CAR_Public/151120.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Friday, November 20, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 232


                            Headlines


20/20 COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
660 OCEAN: Faces "Castillo" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
A.M.T. GROUP: "McNerney" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
AAGJ INC: "Juarez" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces "Enger" Suit Over Cal. Home Insurance

APPLE INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Bag Check Class Action
ARYANNI LLC: "Lampley" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
BILL COSBY: New Hampshire Woman Files Defamation Suit
BILOXI, MS: Faces Suit Over 14th Amendment Violation
BLACK DIAMOND PROPERTIES: Order Awarding Attorney's Fees Reversed

BULLDOG CONNECTION: "Jaso" Case Wins Conditional Certification
BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Ruiz" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
C&J ENERGY: Faces "Benson" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
CBE GROUP: Faces "Szumilas" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Settlement in "Cowit" Has Final Approval

CREDIT CONTROL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Mednick" Suit Claims
DAN & GLENN: Faces "Rangel-Bustos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DODGE, KS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Due Process Violation
DRAFTKINGS INC: NY AG Schneiderman Seeks Preliminary Injunction
ECOSERV LLC: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Berry" Suit Claims

EQUITRUST LIFE: Summary Adjudication Order Affirmed
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Yoo" Suit for Data Security Breach
FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Roche" Suit Over Alleged Text Spamming
FