esq. -
pdc@cullenlaw.com, Joyce E. Mayers, Esq. - jem@cullenlaw.com &
Toni J. Ellington, Esq. -- the@cullenlaw.com -- THE CULLEN LAW
FIRM, PLLC

Defendant is represented by Holly Drumheller Butler, Esq. --
holly.butler@dlapiper.com -- Charles P. Scheelerwere, Esq. --
charles.scheeler@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER, Bruce V. Spiva, Esq.
-- BSpiva@perkinscoie.com -- Rhett P. Martin, Esq. --
RMartin@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP


WESTBROOK GREENHOUSE: Recalls Boat Trailers Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 1067
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015411TC
ID number: 2015411

On certain boat trailers, the fender mounts could fatigue and fail
due to users inadvertently using the fenders as steps. A fender
separating from the vehicle could strike another vehicle, a
stationary object, or a bystander, causing injury and/or property
damage. Correction: Westbrook Greenhouse Systems LTD will provide
owners with a fender support bracket kit and installation
instructions, which will prevent the separating of the fender if
stepped on.


WESTERN EXPRESS: "Smith" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled William Smith v. Western Express
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03092, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Santa Ana).
The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-01238-
CJC-DFM to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William David Turley, Esq.
          David Thomas Mara, Esq.
          THE TURLEY LAW FIRM APLC
          7428 Trade Street
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (619) 234-2833
          Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
          E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
                  dmara@turleylawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carla J. Hartley, Esq.
          Corey Sachie Utsurogi, Esq.
          DILLINGHAM AND MURPHY LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1900
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 397-2700
          Facsimile: (415) 397-3300
          E-mail: cjh@dillinghammurphy.com
                  csu@dillinghammurphy.com

               - and -

          Paul Hamilton Duvall, Esq.
          KING AND BALLOW
          6540 Lusk Boulevard, Suite 250
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 597-6000
          Facsimile: (858) 597-6008
          E-mail: pduvall@kingballow.com


WESTERN RANGE: Former Shepherds Sue Over Wage Conspiracy
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Neary, writing for Magicvalley.com, reportd that two former
shepherds from Peru are accusing key players in the sheep industry
in the western U.S. of conspiring to keep wages low for foreign
workers.

Rodolfo Llacua and Esliper Huaman, represented by a Denver law
firm called Towards Justice, are seeking to have their lawsuit
treated as a class-action case seeking damages for current and
former shepherds across the West.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District court in Denver, targets the
Salt Lake City-based Western Range Association and Casper, Wyo.-
based Mountain Plains Agricultural Service. The companies place
foreign workers with sheep operations. The lawsuit also names
eight sheep-ranching operations around the West as defendants,
including the Ball Brothers Sheep Co. in Lewisville, north of
Idaho Falls.

When reached for comment, Ball Brothers Office Manager JoDee Davis
said the owners of the company were up in the mountains and hadn't
seen the lawsuit yet.

Davis refused to identify the owners of Ball Brothers, but
according to Environmental Working Group records, RJ Ball Jr.,
Carl Ball, Robert Ball and Lance Moss all own a percentage of the
company.

For decades, the federal government has endorsed ranchers bringing
in foreign shepherds to oversee vast herds in western states on
the grounds that U.S. citizens wouldn't take the jobs. They are
called "H2-A" workers after the federal labor program.

Between 2,000 and 2,500 H2-A workers are in the country, handling
nearly all of the shepherd work that sustains the roughly $275
million annual sheep industry in the West, the lawsuit states.

The herders, many from South American countries such as Peru, work
for wages as low as $750 a month. They commonly work seven days a
week and up to 12 hours a day for months on end. They live in
trailers or tents without plumbing or electricity, the lawsuit
states.

"The amount they paid us never seemed right," Huaman said in a
statement released by his lawyers. "Many fellow shepherds are
still suffering under these low wages, and I hope that I can help
benefit them through this complaint."

Llacua and Huaman say in their lawsuit that the Western Range
Association and Mountain Plains Agricultural Service, as well as
ranchers who hire foreign workers through them, violated anti-
trust laws by colluding to keep wages at the minimum levels
required by the federal government.

"We think that people working as shepherds should be fairly
compensated, pursuant to regular market forces," said Nina
DiSalvo, executive director of Towards Justice. Huaman is now
working in Utah, while Llacua is in Colorado, she said.

Stung into action recently by an earlier lawsuit brought by U.S.
sheepherders who claimed the foreign worker program was keeping
wages artificially low, the U.S. Department of Labor early
proposed a new rule that would ramp up pay for the herders up to
$2,400 a month by 2020.

In that earlier lawsuit, the U.S. herders argued that the Labor
Department for years had operated essentially in a closed-loop
system. They said the agency surveyed sheep ranchers to find out
how much they paid their herders, and then -- without seeking
comment from anybody else -- certified that it was appropriate for
ranchers to continue to pay foreign herders at those low rates
because no American workers were willing to take the jobs.

The federal agency's wage-hike proposal brought stiff criticism
from the grazing industry and politicians in the West, with many
asking to delay any change. Egan Reich, spokesman for the Labor
Department in Washington D.C., said that the agency intends to
publish its final rule Nov. 1.

Kelli Griffith, executive director of Mountain Plains Agricultural
Service, said that her company and its member ranchers have
participated in the H2-A program for more than 25 years.

"They're experienced and diligent about complying with all their
legal obligations," Griffith said of the ranchers who hire herders
through Mountain Plains. "They really appreciate the hard work and
all of the dedication of their employees. And these allegations --
they are just allegations -- they won't be taken lightly by the
association."

Ellen Winograd, a lawyer in Reno, Nevada, represents the Western
Range Association. She said the company also will investigate the
allegations of Llacua and Huaman.

"But because the Dept. of Labor and the H2-A visa program are so
highly regulated at both the state and federal levels, it's
difficult to imagine a scenario in which there can be any anti-
trust violations because prevailing wages within the H2-a visa
program are set by regulation and by statute," Winograd said.


XTREME DRILLING: "Mendez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Mendez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Xtreme Drilling & Coil Services, Inc., Case No. 5:15-
cv-00673-DAE (W.D. Tex., August 10, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Xtreme Drilling & Coil Services
is an onshore drilling and coiled tubing services contractor that
works with exploration and production companies in the U.S.,
Canada and international markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford-Ste 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies Calif. Inmate's Sanctions Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
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.  On June 22, 2015, the district court referred
all discovery disputes to the undersigned for resolution.  On July
23, 2015, the court held a discovery hearing and resolved several
discovery disputes.  Mr. Hutchison filed a motion that asks the
court to sanction the defendants' counsel under Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division,
in order dated Sept. 4, 2015, denied the motion.

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://tinyurl.com/nhkwowlfrom
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: CBS Summary Judgment in "Shiffer" Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One,
in an opinion dated Sept. 8, 2015, affirmed a trial court's order
granting defendant CBS Corporation's summary judgment motion in
the asbestos case filed by James Shiffer and his wife.

The Court of Appeals found that the Plaintiffs failed to produce
evidence raising a triable issue that Shiffer suffered bystander
exposure to Westinghouse asbestos while at the plant.  The trial
court also properly denied the plaintiffs' motions for
reconsideration and a new trial, because evidence of potential
harm from re-entrainment of asbestos was not new and could have
been presented in opposition to the original summary judgment
motion, the Court of Appeals held.

JAMES SHIFFER et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CBS
CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, NO. A139388 (Cal. App.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://tinyurl.com/oq38282from Leagle.com.

Brayton Purcell, Richard M. Grant, Alan R. Brayton and Llyod F.
LeRoy for plaintiffs and appellants.

Pond North, Frank D. Pond, Esq. -- fpond@pondnorth.com -- Ann I.
Park, Esq. -- apark@pondnorth.com -- Kevin D. Jamison, Esq. --
kjamison@pondnorth.com -- and Gavin D. Whitis, Esq. --
gwhitis@pondnorth.com -- and Evert, Weathersby & Houff and
Christopher G. Conley, Esq. -- cgconley@ewhlaw.com -- pro hac vice
for defendant and respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Conn. App. Affirms Dismissal of "Brochu"
---------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Connecticut, in an opinion dated Sept. 8,
2015, affirmed a trial court's dismissal of an asbestos-related
action for failure to prosecute with due diligence.

The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court properly
exercised its discretion by dismissing the action for lack of
diligence in prosecuting the matter, noting that the matter was
commenced in August 2009, and thus had been on the court's docket
for more than four years at the time it was dismissed.  More
importantly, for the majority of that time period, the case was in
limbo and could not properly progress because the decedent had
died and, although the plaintiff had been appointed as executrix
of his estate within a month of his death, she did not notify the
court of the death and, without any explanation, did not move to
substitute herself in as representative of the estate for several
years, the Appellate Court pointed out.

The Appellate Court held that the defendants were prejudiced by an
inability to file motions for summary judgment or other
substantive motions and to effectively engage in discovery.  The
plaintiff failed to provide the court with any reasonable
explanation for why she allowed the matter to languish on the
docket or why she waited until the eve of trial to effectuate a
substitution, the Appellate Court further held.

The case is ADRIENNE BROCHU, EXECUTRIX (ESTATE OF ADRIEN BROCHU),
v. AESYS TECHNOLOGIES ET AL., (AC 36483)(Conn. App.).  A full-text
copy of the Decision is available at http://tinyurl.com/pcymj3n
from Leagle.com.

Marc P. Kunen, pro hac vice, with whom were Robert M. Cheverie,
and, on the brief, Dino G. Galardi, pro hac vice, for the
appellant (substitute plaintiff).

Patrick J. Glinka, with whom, on the brief, was Kimberly Hammond,
for the appellee (defendant Crane Co.).

James A. Hall, with whom, on the brief, was James R. Oswald, for
the appellee (defendant Foster Wheeler Corp.).

Kevin C. McCaffrey, for the appellee (defendant Goulds Pumps,
Inc.).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2 Cos. Win Summary Judgment in "Walashek"
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California granted the motions for
summary judgment filed by defendants Crown Cork & Seal Company,
Inc., and Hopeman Brothers, Inc., in the asbestos-related lawsuit
captioned GAIL ELIZABETH WALASHEK, Individually and as successor-
in-interest to THE ESTATE OF MICHAEL WALASHEK and THE ESTATE OF
CHRISTOPHER LINDEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14CV1567 BTM(BGS)(S.D.
Calif.).

Judge Moskowitz found that the Plaintiffs have not submitted any
evidence in opposition to the motions and have instead filed
notices of non-opposition.

A full-text copy of Judge Moskowitz's Sept. 8, 2015, order
granting Crown Cork's motion is available at
http://tinyurl.com/olv8avcfrom Leagle.com.

A full-text copy of Judge Moskowitz's Sept. 8, 2015, order
granting Hopeman's motion is available at
http://tinyurl.com/pwaoq6efrom Leagle.com.

Gail Elizabeth Walashek, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L.
Bartlett & Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Michelle Walashek, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett
& Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Keith Walashek, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett &
Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Laura Page, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett &
Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Christopher Linden, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. Bartlett
& Stuart J Purdy, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett.

Aurora Pump Company, Defendant, represented by Rod Jeffrey Cappy,
Selman Breitman LLP.

BW/IP International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Madeleine
Amadea Groseclose, Esq. -- mgroseclose@foleymansfield.com -- Foley
& Mansfield, PLLP.

Cleaver Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Shaun E. Swiger,
Esq. -- sswiger@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield PLLP.

Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Madeleine Amadea
Groseclose, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP.

Flowserve US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony D Brosamle,
Esq. -- anthony.brosamle@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis & West
LLP & Daniel James Kelly, Esq. -- daniel.kelly@tuckerellis.com --
Tucker Ellis LLP.

FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Kevin D Jamison, Esq. -
- kjamison@pondnorth.com -- Pond North, Rochelle R Ileto, Esq. --
rileto@pondnorth.com -- Pond North & Russell R. Schatz, Jr., Esq.
-- rschatz@pondnorth.com -- Pond North LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by
Charles Park, Hugo Parker, LLP, David Blow, Esq. --
david.blow@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick, LLP & Sara J. Savage, Hugo
Parker, LLP.

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Jenkins,
Law Offices of Charles W. Jenkins, APC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Rae Bailey,
Esq. -- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- Leader and Berkon LLP.

J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alice K Loh,
Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum & Reshma Bajaj, Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum.

Lamons Gasket Company, Defendant, represented by Vick K
Mansourian, Perkins Coie LLP.

McNally Industries, LLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin D
Jamison, Pond North, Rochelle R Ileto, Pond North & Russell R.
Schatz, Jr., Pond North LLP.

Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Justin E. Garratt, Esq. --
justin.garratt@tuckerellis.com -- Tucker Ellis LLP.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC, Defendant, represented by Kevin
D Jamison, Pond North, Rochelle R Ileto, Pond North & Russell R.
Schatz, Jr., Pond North LLP.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Glen R. Powell,
Gordon & Rees, LLP & Michael J Pietrykowski, Gordon & Rees LLP.

Warren Pumps, LLC, Defendant, represented by John F. Hughes, Law
Offices of Gordon & Rees, LLP & Richard R Ames, Gordon & Rees LLP.

Weir Valve & Controls USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark S.
Kannett, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by
Michael B. Giaquinto, Hawkins Parnell Tackston and Young LLP.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Charles Park, Hugo
Parker, LLP & Edward R Hugo, Brydon Hugo & Parker.

Astra Flooring Company, Defendant, represented by Francis D Pond,
Esq. -- fpond@pondnorth.com -- Pond North LLP, Kathleen B.
Ebrahimi, Pond North LLP, Ketul D. Patel, Pond North LLP & Previn
A Wick, Esq. -- pwick@pondnorth.com -- Pond North LLP.

Fraser Boiler Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kathleen B.
Ebrahimi, Pond North LLP, Ketul D. Patel, Pond North LLP, Previn A
Wick, Pond North LLP & Thomas Joseph McNamara, Esq. --
tmcnamara@pondnorth.com -- Pond North LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Derek S.
Johnson, Walsworth Franklin Bevins & McCall, Dylan Daniel Rudolph,
Walsworth Franklin Bevins McCall LLP & Katherine Gardiner,
Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall LLP.

Georgia Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Steven K Hwang,
Perkins Coie LLP.

M. Slayen and Associates, Inc., Respondent, represented by
Constance R. Fraenkel, Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer, Emily D
Bergstrom, Becherer Kannett and Schweitzer & Mark S. Kannett,
Becherer Kannett & Schweitzer.

Plant Products & Supply Co., Respondent, represented by Carol Lee
Healey, Bisohp Barry Drath & Mary Margaret Ryan, Bishop Barry
Drath.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Respondent, represented by
Lisa M. Dowling, Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, represented by Ehren Reno Cross,
Bassi, Edlin, Hiue & Blum LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $4.5MM Verdict Against Caterpillar Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Estenson died of mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure.
The Estate of Edwin Estenson filed a lawsuit against Caterpillar
Inc. and other manufacturers of asbestos-containing products
alleging product liability, failure to warn, and negligence.
Following a four-week trial, the jury found in favor of the Estate
on all claims against Caterpillar.  The court entered a judgment
on the jury verdict for approximately $4.5 million.  Caterpillar
appeals denial of the motion for summary judgment, the motion for
a new trial, and the motion to vacate the verdict.

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, in an opinion
dated Sept. 8, 2015, affirmed, holding that because substantial
evidence supports the jury's verdict, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Caterpillar's motion to vacate the
verdict.

BETTY ESTENSON, Individually and as Personal Representative of the
Estate of Edwin Estenson, deceased, Respondent, v. CATERPILLAR
INC., Appellant, BORG-WARNER MORSE TEC INC, (sued individually and
as successor-in-interest to BORG-WARNER CORPORATION); BUCYRUS
INTERNATIONAL, INC. f/k/a BUCYRUS-ERIE COMPANY; CERTAINTEED
CORPORATION; CNH AMERICA LLC (sued as successor-in-interest to
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY); CRANE CO. (sued individually and
as successor-in-interest to COCHRANE CORPORATION, CHAPMAN VALVE
COMPANY and THE SWARTWOUT COMPANY); CRANE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
(sued as successor-in-interest to COCHRANE CORPORATION); CROWN
CORK & SEAL COMPANY, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to MUNDET CORK COMPANY); CUMMINS, INC.; DANA COMPANIES
LLC (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to VICTOR
GASKET MANUFACTURING COMPANY); FORD MOTOR COMPANY; GARDNER DENVER,
INC.; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GENUINE PARTS COMPANY d/b/a
NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION (a/k/a NAPA); GOULDS PUMPS,
INC.; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. (f/k/a ALLIEDSIGNAL, INC.,
successor-in-interest to THE BENDIX CORPORATION); INDUSTRIAL
HOLDINGS CORPORATION f/k/a THE CARBORUNDUM COMPANY; ITT
CORPORATION, f/k/a ITT INDUSTRIES, INC.; J.T. THORPE & SON, INC.;
KEENAN PROPERTIES, INC.; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;
PROBUILD, LLC; RT VANDERBILT COMPANY, INC. (sued individually and
as successor-in-interest to INTERNATIONAL TALC COMPANY); and
SABERHAGEN HOLDINGS, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-
interest to TACOMA ASBESTOS COMPANY and THE BROWER COMPANY),
Defendants, NO. 71429-5-I (Wash. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://tinyurl.com/ox4nmggfrom
Leagle.com.

Jose Edward Gaitan, The Gaitan Group PLLC, 3131 Elliott Ave. Ste.
700, Seattle, WA, 98121-1047, Virginia Leeper, The Gaitan Group,
3131 Elliott Ave. Ste. 700, Seattle, WA, 98121-1047, Counsel for
Appellant(s).

Thomas J. Owens, Attorney at Law, 1001 4th Ave. Ste. 4400,
Seattle, WA, 98154-1192, Brian P. Barrow, Simon Greenstone
Panatier Bartlett PC, 3780 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 540, Long
Beach, CA, 90806, Jessica Dean, 3232 Mckinney Avenue, Suite 610,
Dallas, TX, 75204, Counsel for Respondent(s).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GRC Wins Prejudgment Interest in Coverage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge L. Felipe Restrepo of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in a memorandum dated Sept. 9,
2015, held that prejudgment interest, calculated at Pennsylvania's
6% statutory rate, should be awarded to General Refractories
Company in addition to the stipulated damages of $21 million, in
excess of the combined limits of liability in the insurance
policies issued by Travelers Casualty and Surety Company.

GRC, a manufacturer and supplier of refractory products that at
times contained some asbestos, sued Travelers, formerly known as
The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, for excess liability
insurance coverage against a multitude of asbestos-related
lawsuits.  Travelers denied coverage under two policies that it
sold to GRC for the period, August 1, 1985-86, maintaining that an
exclusion contained in each policy eliminates any insurance for
the underlying claims.  GRC has settled tens of thousands of those
claims.  Whereas some settled claimants have been paid, the lion's
share have been assigned a right to future payment from any funds
that GRC should succeed in recovering under its insurance
policies.  GRC has prevailed on its claim that Travelers breached
its duty under the insurance contracts to indemnify GRC for part
of those settlements.  These parties have agreed that judgment
should be entered in favor of GRC and against Travelers for $21
million -- the policies' combined limits of liability.

The case is GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY v. FIRST STATE INSURANCE
CO., et al., CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-3509 (E.D. Pa.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Restrepo's Decision is available at
http://tinyurl.com/q9h8r6cfrom Leagle.com.

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY, Plaintiff, represented by MARK E.
GOTTLIEB, OFFIT KURMAN PA, MEGHAN K. FINNERTY, OFFIT KURMAN PA,
MICHAEL CONLEY, OFFIT KURMAN PA & WILLIAM H. PILLSBURY, OFFIT
KURMAN PA.

CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by KAREN H.
MORIARTY, COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP & KEVIN E. WOLFF, COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP.

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY, Defendant,
represented by SAMUEL J. ARENA, JR., STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS &
YOUNG, DANIEL T. FITCH, STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG LLP &
WILLIAM T. MANDIA, STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG.

CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross Claimant, represented by KAREN
H. MORIARTY, COUGHLIN DUFFY LLP.

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, Defendant, represented by SAMUEL J. ARENA,
JR., STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG.

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, Cross Defendant, represented by SAMUEL J.
ARENA, JR., STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG.

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY, Counter Defendant, represented by
MICHAEL CONLEY, OFFIT KURMAN PA & WILLIAM H. PILLSBURY, OFFIT
KURMAN PA.

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, Cross Claimant, represented by DANIEL T.
FITCH, STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG LLP.

GENERAL REFRACTORIES COMPANY, Counter Defendant, represented by
MICHAEL CONLEY, OFFIT KURMAN PA & WILLIAM H. PILLSBURY, OFFIT
KURMAN PA.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Wins Summary Judgment in "Laurent"
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, an order and reasons dated Sept. 9, 2015,
granted the motions for summary judgment filed by defendant
General Electric Company in the asbestos-related lawsuit filed by
Scott Laurent, after determining that the plaintiff failed to
establish his father's exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing
products.

The case is SCOTT LAURENT v. NEW ORLEANS CITY, ET AL., SECTION:
"J" (5), CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2022 (E.D. La.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Barbier's Decision is available at
http://tinyurl.com/p6j9pkyfrom Leagle.com.

Scott Laurent, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin C. Schoenberger,
Kevin C. Schoenberger, APLC.

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Janika D. Polk,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Amber B. Barlow,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Deborah DeRoche
Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lee Blanton
Ziffer, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Monique M.
Weiner, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Owens Loses Summary Judgment Bid in "Suoja"
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Suoja is suing defendant Owens-Illinois, Inc., for injuries
caused by asbestos exposure.  After proceeding in multidistrict
litigation for many years, the case was transferred back to U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in 2014.  Now
before the court is defendant's motion for summary judgment, in
which it argues that the plaintiff's claims should de dismissed
for three reasons: (1) "the action is moot"; (2) the plaintiff
"lacks standing"; and (3) issue preclusion bars the plaintiff's
claims.  In addition, the plaintiff has filed a motion for leave
to file a surreply brief, along with a proposed brief.

U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb held that the Defendant has
mischaracterized its first two arguments as jurisdictional.
Properly construed, these are arguments about proper procedure
under state law, Judge Crabb further held.  Because the defendant
could have raised any of those arguments more than six years ago,
Judge Crabb concluded that the defendant has forfeited these
issues.  In addition, Judge Crabb concluded that the defendant has
not shown that it is entitled to issue preclusion because the
earlier case ended in a settlement.  Accordingly, Judge Crabb
denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment and the
plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply brief as moot
because it was unnecessary to consider that brief in order to
resolve defendant's motion.

The case is GARY SUOJA, individually and as special administrator
for the estate of Oswald F. Suoja, Plaintiff, v. OWENS-ILLINOIS,
INC., Defendant, NO. 99-CV-475-BBC (W.D. Wis.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Crabb's opinion and order dated Sept. 9, 2015, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/qjgdytyfrom Leagle.com.

Suoja, Delores Agnes, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P.
Cascino, Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Robert G. McCoy,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Jill A. Rakauski, CASCINO
VAUGHAN LAW OFFICES, LTD..

Oswald F. Suoja, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Cascino,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd., Robert G. McCoy, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices, Ltd. & Jill A. Rakauski, CASCINO VAUGHAN LAW
OFFICES, LTD..

Owens-Illinois Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew John
Fischer, Schiff Hardin LLP, Brian O'Connor Watson, Schiff Hardin
LLP, Edward M. Casmere, Schiff Hardin, LLP, Joshua Douglas Lee,
Schiff Hardin LLP, Rachel Allison Remke, Schiff Hardin LLP &
Robert H. Riley, SCHIFF, HARDIN & WAITE.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. App. Reverses "Anderson" Ruling
----------------------------------------------------
Thelma B. Anderson, as Administratrix of the estate of Kenneth W.
Anderson, appeals from the Campbell Circuit Court's orders
granting summary judgment in favor of Motorola Solutions, Inc.,
and Zenith Electronics, LLC.  The Appellant asserts that neither
Motorola nor Zenith was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Zenith and Motorola argue otherwise.  Specifically, the Appellees
maintain that summary judgment was proper because Appellant failed
to prove that Kenneth was exposed to asbestos from any of their
products during his career as a radio repairman, or, that if such
exposure occurred, it was a substantial factor in his death from
mesothelioma.

Having closely reviewed the record, the parties' arguments, and
the relevant authority, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky concluded
that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to
Zenith and Motorola.  The Court of Appeals believes that the
Appellant produced enough evidence in the form of lay and expert
testimony to make it probable, as opposed to merely possible, that
Kenneth was exposed to asbestos from radios manufactured by Zenith
and Motorola and that that exposure was a substantial factor in
his death.  Therefore, the Court of Appeals believes that in this
case, the issue of causation is one that should be made by a jury
instead of a judge on summary judgment.  Accordingly, the Court of
Appeals reverses the lower court's ruling and remands for the case
to proceed to trial and be decided by a jury.

The case is THELMA B. ANDERSON (AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
KENNETH W. ANDERSON), Appellant, v. MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. AND
ZENITH ELECTRONICS, LLC, Appellees, NO. 2013-CA-001350-MR (Ky.
App.).  A full-text copy of the Opinion dated Sept. 11, 2015, is
available at http://tinyurl.com/q4bvv9pfrom Leagle.com.

Joseph D. Satterley, Paul J. Kelley, Paul J. Ivie, Louisville,
Kentucky, BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS.

Gibbs C. Henderson, pro hac vice, Dallas, Texas, BRIEF AND ORAL
ARGUMENT, FOR APPELLANTS.

Rebecca F. Schupbach, Louisville, Kentucky, BRIEF AND ORAL
ARGUMENT FOR APPELLEE ZENITH ELECTRONICS, LLC:

Brian M. Johnson, Lauren R. Nichols, Lexington, Kentucky, BRIEF
FOR APPELLEE MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.

Brian M. Johnson, Lexington, Kentucky, ORAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLEE
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WR Grace Prevented from Intervening in "Moreau"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David M. Sandler of the Workers' Compensation Court of
Montana, in an order dated Aug. 26, 2015, denied W.R. Grace & Co.-
Conn.'s motion to be joined and, alternatively, to intervene, in
the lawsuit filed by Cristita Moreau, individually and as personal
representative of the estate of Edwin Moreau, against
Transportation Insurance Co., seeking payment of $95,846 in
medical benefits.

Mr. Moreau contracted an asbestos-related occupational disease
arising out of his employment with W.R. Grace, which resulted in
his death.  Transportation, which insured W.R. Grace under Plan
No. 2 of the Workers' Compensation Act, accepted liability and
paid benefits.  However, Transportation refused to pay the $95,846
in medical benefits because the Libby Medical Plan has already
paid these medical bills and was not seeking reimbursement.

The case is CRISTITA MOREAU, individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Edwin Moreau Petitioner, v.
TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE CO. Respondent/Insurer, WCC NO. 2013-
3216R1 (MTWCC).  A full-text copy of Judge Sandler's Decision is
available at http://tinyurl.com/nf2tqozfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lennox Int'l Spent $400K for Fibro Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc.'s expense for asbestos-related
litigation was $400,000, net of insurance recoveries, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

The Company states: "We are involved in a number of claims and
lawsuits incident to the operation of our businesses. Insurance
coverages are maintained and estimated costs are recorded for such
claims and lawsuits, including costs to settle claims and
lawsuits, based on experience involving similar matters and
specific facts known. Costs related to such matters were not
material to the periods presented.

"Some of these claims and lawsuits allege personal injury or
health problems resulting from exposure to asbestos that was
integrated into certain of our products. We have never
manufactured asbestos and have not incorporated asbestos-
containing components into our products for several decades. A
substantial majority of asbestos-related claims have been covered
by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed
without payment. The remainder of our closed cases have been
resolved for amounts that are not material, individually or in the
aggregate. Our defense costs for asbestos-related claims are
generally covered by insurance; however, our insurance coverage
for settlements and judgments for asbestos-related claims vary
depending on several factors and are subject to policy limits. As
a result, we may have greater financial exposure for future
settlements and judgments. For the six months ended June 30, 2015,
and 2014, expense for asbestos-related litigation was $0.4
million, and $0.6 million, net of insurance recoveries,
respectively.

"It is management's opinion that none of these claims or lawsuits
or any threatened litigation will have a material adverse effect
on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
Claims and lawsuits, however, involve uncertainties and it is
possible that their eventual outcome could adversely affect our
results of operations for a particular period."

Lennox International Inc., is a provider of climate control
solutions. The Company operates in three reportable business
segments of the heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration (HVACR) industry. Its reportable segments are
Residential Heating & Cooling, Commercial Heating & Cooling, and
Refrigeration. Residential Heating & Cooling consists of Furnaces,
air conditioners, heat pumps, packaged heating and cooling
systems, indoor air quality equipment, comfort control products,
replacement parts. Commercial Heating & Cooling consists of
Unitary heating and air conditioning equipment, applied systems,
controls, installation and service of commercial heating and
cooling equipment. Refrigeration segment consists of Condensing
units, unit coolers, fluid coolers, air cooled condensers, air
handlers, process chillers, controls, compressorized racks,
supermarket display cases and systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cytec Industries Had 5,200 Fibro Claimants
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. had 5,200 claimants alleging bodily injury
from asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015.

The Company states: "We, like many other industrial companies,
have been named as one of hundreds of defendants in a number of
lawsuits filed in the U.S. by persons alleging bodily injury from
asbestos. The claimants allege exposure to asbestos at facilities
that we own or formerly owned, or from products that we formerly
manufactured for specialized applications. Most of these cases
involve numerous defendants, sometimes as many as several hundred.
Historically, most of the closed asbestos claims against us have
been dismissed without any indemnity payment by us; however, we
can make no assurances that this pattern will continue.

"For the six months ended June 30, 2015, is facing 5,200 claimants
alleging bodily injury from asbestos.

"Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred and are based on
information as received by us, which may lag actual court filing
dates by several months or more. Claims are recorded as closed
when a claimant is dismissed or severed from a case. Claims are
opened whenever a new claim is brought, including from a claimant
previously dismissed or severed from another case. In 2014, by
virtue of a new Texas law, which amended the Texas Civil Code, the
Texas courts commenced dismissing dormant asbestos cases without
prejudice to re-filing by plaintiffs. In the fourth quarter of
2014, the Texas courts dismissed almost 3,000 claimants with
claims against us. We expect additional dismissals in 2015.

"Our asbestos related contingent liabilities and related insurance
receivables are based on an actuarial study performed by a third
party, which is updated every three years. During the third
quarter of 2012, we completed an actuarial study of our asbestos
related contingent liabilities and related insurance receivables,
which will be updated again in the third quarter of 2015. The
study is based on, among other things, the incidence and nature of
historical claims data through June 30, 2012, the incidence of
malignancy claims, the severity of indemnity payments for
malignancy and non-malignancy claims, dismissal rates by claim
type, estimated future claim frequency, settlement values and
reserves, and expected average insurance recovery rates by claim
type. The study assumes liabilities through 2049. Overall, we
expect to recover approximately 48% of our future indemnity costs.
We have completed Coverage-In-Place-Agreements with most of our
larger insurance carriers.

"The ultimate liability and related insurance recovery for all
pending and anticipated future claims cannot be determined with
certainty due to the difficulty of forecasting the numerous
variables that can affect the amount of the liability and
insurance recovery. These variables include but are not limited
to: (i) significant changes in the number of future claims; (ii)
significant changes in the average cost of resolving claims; (iii)
changes in the nature of claims received; (iv) changes in the laws
applicable to these claims; and (v) financial viability of co-
defendants and insurers."

Cytec Industries Inc., is a global specialty materials and
Chemicals Company focused on developing, manufacturing and selling
value-added products. The Company's products serve a diverse range
of end markets, including aerospace and industrial materials,
mining and plastics. The Company operates in four segments:
Aerospace Materials, Industrial Materials, In Process Separation
and Additive Technologies. Its Aerospace Materials segment is a
global provider of technologically advanced materials for
aerospace markets. Its Industrial Materials product line includes
Structural materials and Process materials. The Company's In
Process Separation segment product line includes Mining chemicals
and Phosphines. Its Additive Technologies include Polymer
additives, Specialty additives and Formulated resins.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Units Had 3,600 Fibro Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's subsidiaries had 3,600 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
June 27, 2015.

The Company states: "Our subsidiaries and numerous other companies
are named as defendants in personal injury lawsuits based on
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. These cases
typically involve product liability claims based primarily on
allegations of manufacture, sale or distribution of industrial
products that either contained asbestos or were attached to or
used with asbestos-containing components manufactured by third-
parties. Each case typically names between dozens to hundreds of
corporate defendants. While we have observed an increase in the
number of these lawsuits over the past several years, including
lawsuits by plaintiffs with mesothelioma-related claims, a large
percentage of these suits have not presented viable legal claims
and, as a result, have been dismissed by the courts. Our
historical strategy has been to mount a vigorous defense aimed at
having unsubstantiated suits dismissed, and, where appropriate,
settling suits before trial. Although a large percentage of
litigated suits have been dismissed, we cannot predict the extent
to which we will be successful in resolving lawsuits in the
future.

"As of June 27, 2015, there were approximately 3,600 claims
outstanding against our subsidiaries. This amount includes
adjustments for claims that are not actively being prosecuted.
This amount is not adjusted for claims that identify incorrect
defendants or duplicate other actions. In addition, the amount
does not include certain claims pending against third parties for
which we have been provided an indemnification."

Pentair plc formerly Pentair Ltd., is global water, fluid, thermal
management, and equipment protection partner. The Company operates
in three segments: Water & Fluid Solutions, Valves & Controls, and
Equipment Protection & Thermal. Water & Fluid Solutions is a
provider of water management and fluid processing products and
solutions. Valves & Controls is the manufacturers of valves,
actuators and controls. Valves & Controls segment's products,
services and solutions address applications in the general
process, oil and gas, power generation and mining industries.
Equipment Protection & Thermal is a provider of products focused
on electronics and electronic equipment, and is a provider of
electric heat management solutions. On September 28, 2012,
Pentair, Inc. (Pentair) completed its merger (the Merger) with
Panthro Merger Sub, Inc. (Merger Sub). On September 28, 2012, the
Company merged with Tyco's Flow Control business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pentair plc Had $243.6-Mil. Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Pentair plc's estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was
$243.6 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 27, 2015.

The Company states: "Periodically, we perform an analysis with the
assistance of outside counsel and other experts to update our
estimated asbestos-related assets and liabilities. Our estimate of
the liability and corresponding insurance recovery for pending and
future claims and defense costs is based on our historical claim
experience and estimates of the number and resolution cost of
potential future claims that may be filed. Our legal strategy for
resolving claims also impacts these estimates.

"Our estimate of asbestos-related insurance recoveries represents
estimated amounts due to us for previously paid and settled claims
and the probable reimbursements relating to our estimated
liability for pending and future claims. In determining the amount
of insurance recoverable, we consider a number of factors,
including available insurance, allocation methodologies and the
solvency and creditworthiness of insurers.

"Our estimated liability for asbestos-related claims was $243.6
million and $249.1 million as of June 27, 2015, and December 31,
2014, respectively, and was recorded in Other non-current
liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets for
pending and future claims and related defense costs. Our estimated
receivable for insurance recoveries was $112.4 million and $115.8
million as of June 27, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively,
and was recorded in Other non-current assets in the Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets.

"The amounts recorded by us for asbestos-related liabilities and
insurance-related assets are based on our strategies for resolving
our asbestos claims and currently available information as well as
estimates and assumptions. Key variables and assumptions include
the number and type of new claims filed each year, the average
cost of resolution of claims, the resolution of coverage issues
with insurance carriers, the amounts of insurance and the related
solvency risk with respect to our insurance carriers, and the
indemnifications we have provided to and received from third
parties. Furthermore, predictions with respect to these variables
are subject to greater uncertainty in the latter portion of the
projection period. Other factors that may affect our liability and
cash payments for asbestos-related matters include uncertainties
surrounding the litigation process from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction and from case to case, reforms of state or federal
tort legislation and the applicability of insurance policies among
subsidiaries. As a result, actual liabilities or insurance
recoveries could be significantly higher or lower than those
recorded if assumptions used in our calculations vary
significantly from actual results."

Pentair plc formerly Pentair Ltd., is global water, fluid, thermal
management, and equipment protection partner. The Company operates
in three segments: Water & Fluid Solutions, Valves & Controls, and
Equipment Protection & Thermal. Water & Fluid Solutions is a
provider of water management and fluid processing products and
solutions. Valves & Controls is the manufacturers of valves,
actuators and controls. Valves & Controls segment's products,
services and solutions address applications in the general
process, oil and gas, power generation and mining industries.
Equipment Protection & Thermal is a provider of products focused
on electronics and electronic equipment, and is a provider of
electric heat management solutions. On September 28, 2012,
Pentair, Inc. (Pentair) completed its merger (the Merger) with
Panthro Merger Sub, Inc. (Merger Sub). On September 28, 2012, the
Company merged with Tyco's Flow Control business.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Had $1.73-Bil. Fibro Reserves
--------------------------------------------------------
The Travelers Companies, Inc., had $1.73 billion net asbestos
reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance
industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that
have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond
the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has
received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos
claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others
seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim
filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking
asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result
of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought
bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition to
contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy
proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos-related losses
by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by
significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by
insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many
traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement
demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but
remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those
who allege very serious injury and who can present credible
medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial
settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any
credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates
delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims
involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on
defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos
litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense
payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's
asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience
also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance
sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through
exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other
participating insurers.

The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation
concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for
bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a
portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to
aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders
also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be
treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult
to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both
issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's
favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's
coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be
materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per-
occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims
against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a
moderation in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it
remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims.

Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved
through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make
exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of
settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt
policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable
to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger
amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances
where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may
result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial
outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will
continue to pursue settlement opportunities.

In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been
launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by
individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the
handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking
damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries.
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. (TPC) had previously entered
into settlement agreements in connection with a number of these
direct action claims (Direct Action Settlements). The Company had
been involved in litigation concerning whether all of the
conditions of the Direct Action Settlements had been satisfied. On
July 22, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit ruled that all of the conditions of the Direct Action
Settlements had been satisfied. On January 15, 2015, the
bankruptcy court entered an order directing the Company to pay
$579 million to the plaintiffs, comprised of the $502 million
settlement amounts, plus pre- and post-judgment interest of $77
million, and the Company has made that payment. It is possible
that the filing of other direct actions against insurers,
including the Company, could be made in the future. It is
difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including
whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these actions
against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability. The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and
has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions.

The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an
analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder
category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder
bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The
Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among
policyholders in the Home Office, Field Office and Assumed
Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance
billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its
historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year-
by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or
characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity.
Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish
asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in
any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or
indemnity payment.

Because each policyholder presents different liability and
coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure
presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the
factors which the Company may consider in the course of this
review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of
any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the
policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the
policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved;
past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on
pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims;
allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other
insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential
non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable
coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the
determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a
products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit
and the available coverage, if any, for that claim.

Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first six months
of 2015 were $623 million, compared with $100 million in the same
period of 2014. Net payments in the first six months of 2015
included the payment of the $502 million settlement amounts
related to the Settlement of Asbestos Direct Action. Net asbestos
reserves were $1.73 billion at June 30, 2015, compared with $2.25
billion at June 30, 2014.

The Travelers Companies, Inc., is a holding company. The Company,
through its subsidiaries, is engaged in providing a range of
commercial and personal property and casualty insurance products
and services to businesses, Government units, associations and
individuals.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Had 22,003 Unresolved Fibro Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had 22,003 unresolved 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
June 26, 2015.

Colfax Corporation (Colfax) is a global industrial manufacturing
and engineering company. The Company is engaged in provides gas-
and fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and
services to commercial and governmental customers around the world
under the Howden, ESAB and Colfax Fluid Handling brand names. The
Company's reportable segments are gas- and fluid handling and
fabrication technology segments. The gas- and fluid handling
segment is engaged design, manufacture, install and maintain gas-
and fluid-handling products for use in a range of markets,
including power generation, oil, gas and petrochemical, mining,
marine and general industrial. Its fabrication technology
formulates, develops, manufactures and supplies consumable
products and equipment for use in the cutting and joining of
steels, aluminum and other metals and metal alloys.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colfax Corp. Has $52.26-Mil. Fibro Liability
-------------------------------------------------------------
Colfax Corporation had $52.26 million accrued asbestos-related
liability, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 26, 2015.

Management's analyses are based on currently known facts and a
number of assumptions. However, projecting future events, such as
new claims to be filed each year, the average cost of resolving
each claim, coverage issues among layers of insurers, the method
in which losses will be allocated to the various insurance
policies, interpretation of the effect on coverage of various
policy terms and limits and their interrelationships, the
continuing solvency of various insurance companies, the amount of
remaining insurance available, as well as the numerous
uncertainties inherent in asbestos litigation could cause the
actual liabilities and insurance recoveries to be higher or lower
than those projected or recorded which could materially affect the
Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flow.

Various aspects of the final judgments of the Delaware Court of
Chancery and Superior Court for a specific subsidiary have been
appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court, and an oral argument
before the Delaware Supreme Court was held on May 27, 2015. The
Delaware Supreme Court has certified certain questions of law to
the New York Court of Appeals, New York's highest appellate court,
including the question of what allocation methodology should be
applied to the subsidiary's policies. In the event that the New
York court were to apply a methodology other than "all sums", the
subsidiary's future expected recovery would likely be reduced by
amounts that we estimate could range from minimal to $30 million.

In the litigation involving another subsidiary, the New Jersey
Supreme Court refused to grant certification of the appeals,
effectively ending the matter. This will have no material impact
on the Company's financial condition or results of operations.

Colfax Corporation (Colfax) is a global industrial manufacturing
and engineering company. The Company is engaged in provides gas-
and fluid-handling and fabrication technology products and
services to commercial and governmental customers around the world
under the Howden, ESAB and Colfax Fluid Handling brand names. The
Company's reportable segments are gas- and fluid handling and
fabrication technology segments. The gas- and fluid handling
segment is engaged design, manufacture, install and maintain gas-
and fluid-handling products for use in a range of markets,
including power generation, oil, gas and petrochemical, mining,
marine and general industrial. Its fabrication technology
formulates, develops, manufactures and supplies consumable
products and equipment for use in the cutting and joining of
steels, aluminum and other metals and metal alloys.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Had 25,000 PI Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation's consolidated wholly-owned limited
liability company, Dana Companies, LLC, had 25,000 active pending
asbestos personal injury liability claims, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

The Company states: "As part of our reorganization in 2008, assets
and liabilities associated with personal injury asbestos claims
were retained in Dana Corporation which was then merged into Dana
Companies, LLC (DCLLC), a consolidated wholly-owned limited
liability company. The assets of DCLLC include insurance rights
relating to coverage against these liabilities, marketable
securities and other assets which are considered sufficient to
satisfy its liabilities. DCLLC had approximately 25,000 active
pending asbestos personal injury liability claims at both June 30,
2015 and December 31, 2014."

Dana Holding Corporation (Dana Holding) is a global provider of
technology driveline, sealing and thermal-management products. The
Company's driveline products include axles, driveshaft and
transmissions. The Company operates in four business segments:
Light Vehicle, Commercial Vehicle, Off-Highway and Power
Technologies. Under Light Vehicle segment, the Company provides
front and rear axles, driveshafts, differentials, torque couplings
and modular assemblies. Under Commercial Vehicle segment, the
Company offers axles, driveshafts, steering shafts, suspensions
and tire management systems. Under Off-Highway segment, the
Company's products include axles, driveshafts and end-fittings,
transmissions, torque converters and electronic controls. Under
Power Technologies segment, the Company offers gaskets, cover
modules, heat shields, engine sealing systems, cooling and heat
transfer products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dana Holding Accrues $80MM for Fibro Defense
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation accrued $80 million for indemnity and
defense costs for settled, pending and future claims, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

DCLLC had accrued $80 million for indemnity and defense costs for
settled, pending and future claims at June 30, 2015, compared to
$81 million at December 31, 2014. A fifteen-year time horizon was
used to estimate the value of this liability.

Dana Holding Corporation (Dana Holding) is a global provider of
technology driveline, sealing and thermal-management products. The
Company's driveline products include axles, driveshaft and
transmissions. The Company operates in four business segments:
Light Vehicle, Commercial Vehicle, Off-Highway and Power
Technologies. Under Light Vehicle segment, the Company provides
front and rear axles, driveshafts, differentials, torque couplings
and modular assemblies. Under Commercial Vehicle segment, the
Company offers axles, driveshafts, steering shafts, suspensions
and tire management systems. Under Off-Highway segment, the
Company's products include axles, driveshafts and end-fittings,
transmissions, torque converters and electronic controls. Under
Power Technologies segment, the Company offers gaskets, cover
modules, heat shields, engine sealing systems, cooling and heat
transfer products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DCLLC Records $52-Mil. Insurance Recovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Dana Holding Corporation reported that its consolidated wholly-
owned limited liability company, Dana Companies, LLC (DCLLC),
recorded $52 million as an asset for probable recovery from
insurers for the pending and projected asbestos personal injury
liability claims at June 30, 2015, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

At June 30, 2015, DCLLC had recorded $52 million as an asset for
probable recovery from insurers for the pending and projected
asbestos personal injury liability claims, unchanged from the $52
million recorded at December 31, 2014. The recorded asset
represents our assessment of the capacity of our current insurance
agreements to provide for the payment of anticipated defense and
indemnity costs for pending claims and projected future demands.
The recognition of these recoveries is based on our assessment of
our right to recover under the respective contracts and on the
financial strength of the insurers. DCLLC has coverage agreements
in place with insurers confirming substantially all of the related
coverage and payments are being received on a timely basis. The
financial strength of these insurers is reviewed at least annually
with the assistance of a third party. The recorded asset does not
represent the limits of the insurance coverage, but rather the
amount DCLLC would expect to recover if the accrued indemnity and
defense costs were paid in full.

DCLLC continues to process asbestos personal injury claims in the
normal course of business, is separately managed and has an
independent board member. The independent board member is required
to approve certain transactions including dividends or other
transfers of $1 million or more of value to Dana. Dana Holding
Corporation has no obligation to increase its investment in or
otherwise support DCLLC.

Dana Holding Corporation (Dana Holding) is a global provider of
technology driveline, sealing and thermal-management products. The
Company's driveline products include axles, driveshaft and
transmissions. The Company operates in four business segments:
Light Vehicle, Commercial Vehicle, Off-Highway and Power
Technologies. Under Light Vehicle segment, the Company provides
front and rear axles, driveshafts, differentials, torque couplings
and modular assemblies. Under Commercial Vehicle segment, the
Company offers axles, driveshafts, steering shafts, suspensions
and tire management systems. Under Off-Highway segment, the
Company's products include axles, driveshafts and end-fittings,
transmissions, torque converters and electronic controls. Under
Power Technologies segment, the Company offers gaskets, cover
modules, heat shields, engine sealing systems, cooling and heat
transfer products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific Had $123-Mil. Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation's asbestos-related liability was $123
million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2015.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in a number of lawsuits in
which current and former employees and other parties allege
exposure to asbestos. We assess our potential liability using a
statistical analysis of resolution costs for asbestos-related
claims. This liability is updated annually and excludes future
defense and processing costs. The liability for resolving both
asserted and unasserted claims was based on the following
assumptions:

   * The ratio of future claims by alleged disease would be
     consistent with historical averages adjusted for inflation.

   * The number of claims filed against us will decline each
     year.

   * The average settlement values for asserted and unasserted
     claims will be equivalent to historical averages.

   * The percentage of claims dismissed in the future will be
     equivalent to historical averages.

"Our liability for asbestos-related claims is not discounted to
present value due to the uncertainty surrounding the timing of
future payments. Approximately 21% of the recorded liability
related to asserted claims and approximately 79% related to
unasserted claims at June 30, 2015.

"For the six-months ended June 30, 2015, the Company's asbestos-
related liability was $123 million.

"We have insurance coverage for a portion of the costs incurred to
resolve asbestos-related claims, and we have recognized an asset
for estimated insurance recoveries at June 30, 2015, and December
31, 2014.

"We believe that our estimates of liability for asbestos-related
claims and insurance recoveries are reasonable and probable. The
amounts recorded for asbestos-related liabilities and related
insurance recoveries were based on currently known facts. However,
future events, such as the number of new claims filed each year,
average settlement costs, and insurance coverage issues, could
cause the actual costs and insurance recoveries to be higher or
lower than the projected amounts. Estimates also may vary in the
future if strategies, activities, and outcomes of asbestos
litigation materially change; federal and state laws governing
asbestos litigation increase or decrease the probability or amount
of compensation of claimants; and there are material changes with
respect to payments made to claimants by other defendants."

Union Pacific Corporation (UPC) operates through its principal
operating subsidiary, Union Pacific Railroad. Union Pacific
Railroad (UPRR) links 23 states in the western two-thirds of the
country by rail, providing a critical link in the global supply
chain. UPRR's business mix includes Agricultural Products,
Automotive, Chemicals, Coal, Industrial Products and Intermodal.
UPRR, along with its subsidiaries and rail affiliates, operates
through one reportable operating segment. UPRR is a Class I
railroad operates in the United States. UPRR have 31,838 route
miles, linking Pacific Coast and Gulf Coast ports with the Midwest
and eastern United States gateways and providing several corridors
to key Mexican gateways.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: CB&I Has 5,800 Fibro Plaintiffs at June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. has been named a defendant in
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving approximately
5,800 plaintiffs, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015.

The Company states: "We are a defendant in lawsuits wherein
plaintiffs allege exposure to asbestos due to work we may have
performed at various locations. We have never been a manufacturer,
distributor or supplier of asbestos products. Over the past
several decades and through June 30, 2015, we have been named a
defendant in lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos involving
approximately 5,800 plaintiffs and, of those claims, approximately
1,700 claims were pending and 4,100 have been closed through
dismissals or settlements. Over the past several decades and
through June 30, 2015, the claims alleging exposure to asbestos
that have been resolved have been dismissed or settled for an
average settlement amount of approximately two thousand dollars
per claim. We review each case on its own merits and make accruals
based upon the probability of loss and our estimates of the amount
of liability and related expenses, if any. While we have seen an
increase in the number of recent filings, especially in one
specific venue, we do not believe that the increase or any
unresolved asserted claims will have a material adverse effect on
our future results of operations, financial position or cash flow,
and at June 30, 2015, we had approximately $5,100 accrued for
liability and related expenses. With respect to unasserted
asbestos claims, we cannot identify a population of potential
claimants with sufficient certainty to determine the probability
of a loss and to make a reasonable estimate of liability, if any.
While we continue to pursue recovery for recognized and
unrecognized contingent losses through insurance, indemnification
arrangements or other sources, we are unable to quantify the
amount, if any, that we may expect to recover because of the
variability in coverage amounts, limitations and deductibles, or
the viability of carriers, with respect to our insurance policies
for the years in question."

Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V. (CB&I) is an energy
infrastructure focused company and a provider of government
services. The Company operates in four segments: Engineering,
Construction and Maintenance; Fabrication Services; Technology,
and Government Solutions. The Engineering, Construction and
Maintenance segment offers engineering, procurement, and
construction for energy infrastructure facilities, as well as
integrated maintenance services. The Fabrication Services segment
provides fabrication of piping systems, process and nuclear
modules, and fabrication and erection of storage tanks and
pressure vessels. The Technology segment offers licensed process
technologies, catalysts, specialized equipment, and engineered
products. The Government Solutions segment undertakes programs and
projects, including design-build infrastructure projects for
federal, state, and local governments, as well as offers
environmental services for government and private sector
customers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill Ex-Factory Worker Campaigns Fibro Awareness
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Cherryman, writing for Watford observer, reported that a
former factory worker has urged others to have health checks after
becoming the third member of his family to be diagnosed with
asbestos-related cancer.

Dave Libby, 68, was told he would be dead by the end of after
being diagnosed with mesothelioma.

Mr Libby worked with his father Harry and brother in law Bryan
Thomas at Cape PLC in Tolpits Lane.

Both have since died from asbestos related conditions.

Mr Libby, who lived in Oxford Street, Watford, before moving to
Milton Keynes, said it was only when Mr Thomas told him about his
condition and urged him to get checked that he had an X-ray, which
revealed the first signs of the disease.

Now terminally ill, Mr Libby is on chemotherapy to prolong his
life.

The Watford FC supporter said: "I went to work with my dad at
Universal, as it was called at the time, straight after school. I
was trained up in moulding the wet asbestos into gas flue
terminals for boilers.

"We weren't given much equipment -- just a plastic apron to wear
when we handled the asbestos.

"I wish I never worked there, but you can't turn back the clock.

"I want people not to go through what I'm going through and for
anyone who had anything to do with the factory to get checked.

"At least, because of my brother in law telling me to get checked,
doctors caught it at an early stage with me and I've been able to
live a bit longer."

Mr Libby has received compensation from Cape, where he worked for
11 years, for his illness.

Mr Thomas only worked at the company for three months.

Mr Libby continued: "How many other people worked there? Asbestos
related lung cancer is a ticking time bomb. This stuff can be in
your lungs but not appear for years."

Mesothelioma is a cancer of the lining of the lung or peritoneum,
and is caused by exposure to asbestos and can take 40 years or
more to develop after exposure.

Mr Libby was represented by solicitors Fieldfisher, which has
acted for more than 50 victims of asbestos disease who worked at
the Cape Tolpits Lane factory.

Dushal Mehta, senior associate and specialist personal injury
solicitor, said: "Mr Libby and his entire family have sadly been
affected by the terrible asbestos legacy which remains in England
and Wales.

Mr Libby contacted us after having been told the devastating news
that he had mesothelioma, an asbestos related cancer.

He had for many years worked at an asbestos factory on Tolpits
Lane in Watford which was owned and run by Cape Asbestos.

"We were able to pursue a claim for him against the insurers,
secured an early admission of liability and managed to settle Mr
Libby's claim within months of him contacting us.

"The way in which Mr Libby has come to terms with his diagnosis
and the way he has tackled the illness is nothing short of
admirable.

What is even more remarkable is that he has remained strong and
positive despite also being told at around the same time that he
was diagnosed with mesothelioma that his wife had signs of
dementia and her condition was deteriorating.

"I would echo what Mr Libby has had to say about early diagnosis
and awareness for the former employees, visitors and others living
close to the factory who may have been exposed to asbestos.

"It is of course extremely important for those who suspect that
they have been exposed to asbestos and are suffering with
breathing difficulties to seek professional help as soon as
possible.

"Tragically, and according to recent data released, the number of
people diagnosed with mesothelioma and other asbestos related
illnesses continues to rise and has not yet reached its peak.

"This is due to companies like Cape who continued to expose people
to this deadly substance despite knowing the long term dangers."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ky. Court Reverses Judgment in Fibro Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Harris Martin Publishing reported that a Kentucky appellate court
has reversed an award of summary judgment for two defendants in an
asbestos exposure suit involving radios, saying that the
plaintiffs had presented "at least" circumstantial evidence that
created a genuine issue of material fact.

In the Sept. 10 opinion, the Kentucky Court of Appeals found that
opposing evidence presented by defendants Zenith Electronics LLC
and Motorola Solutions Inc. "should be evaluated by a jury not by
a judge as part of summary judgment."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ADAO Cites New Occupational Fibro Exposure Stats
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), which combines
education, advocacy, and community to prevent exposure and ensure
justice for asbestos victims, cited new statistics from The Global
Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factor Study of 2013 (GBD
2013) from the prestigious Lancet medical journal, that found
occupational asbestos exposure to be responsible for 194,000
deaths in 2013. The new numbers represent a more than 80% increase
from the 107,000 per annum statistic from the World Health
Organization (WHO).

The GBD 2013, published by Lancet and funded by the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation, is the first of a series of annual
updates of the GBD detailing risk factor quantification,
particularly of modifiable risk factors, to help to identify
emerging threats to population health and opportunities for
prevention. According to the study, in 2013, "Taken together,
occupational carcinogens caused 304,000 deaths globally; asbestos
exposure accounted for nearly two-thirds of the burden of all
occupational carcinogens." Related Disability Adjusted Life Years
(DALYs) lost were 5.8 million in total and 3.4 million years for
those related to asbestos.

"As affirmed by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2013 Study,
published in Lancet September 11, 2015, the fallout from
occupational asbestos exposure is continuing its alarming rise,"
stated Dr. Richard A. Lemen, former United States Assistant
Surgeon General and ADAO Science Advisory Board Co-Chair. "With
the study's estimated loss of life at 194,000 each year this
represents a rise of more than 80% since the last World Health
Organization's estimate of 107,000. In fact all asbestos diseases
are preventable simply by eliminating exposures to asbestos;
however as long as asbestos use continues, this mounting toll from
asbestos induced deaths will grow. Only society can stop this
pandemic and societies in over 50 of the world's countries have
taken this action; now is the time for all the world to follow."

"The new figures from Lancet regarding the number of lives lost as
a result of asbestos in the workplace has catapulted by nearly
90,000 from the 107,000 number traditionally used," stated ADAO
President and Co-founder, Linda Reinstein. "What's equally
alarming is that this number doesn't include the loss of life
related to take-home asbestos exposure of when a worker carries
deadly fibers on their hair, skin and clothes which has poisoned
their spouses and children; do-it-yourself projects; disasters
such as 9/11; and even the innocent exposure of children and
consumers through products still in use. Asbestos remains legal
and lethal in the US, yet imports continue. The human cost of
inaction is deplorable and expensive in dollars and lives. It is
reprehensible that Congress has condoned the use of asbestos and
allowed the asbestos man-made disaster to continue. The fatally
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 has failed to protect
the health and safety of Americans. The time is now to pass TSCA
reform legislation that ensures the Environmental Protection
Agency can expeditiously ban asbestos. Enough is enough."

As part of its comprehensive education and advocacy efforts, ADAO
reminds concerned citizens to "Raise Your Voice" to #ENDMeso and
send a letter to Congress and tell them to stand up for Americans
and ban asbestos.

       About the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO) was founded by
asbestos victims and their families in 2004. ADAO is the largest
non-profit in the U.S. dedicated to providing asbestos victims and
concerned citizens with a united voice through our education,
advocacy, and community initiatives. ADAO seeks to raise public
awareness about the dangers of asbestos exposure, advocate for an
asbestos ban, and protect asbestos victims' civil rights. For more
information, visit www.asbestosdiseaseawareness.org. ADAO, a
registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, does not make legal
referrals.

Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO)
Kim Cecchini
Media Relations
202-391-5205
Kim@asbestosdiseaseawareness.org


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Problems Delay Aberdare Stadium
------------------------------------------------------
Sam Tegeltija, writing for Wales Online, reported that a new
athletics stadium and track in Aberdare will be delayed until 2017
due to asbestos problems causing the "brick by brick" demolition
of the former Sobell Leisure Centre.

Rhondda Cynon Taf council revealed the athletics facilities --
which represents phase eight of its impressive GBP50m leisure
complex at the Ynys site -- will now be built in time for the
athletics season in just under two years' time.
Further delay from 2016 to summer 2017

The building should have been long demolished by now and the
revised completion date of 2016 has now been put back until summer
2017.

During June, council leader Andrew Morgan revealed a greater-than-
anticipated level of asbestos was found within the brickwork
mortar of the old Michael Sobell Leisure Centre building, which
closed in October 2014.

Coun Morgan said: "The council remains absolutely committed to the
delivery of a new athletics stadium to complete the GBP50m
investment in state of the art leisure and education facilities on
the Sobell site.

"Unfortunately, due to the nature of the contamination detected in
the former Michael Sobell Sports Centre, demolition will need to
be undertaken by hand, brick by brick.

"The council continues to work closely with the Health and Safety
Executive and our contractor regarding this matter to ensure the
safest method is used to carry out the work.
Demolition work 'will incur costs'

"Clearly this will have an impact on the completion of the new
athletics stadium and will incur costs but with any such
construction project the primary concern has to be that of safety.

"This means that the athletics stadium will now be completed in
readiness for the 2017 summer season and we will continue to work
with Aberdare Valley Amateur Athletics club to find a suitable
temporary training venue whilst work is ongoing."

The Sobell development has seen the construction of a new skate
park, revamped swimming pool, 3G sports pitch and state-of-the-art
leisure centre -- which opened when the old centre closed.

Meanwhile, pupils are now being taught at the impressive Aberdare
Community School building, and have recently returned to school
following the summer break.
New athletics building, track and bicycle storage

Phase eight of the development includes demolishing the old
Michael Sobell Centre and constructing a new athletics building,
track and bicycle storage.

A report by RCT council's service director for planning -- issued
at the Development Control Committee meeting in April 2013 where
planning permission was granted for the nine-part development --
outlines the current phase of the project.

It said: "The proposed athletics track and stadium is positioned
on a north-south axis within UK Athletics parameters and will
surround a grassed football pitch and markings for javelin, shot-
put, discus, hammer, long jump, high jump and pole vault.

"The stadium is located immediately opposite the track finishing
line so that timings and race placing can be determined and
processed from the stadium itself.

"The stadium is accessed from the main entrance of the changing
room reception lobby so is controlled effectively at the point of
entry.
172-seat spectator stand

"The stand will seat 172 people and the accommodation incorporates
equipment and machinery storage for both the grass pitches and the
athletics facility.

"Changing rooms are provided which service both the grass pitches
and the athletics facility."

The ninth and final phase of the development includes the building
of a habitat area and a new public playground.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: AFP Probes Leak of Mr. Fluffy Homeowners' Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom McIlroy, writing for The Canberra Times, reported that the
scale of a suspected public service leak about Mr Fluffy asbestos
homeowners could be wider than the ACT government first thought,
after a second version of the list came to light on.

ACT Public Service Commissioner Bronwen Overton-Clarke and
Asbestos Taskforce boss Andrew Kefford called in Australian
Federal Police investigators after the leaking of names and
addresses of Mr Fluffy asbestos homeowners to a private
communications company.

An up-to-date, hard copy list of the names and addresses of the
1022 Mr Fluffy homes was found by a government official on June
20, before the list of addresses, without personal information,
was released by the government in July.

The leak was believed to have been contained to just one company
after an unmarked envelope was left at its Canberra office in late
May or early June. The list was later shared with the company's
head office.

It included owners' surnames and initials, address, division,
block and section number, and some company information. The
information was circulated to employees and contractors of the
company, with warnings for them to be cautious while working on Mr
Fluffy asbestos homes.

Homeowners were told of the leak in letters and emails on and the
Australian Federal Police investigation is ongoing.

After the investigation was reported on, The Canberra Times
obtained a second version of the list marked "unclassified" and
containing 1021 entries. The government's asbestos taskforce
confirmed the second version was genuine and asked anyone with
information about the leak to contact police.

The source who provided the second version said hundreds of
tradespeople in Canberra had shared copies of the 21 pages since
June.

Leaking official information is an offence under the Crimes Act
and the ACT's public service guidelines.

"We are very disappointed that this has happened and we are taking
it seriously," Ms Overton-Clarke said.

"We understand this will be distressing to homeowners who have
gone through a very difficult 15 months and this is a nasty thing
to have happened. The company is working very closely with us and
has absolutely agreed to destroy all the material."

Officials had believed the leaked information did not go to any
other private companies or individuals but Ms Overton-Clarke said
the scope would be explored as part of the investigation.

She believed the leak was not malicious in nature.

"A reason this is now public is to allow for further information
and members of the public to come forward if they are aware of
this issue and I encourage them to do so."

After the taskforce saw the leaked list on June 22, police said
disclosure to homeowners and the public should be delayed until an
appropriate stage of the investigation.

ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr was also aware of the leak.
Currently, 730 of the Mr Fluffy houses are unoccupied.

Mr Kefford apologised to homeowners in the letter sentthis wee.

"Like the owners will be, I am angry that this has happened," he
said. "I understand the reaction that is going to come. I share
that disappointment, I share that anger," he said.

"Very deliberately, the marrying up of names and addresses isn't
widely known. Some of this is publicly knowable, but all in one
spot [is rare].

"We're not saying it's just the taskforce that has access to this
information, there are other parts of the public service that has
access and that's why the commissioner is doing what she is
doing."

Opposition leader Jeremy Hanson said he would await the end of the
investigation.

"This is extremely unfortunate and concerning for Mr Fluffy
homeowners who have already suffered greatly and I await the
outcome of the Police and Commissioner for Public Administration's
investigations," Mr Hanson said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Engineer Dies of Mesothelioma
-----------------------------------------------------
Linda Fort, writing for Gate Reading News, reported that the
family of an engineer who died from mesothelioma were unable to
tell a coroner where the contact with asbestos might have
occurred.

Coroner Peter Bedford was conducting an inquest at Reading Town
Hall on, September 15, into the death of Roxanne Cox, 57, of
Magpie Way, Tilehurst .

Roxanne, formerly Robert, had worked in engineering and was an
enthusiast for car and motor cycle maintenance.

Ms Cox was diagnosed with mesothelioma, the lung cancer related to
asbestos, and died at home on June 10.

Mr Bedford asked if family members had discussed contact with
asbestos with Ms Cox and the only recollection was at school in
Woodcote where pipes were lagged with asbestos.

The coroner said mesothelioma was commonly found in people who had
worked in the past in the construction and automobile industry.

However he said he had not been able to find anything in Ms Cox's
employment history which would point to obvious contact with
asbestos. The cause of death was pneumonia as a result of a
malignant mesothelioma tumour.

The coroner recorded a verdict of death from mesothelioma with no
known exposure to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pensioner Dies of Work Exposure to Toxic Dust
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nottingham Post reported that a pensioner died two-and-a-half
years after being diagnosed with an asbestos-related cancer.

John Yates, 88, died at Clifton Manor Residential Home, in
Clifton, on August 20.

An inquest into his death heard Mr Yates had been diagnosed with
mesothelioma following a biopsy in February 2013, after he had
complained of a shortness of breath. He suffered recurring illness
throughout 2014 and was transferred to Clifton Manor after his
condition deteriorated.

The inquest heard Mr Yates had given a statement to solicitors
prior to his death, detailing his work history. This included work
in the building trade in 1962, where he used to cut asbestos
boards for ceiling work and he said he was sure he would have
inhaled asbestos dust during this period.

Assistant Coroner Amanda Cranny concluded Mr Yates died of an
industrial disease.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Queenslanders Warned of New Wave of Fibro Cancer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsmail.com reported that Cancer Council has launched a new
resource to help Queenslanders diagnosed with mesothelioma, with
research showing new cases of the disease rising sharply since the
1980s.

Exposure to asbestos is the only known cause of mesothelioma, and
less than half of all Queenslanders diagnosed with the cancer will
survive more than a year after diagnosis.

Cancer Council Queensland spokeswoman Katie Clift said
Understanding Pleural Mesothelioma was a new, vital guide for
cancer patients, their family and friends.

"Every diagnosis of mesothelioma is different -- but our hope is
that Queenslanders gain information about diagnosis, treatment and
support services through our new resource," Ms Clift said.

"Australia has one of the highest rates of mesothelioma in the
world -- in Queensland alone, cases have risen from 17 each year
in the early 1980s to 169 each year in 2012.

"We know that asbestos miners, transport workers, builders,
plumbers, electricians and mechanics may be exposed to asbestos in
their workplace.

"Queenslanders who haven't worked directly with asbestos but have
been exposed to it can also develop mesothelioma, including people
washing or cleaning work clothes with asbestos fibres on them or
people renovating homes.

"It can take many years after being exposed to asbestos for
mesothelioma to develop. This is called the latency period or
latent interval, and is usually between 20 and 60 years."

Cancer Council is concerned about a modern wave of mesothelioma
among Queenslanders exposed to asbestos at work or home.

Earlier waves of the disease affected asbestos miners and workers
using asbestos in industry.

"The signs and symptoms of mesothelioma are often vague and can be
similar to other conditions or diseases," Ms Clift said.

"Shortness of breath, sharp pains in the chest or a dull pain in
the shoulder and upper arm, a persistent cough or a change in a
coughing pattern can be symptoms of the cancer.

"If Queenslanders are concerned about their risk, especially if
they think they have been exposed to asbestos, they should see
their GP for advice."

Understanding Plural Mesothelioma is available for free online at
www.cancerqld.org.au, via the Information & Resources tab.

Queenslanders should visit worksafe.qld.gov.au for information on
asbestos removal and carrying out asbestos-related work.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Retired Draughtsman Diagnosed with Mesothelioma
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plymouth Herald reported that a retired draughtsman who was
exposed to asbestos decades ago in Plymouth has been diagnosed
with mesothelioma -- an incurable cancer of the lung lining.

Michael Trevor Stanley, 79, who was known to his co-workers as
Trevor, was diagnosed in June with asbestos-related cancer
mesothelioma.

The cancer, which is caused by exposure to asbestos dust and
fibres, was found after Trevor suffered shortness of breath and
chest pains.

The grandfather-of-one is now appealing to his former colleagues
for the information that him and his legal team need in order to
qualify for compensation.

He spent his early working life as an apprentice draughtsman at
Blight & White Ltd, in Prince Rock, between 1951 and 1956 -- where
he believes he was exposed to asbestos while working on a number
of sites in Plymouth and surrounding Devon and Cornwall.

Trevor, who now lives in Sawston, Cambridge, told his specialist
lawyers at Irwin Mitchell that he was involved in the conversion
of a settling tank to a compressor bay at the Lee Mill China Clay
Works during his apprenticeship, which required him and his
colleagues to cover a steel frame in corrugated asbestos sheeting.

He remembers cutting the asbestos sheets to size and that he was
not provided with a breathing mask for protection during the work.

Trevor said he was never told of the risks of asbestos while
working on the project.

He also worked on a boat shed at Devonport dockyard, which again
resulted in him coming into contact with asbestos building
materials.

After two years National Service between 1956 and 1958 Trevor
returned to work at Blight & White Ltd as a qualified draughtsman
until 1961 when he left to work for Modern Engineering (Bristol)
Ltd who he worked with until 1965.

While at Modern Engineering (Bristol) Ltd his role included
regeneration projects in Bristol to rebuild buildings damaged
during the Second World War and he also worked on the construction
of the Dragon Reactor power station at Winfrith Heath in Dorset as
part of a three-year project.

During the construction of the Winfrith Heath power station Trevor
recalls the installation of steel walkways and stairs and that he
worked alongside other tradesmen, including laggers, who mixed
asbestos paste and applied the material to pipework in the
facility, a process which released asbestos dust and fibres into
the atmosphere. He spent considerable time on site during this
time checking the progress of the installation work.

Trevor, a grandfather-of-one, said: "My mesothelioma diagnosis was
a complete shock to me and I am still struggling to come to terms
with it.

"I have always been a keen traveller but the disease has caused a
deterioration in my breathing and I now struggle to even walk
short distances, so holidays have had to be cancelled.

"Thankfully, my son, his wife and my granddaughter live close by
and come to see me as often as they can.

"I am relying more heavily on family and friends than I used to
and I'm worried about what the future holds for me and my partner,
Claire, as my condition worsens.

"Hopefully, my former colleagues will come forward with the
information we need about the working conditions we were exposed
to and the presence of asbestos at the sites we worked at."

Trevor, backed by his legal team at Irwin Mitchell, is now
appealing for his former colleagues from Blight & White Ltd and
Modern Engineering (Bristol) Limited and anyone who worked at
Winfrith Heath on the Dragon Reactor power station during its
construction to come forward with information about the presence
of asbestos and the safety measures in place to protect members of
staff from asbestos dust and fibres.

Phoebe Osborne, an expert asbestos-related disease lawyer at Irwin
Mitchell, said: "Exposure to asbestos can have extremely serious
consequences decades down the line for anyone who inhales the
deadly dust and fibres, leading to fatal diseases such as
mesothelioma.

"The disease kills more than 2,500 people every year in the UK and
causes a significant amount of pain and suffering for victims,
like Trevor.

"We are now investigating how Trevor was exposed to asbestos and
if more could have been done to warn him of the dangers of the
substance.

"He understandably wants to understand his exposure to asbestos,
which led to him developing mesothelioma, and we are calling on
his former colleagues to come forward so we can get the answers
Trevor is looking for."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fairfax Area Soil Contains Natural Toxic Dust
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Neibauer, writing for Washington Business Journal,
reported that when most people hear asbestos, they probably think
of the toxic, fibrous mineral once commonly found in construction,
insulation and fireproofing materials.

When Fairfax County builders hear asbestos, they may think deeper
-- as in two to three feet beneath their feet.

Roughly 10.5 square miles of the county, 2.5 percent of its total
size, contain "problem soils" that may include naturally occurring
asbestos, specifically actinolite and tremolite minerals. It is
found along the Piney Branch Complex, a vein of bedrock locally
known as greenstone for its green or blue-green hue.

And the area of problem soils is getting larger.

The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors has scheduled an Oct. 15
public hearing to consider an amendment to the 2011 county soils
map that will increase the potential area of naturally occurring
asbestos from 10.53 to 10.67 miles. It is a slight increase, based
on field work by the Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation
District, but it is one that all developers must be aware of, as
it will affect how they proceed with construction projects.

The areas of expanded problem soils include:

   -- East of Jermantown Road immediately north of the Fairfax
City border, including Interstate 66 and a portion of the ramp
from Route 123 to Interstate 66 westbound. This may affect
construction work when I-66 is widened.

   -- Areas along Five Oaks Road, Babcock Road, Oakton Glen Drive
and Cody Road in Oakton.

   -- A small area north and south of I-66 along in the area of
the Route 50 interchange.

The county has known about its asbestos issue since 1987.
According to a 1993 paper on the subject by C. James Dusek and
John Yetman, a pair of air pollution control specialists in the
Fairfax County Health Department, the first deposits of asbestos
rock were discovered around that time at an underground parking
garage construction site.

"As a result of the rock being drilled and crushed, dust covered
the entire construction project," they wrote in Control and
Prevention of Asbestos Exposure from Construction in Naturally
Occurring Asbestos. "Several air drill operators began
experiencing itching and skin irritation. Upon medical and
geological investigations, it was determined that the irritation
was caused by tremolite asbestos fibers."

Since that time, Fairfax and the state of Virginia have instituted
strict environmental regulations on building in areas of problem
soils, requiring special precautions for dust control and worker
protection, including air monitoring, "to mitigate the potential
health risk of breathing in the mineral," according to a county
staff report on the map amendment.

Thousands of people live in the problem soil corridor, which
generally follows a line from the Prince William County line near
Clifton, north to Braddock Road, east to Fairfax City, and then
north, across Interstate 66 into Oakton. Per county staff,
residents should not be concerned.

"Living in existing structures within areas of NOA is not
considered to be hazardous because the asbestos fibers are within
the bedrock and potentially in the very deep subsoil just above
the bedrock, but are not thought to be found in the clay surface
soils," the staff report states.

Inhaling asbestos fibers increases the risk of lung cancer,
mesothelioma, restricted use of the lungs, and changes to the
lining of the chest cavity. Most cases of asbestos-related cancers
take 15 years or more to develop, according to the Centers for
Disease Control.

The soil layer atop the asbestos-containing bedrock "runs only two
to three feet deep" in Fairfax County, Yetman and Dusek reported
in their paper.

"In an undisturbed natural environment, these fibers are locked in
place within the rock and represent no health hazard," they wrote.
"However, when disturbed, such as during construction, these
fibers are released as a fine dust which can readily be inhaled
into the respiratory system. Long term exposure to such conditions
could lead to debilitating or fatal diseases. Dry, windy
conditions could carry this hazardous dust beyond the boundaries
of a construction site. Individuals, whose only connection with
the site is their proximity to it, could be exposed to a serious
health hazard."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Scare Delays Work on Lincoln Railway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Echo reported that the discovery of asbestos at the
site of Lincoln's High Street railway footbridge is expected to
delay completion by two months.

Two asbestos surveys were carried out prior to work starting on
site, but did not reveal the full extent of the level of asbestos
present.

The new bridge is now expected to open in May 2016.

Network Rail spokesman Toby Higgins said: "Due to the discovery of
high levels of asbestos found by our contractor at 179 High
Street, which is due to be partially demolished to allow the new
footbridge to be constructed, the project will now take an extra
eight weeks to complete.

"This is to ensure that those working on the site are safe from
harm and to allow for the asbestos to be removed from the site in
the correct way.

"We share the frustration of those who are looking forward to
enjoying the benefits that new bridge will bring and we apologise
for the delay, but hope that people understand the need to make
sure this work is carried out safely to protect those who are
constructing the new bridge."

It comes after a string of delays surrounding a similar bridge in
Brayford Wharf East.

Network Rail says it is in the process of finalising a meeting
date with councils, MP Karl McCartney, and the university.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Opera House Worker Wins Fibro Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Hughes Jones, writing for Yahoo News, reported that before
succumbing to the lung cancer caused by his exposure to asbestos
while helping build the Sydney Opera House, Mr Dionysatos was the
full-time carer for his wife, who suffers from dementia.

Now his widow will be better supported after Mr Dionysatos
posthumously won an appeal for compensation.

The NSW Court of Appeal on confirmed the late Mr Dionysatos'
former employer, scaffolding company Acrow, was liable to take on
significantly more financial costs for the care of his widow.

The court ordered the case to return to the original Dust Diseases
Tribunal and a further judgment that will calculate a new amount
to properly reflect the care Mr Dionysatos gave his wife.

It said the compensation for the widow's care should not be
restricted to the equivalent of 60 hours a week, and ordered Acrow
to pay Mr Dionysatos' court costs.

Specialist dust diseases lawyer Tanya Segelov said while they did
not yet know the final dollar amount, it was expected to be
significantly more than the $490,000 originally awarded.

"It'll be up to double that amount," she said.

Speaking outside court, Mr Dionysatos' son Gerry, who continued
the legal action following his father's death, said he had left a
great legacy.

"His biggest goal was to help mum -- (but) he lost all that
capacity to do that," he said.

In the 1960s, Mr Dionysatos migrated from Greece at the age of 25
and soon began work as a scaffolder at the Opera House.

"He was proud, being a migrant Australian, coming to Sydney and
working on the Opera House," Gerry Dionysatos said.

Mr Dionysatos worked for more than seven years on the project,
often putting in up to 16 hours a day, seven days a week while
being exposed to the toxic dust, he said.

He died in 2012 from mesothelioma, and his daughter Soula said he
was at peace with the idea of dying and was never negative about
the Opera House.

Ms Segelov said the case would pave the way for future asbestos
victims and their employers, and recognised the social cost of the
disease on dependants.

Comment was being sought from Acrow.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Deadly Dust Scare Lead to NZ Site Closure
----------------------------------------------------------
John Maslin, writing for Wanganui Chronicle, reported that a
Wanganui builder has closed his suburban depot after he found
traces of asbestos on the property.

The site, at 2 Pehi St, was previously part of the Eastown
railways workshops complex and asbestos was known to have been
used in the building of railway carriages.

Mike Watson, owner of Wat'sOn Builders, told the Chronicle traces
of asbestos had been found when he completed site testing for a
proposed new development.

Asbestos is made up of very small fibres and is regarded as a
health risk when inhaled as fine dust.

Testing on the property was carried out under the new National
Environmental Standards introduced in 2012. These standards apply
to any site that had activities which may have left contamination.

Mr Watson said his yard had been closed temporarily because he
wanted to ensure the safety of his staff, customers and
neighbours.

"There's no evidence that any harm has been caused, but expert
advisers tell me that if samples have asbestos readings, there is
a possibility that contamination might become airborne thorough
dust".

"I am now working with the Wanganui District Council to implement
an agreed remediation plan, so that we can move back into the
depot at the earliest," he said.

Mr Watson said he and his wife Andre had plans to build a house on
the site and preliminary plans had been drawn for the house.

It was expected that further residential subdivision would occur,
but plans had yet to be drawn up.

As well as the district council, Horizons Regional Council had
been notified.

Neighbours had yet to be notified, but Mr Watson said that
depended on an assessment of what the effects of the contaminant
might be.

Any area capable of creating dust is being dampened down with
sprinklers but he said it was thought that there was no risk with
the current status of the site.

"The National Environmental Standards require councils to work
with landowners in such events, and we're sure the district
council will be doing so with us."

Mr Watson said his company had never worked with asbestos at this
site.

"Any asbestos contamination must have been caused or allowed by an
earlier owner. The science around the cause and extent has yet to
be completed."

Meanwhile, the business has relocated to its previous office site
in No3 Line and its contact numbers remain the same.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Workers Exposed to Toxic Dust at NZ Arts Centre
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Stylinaou, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reported that workers
may have been exposed to asbestos during the restoration of a
major Arts Centre site.

The chief executive of the Arts Centre Andr‚ Lovatt confirmed that
white asbestos had been discovered in the skim coat plaster in six
rooms of the Boys' High Building on Worcester Boulevard.

Work on the site would be halted for up to a month, while the
hazardous material was removed and disposed of.

Lovatt said a small amount of plaster work was carried out by
contractors before a test was requested and could not say with
certainty that workers had not been exposed.

"We can't say that, nobody can say that," he said.

"We are behaving in a way that this is a potential exposure,"
Lovatt said.

He said WorkSafe had been informed about the discovery of asbestos
but it had not required formal notification from the Arts Centre.

Lovatt said the age of the Arts Centre "generally pre-dated" the
use of asbestos in building materials, but said asbestos-
containing products had been used to redecorate the Boys' High
building.

He said there had been a "huge amount" of asbestos testing
undertaken as part of the Arts Centre $219 million restoration.

"We've been doing dust testing throughout the building to
determine whether or not there's been any spread, but those tests
have come back negative."

A source who contacted Stuff about the potential exposure said
workers from Vertec Concrete Cutting had worked on the site for a
couple of days before being made aware of the presence of
asbestos.

Lovatt confirmed Vertec were among the contractors working on the
site.

Vertec declined to comment on the matter, as did Simon
Construction and C. Lund & Son, which are among the 20-odd firms
involved in the Arts Centre restoration.

Lovatt said it was not the first time asbestos had been found in
the Arts Centre and said he "would be a fool to say it's the last
time".

Asbestos was discovered in the Arts Centre's Great Hall la and
delayed the reopening by two months.

Overall, the restoration of the Arts Centre was progressing well,
Lovatt said, and was on track to be half-way completed by the end
of the year.

A WorkSafe New Zealand spokesman said the discovery was
"unexpected as the plaster walls in question were built in 1880".

Work at the site had stopped and the Arts Centre was undertaking
"environmental monitoring", he said.

"WorkSafe will continue to provide support and advice to the Art
Centre and is not investigating the situation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Engr. Fined for Homeowners Put at Risk of Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------------
A self-employed Gas Safe Registered Heating Engineer has been
fined after removing asbestos lagged pipework in a domestic
property with no precautions to prevent exposure to asbestos
fibres.

Karl Locher, pleaded guilty at Trafford Magistrates' Court after
an investigation by the Health and safety Executive (HSE).

Mr Locher, was employed to install a new heating system in the
domestic property. He removed the redundant pipework that was
lagged with asbestos, using a powered electric saw. He then
transported the pipework through the property and deposited it
outside on the drive.

The Court heard that Karl Locher did not have any asbestos
awareness training. HSE prosecuting told the court that had Karl
Locher been appropriately trained, he would have been in a
position to recognise that the lagging may be asbestos. He would
have known to avoid any work until it had been demonstrated as
asbestos free or been removed by a licensed contractor. Instead,
Mr Locher removed the pipes with no precautions to prevent his own
exposure to asbestos fibres, and the potential for other persons
to be exposed. The homeowners have had to move out of their home
pending thorough decontamination of the property.

Karl Locher, 48 years, of Minet Drive, Heyes, Middlesex, pleaded
Guilty to breaching Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work
Act 1974 and was fined GBP5000 with GBP3000 costs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jury Denies Damages to Widow
---------------------------------------------
Zack Peterson, writing for Times Free Press, reported that after a
three-week trial, a Hamilton County jury decided to deny damages
to an area woman who said her husband's fatal mesothelioma, a rare
type of cancer most commonly caused by asbestos, stemmed from
years of exposure in a Cleveland, Tenn., factory.

Nancy K. Harriss and her late husband, Edward Catlett, sought $8
million in compensatory damages from Honeywell International Inc.,
the corporation liable for Bendix, a former car brakes factory in
Cleveland, records show.

Honeywell International Inc. never informed Catlett that he was
exposed to asbestos while doing contract work from 1974 to 1979,
the couple alleged. Catlett, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma
in April 2014, died from the disease earlier.

"He had no idea that asbestos could cause mesothelioma," attorney
Rett Guerry told the 13-person jury. "He had no idea that what he
was breathing would kill him someday."

Guerry, a Charleston, S.C., attorney who specializes in asbestos
cases, said Bendix, on the other hand, did know.

No later than 1972, the factory had created permissible exposure
guidelines based on information from the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, Guerry said.

Even then, Guerry said, Bendix understood that guidelines "did not
remove the threat of mesothelioma from the workplace." They only
lowered it.

"This is not some little company," Guerry said. "This is a
sophisticated organization.

"They knew."

After a PowerPoint presentation, Guerry turned away from the
screen and appealed directly to the jury.

Catlett, 86 when he died, was a human being, he said.

"It's about a real person, two real people, who suffered greatly."

That argument failed to resonate with jurors, who deliberated most
of afternoon.

"We're disappointed, obviously," said Chattanooga attorney Jimmy
Rodgers, who worked alongside Guerry. "But we appreciate the jury
spending three weeks of their time."

Jurors heard five asbestos experts detail the impacts of the heat-
resistant fiber on humans. Throughout the proceedings, Honeywell's
defense developed a two-pronged argument around it.

Attorney Dennis Dobbels contended Catlett was exposed to asbestos
while ripping insulation for Chattanooga's Volunteer Army
Ammunition Plant in the mid-1950s. That plant has since been
converted to a Volkswagen assembly plant.

Mixing billowing cements, sawing rigid insulation and working
around steam lines had a significant effect on Catlett, Dobbels
said, because "all of that was uncontrolled."

Working at the TNT plant, Catlett's body absorbed vast amounts of
a longer, deadlier fiber of asbestos known as amphibole, Dobbels
contended.

At Bendix -- which had ventilation equipment and a control program
-- Catlett encountered chrysotile, a shorter fiber that is safer
and noncancer-causing, Dobbels said.

Dobbels also emphasized the measures he said Bendix took to quell
asbestos levels.

"You need to consider what Bendix did," Dobbels said to the jury.
"Did it reasonably act to ensure safety?"

He paused to let the question sink in.

"The answer is yes."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Action Taken Over Possible NY Fibro Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. Prohaska, writing for The Buffalo News, reported that no
disciplinary action was taken after Niagara County officials
wrapped up their internal investigation of how welfare workers
were potentially exposed to asbestos while cleaning out a basement
crawl space in a county office building, a union leader said.

"Not one of my members was disciplined for anything having to do
with the Shaw Building or asbestos," said Susan Young, president
of the county's unit of the Civil Service Employees Association.

"We cannot identify anyone who told anyone to remove asbestos or
anyone who knew they were removing asbestos," said Jennifer R.
Pitarresi, county director of risk and insurance services.

Her union represented the Social Services Department crew leaders
who directed the late May clean-out of the basement of the Shaw
Building, the 84-year-old Town of Lockport headquarters of the
county Health and Mental Health departments.

A floor tile and a piece of pipe insulation, both apparently
containing asbestos, ended up in a dumpster. William C. Rutland,
president of the county's unit of the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees, reported the incident to
state and federal agencies as a possible health risk to county
employees and to the welfare clients, who wore no protective gear.
That led to a cleanup effort that cost the county nearly $100,000,
including staff time, according to Pitarresi.

Pitarresi said she believes that what happened was that welfare
workers sweeping the dirt floor and putting the sweepings in a
bucket for disposal unearthed some old asbestos on the floor.
County Manager Jeffrey M. Glatz said that a large stack of old
floor tiles, presumably containing asbestos because of the age of
the building, was left intact by the workers.

The state Labor Department's Bureau of Public Employee Safety and
Health, or PESH, cited the county for eight violations, which it
deemed serious but the county did not. In order to resolve the
matter, the county ordered the removal of all asbestos in the Shaw
crawl space, a job that was completed.

"What was removed didn't have to be removed," Pitarresi said.
"That was our abundance of caution."

She said that 95 percent of the asbestos in the Shaw crawl space
was intact, not "friable," meaning that no fibers were loose and
able to be breathed in.

"I didn't force them to abate anything," said Rutland, refusing to
take the blame for the cost of the cleanup. "I'm tired of being
criticized for not working with the county."

Glatz said the county has begun an assessment of asbestos in all
county buildings old enough to possibly contain the cancer-causing
fire retardant.

"Just because there's asbestos somewhere doesn't mean it's a
violation," Glatz said, adding, "It's nonfriable. You can carry
that around, and there's no violation or harm."

Rutland said he summoned PESH to the Trott Access Center in
Niagara Falls after workers reported what seemed to be exposed
asbestos on a dirt floor in the basement.

Young was present for part of the Trott inspection. She said she
saw some asbestos in a crawl space next to a maintenance room and
some more under a staircase in the former high school.

"It's not a spot that's accessible to anyone," Young said.

Rutland said he called PESH after the county didn't take action.
"I waited four weeks, and they did nothing," he said. PESH did not
respond to requests for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 51 North Lincolnshire Deaths Linked to Fibro
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scunthorpe Telegraph, reported that new figures have revealed 51
people in North Lincolnshire have died from the asbestos-related
lung cancer mesothelioma between 2010 and 2014.

The region has the 38th highest mortality rate in England and
Wales for the disease at 6.3 deaths per 100,000 people.

The average rate is 4.4 deaths per 100,000 people.

Jonathan Wheeler, president of not-for-profit group Association of
Personal Injury Lawyers, said: "Employers nowadays are more aware
of the dangers of exposing workers to asbestos.

"But those who were exposed 30 or 40 years ago are now facing
death sentences for simply turning up to work.

"Our members are lawyers and many of them see former dock workers,
factory workers, tradesmen and even teachers, who have never
worked in heavy industry, but have been exposed, seeking
compensation to make them comfortable in their final months and to
ensure their families will be fine financially."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Texas VA Hospital Violates Fibro Laws
------------------------------------------------------
Beth Swantek, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that federal
investigators supported a San Antonio whistleblower that exposed
the unsafe handling of toxic asbestos at the Audie L. Murphy
Memorial Veterans Hospital in south Texas.

The worker, who has served as a maintenance mechanic and janitor
at the South Texas VA Health Care System hospital since 1974, told
federal authorities that hospital management for years failed to
protect its workers from airborne asbestos, which can lead to
deadly cancers such as mesothelioma.

A U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs medical inspector conducted
an investigation in 2014. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel sent
President Barack Obama and Congress a letter detailing the
findings of the VA's probe.

According to Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner's letter, Audie Murphy
VA Hospital failed to:

   -- take appropriate precautions to protect maintenance workers
      from exposure to unsafe levels of asbestos

   -- inform employees of the location and quantity of asbestos
      containing materials in the area

   -- provide a medical surveillance program for all employees
      exposed to asbestos levels higher than permissible limits

Worker Observes Numerous Asbestos Management Violations

The longtime maintenance mechanic, who requested anonymity,
sounded the alarm on the government-run facility after witnessing
several years' worth of unsafe asbestos management practices.

He claimed supervisors directed him and other maintenance
employees, including plumbers, pipefitters and air conditioning
mechanics, to perform their daily duties in areas known to contain
asbestos.

The worker added that none of his colleagues received personal
protective equipment to wear while executing their jobs. He said
they discarded construction refuse in regular trash dumpsters.

On another occasion, that worker entered a room on a surgical ward
and discovered a maintenance mechanic cutting into drywall in an
area known to contain asbestos, specifically in the joint
compound. After questioning, the mechanic responded that he was
obeying the supervisor's orders.

In a third event, the whistleblower and another employee witnessed
contractors taking samples of pipes in the pump room to test for
asbestos. They not only lacked protective equipment, but also
weren't utilizing wet methods to limit contaminated dust going
airborne.

Furthermore, supervisors failed to notify four employees in the
pump room about the asbestos sampling.

Lerner said investigators substantiated all his claims, except
assertions that hospital officials knowingly placed employees in
danger through asbestos exposure or that VA managers possibly
exposed all hospital employees, patients and visitors to the
deadly mineral.

Medical Center Endangered Worker's Health

During the investigation, the VA's Medical Inspector found
hospital management compromised the maintenance worker's health.

The man's 2005 chest radiograph found an abnormality that
indicated asbestos exposure; however, he was not removed from
additional on-the-job asbestos exposure. "The Medical Center
failed to correctly interpret the whistleblower's chest
radiographs," the letter showed.

Other radiographs taken between 2007 and 2011 were "interpreted as
normal." Lerner said the hospital "missed opportunities in each of
these years to respond to the whistleblower's asbestos-related
condition and remove him from duties that involved potential
asbestos exposure."

VA's Recommendations for the Hospital

After the numerous asbestos violations came to light, hospital
officials accepted the VA medical inspector's 15 recommendations.

The comprehensive plan covers all asbestos issues at the facility:

   -- Remove whistleblower from any duties that could lead to
      additional asbestos exposure.

   -- Develop a process for updating all three facility blueprints
      as abatements are completed and documented.

   -- Implement a process for maintenance and operations staff to
      determine asbestos contamination in an area before start of
      work.

   -- Perform air monitoring to assess risk and occurrence of
      exposure to asbestos.

   -- Ensure all maintenance and operations personnel receive
      respiratory protection in accordance with the Occupational
      Safety & Health Administration standards.

   -- Provide asbestos awareness training as required by law.

   -- Review all maintenance and operations staff for evidence of
      past asbestos exposure.

   -- Perform personal exposure monitoring on all current
      maintenance and operations staff possibly exposed to
      asbestos, as well as notify them individually of the
      results.

   -- Provide medical surveillance for all staff with exposure
      levels greater than permissible exposure limits.

VA officials conducted a follow-up visit to investigate other
concerns.

They said all 15 recommendations were completed, but added a
handful of other suggestions hospital officials agreed to
implement.

"This matter is now closed," Lerner wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family of Fibro Victim Seeks Company Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sheena Harrison, writing for Business Insurance, reported that
workers compensation is the exclusive remedy for the family of a
California man who died after he was exposed to asbestos from
scrap materials that he took home from his employer, a California
appellate court has ruled.

Lario Melendrez worked at Pasadena, California-based Ameron
International Corp. from 1961 to 1985, and was exposed to asbestos
while manufacturing pipe products for the company, court records
show. He died in 2011 of asbestos-related mesothelioma.

Mr. Melendrez's wife and children filed a wrongful death lawsuit
against Ameron. In court filings, they argued that Mr. Melendrez
was exposed to asbestos at work and through waste or scrap pipe
that Ameron permitted him to take home for personal projects, such
as making flower pots and part of a patio. Ameron argued that
workers comp was the exclusive remedy for Mr. Melendrez's family.

The Los Angeles Superior Court ruled in favor of Ameron in 2014,
finding that Mr. Melendrez's death was work-related since he only
received pipe through his employment at Ameron, according to
records.

Mr. Melendrez's family appealed, arguing in filings that workers
comp should not cover Mr. Melendrez's asbestos exposure from
working with Ameron pipe in his own time.

However, a three-judge panel of the California 2nd District Court
of Appeal unanimously upheld the lower court ruling on Thursday,
finding that Mr. Melendrez's employment at Ameron was the
significant factor in his asbestos exposure.

"It is undisputed that Melendrez's exposure to asbestos in his
employment with Ameron substantially contributed to his
mesothelioma," the ruling reads. "Therefore, under the
contributing cause standard applicable in workers' compensation
law, his mesothelioma is covered by workers' compensation, and his
separate exposure at home does not create a separate injury
outside workers' compensation coverage."

The court found that any injuries that Mr. Melendrez suffered from
using Ameron pipe at home were "collateral to or derivative of"
his work-related asbestos exposure, according to the ruling.

"The most that can be said is that his home exposure likely
contributed to the disease along with his workplace exposure," the
ruling reads. "But under workers' compensation principles, the
contribution of his home exposure does not create a divisible,
separate injury. The injury -- mesothelioma caused by asbestos
exposure -- is entirely covered by workers' compensation."

The appellate court also upheld an award of $80,719 in fees to be
paid by Mr. Melendrez's family to Ameron for expert witness
testimony in the lower court trial.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nggawha Spa Closed Due to Toxic Dust
-----------------------------------------------------
Sarah Harris, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reported that popular
camping ground and outdoor thermal pool Ngawha Spa has been closed
after "significant amounts" of asbestos were found at the site.

Owner Top Energy is notifying staff and contractors, who have been
working on upgrading the facility for the past two months, that
they may have been exposed to the toxic substance.

The site has been closed to visitors since the Far North lines
network operator bought Ngawha Spa in July as part of a land deal
to expand the Ngawha geothermal power station.

Chief executive Russell Shaw says due diligence undertaken before
the sale indicated that a manageable amount of asbestos had been
used to build the spa facilities. But recent expert advice
indicated that the material was more widely used than had been
anticipated.

Shaw says the development is "deeply saddening".

"From the outset there were significant issues arising from the
condition of this site and its facilities. Now, with the extent of
the asbestos, the expert advice we've received is that we have no
option but to make the site safe."

Asbestos are fibres that pose a health risk when inhaled and
embedded in the lungs causing asbestosis, lung cancer and
mesothelioma.

Top Energy was notified about the asbestos issue on September 16.

Builder Alan Price lived in a flat in the Ngawha pools complex for
seven years and carried out building and repairs work throughout
the area. He doesn't believe there is a large amount of asbestos
there.

He says if there is any, it could be in the fibrous roofing around
the changing sheds.

But the rest of the complex is mostly made out of aluminum or
steel, he says.

"I very much doubt it'd be anywhere else.

"I think we're just running witch hunts over asbestos.

"Most of the problem is only when you break it up, or cut it, or
turn it into a dust.

"There's a confusion I believe is happening internationally at the
moment between ordinary plasterboard and asbestos."

Shaw says they are still considering their options and will keep
the community well informed.



                            *********

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  * * *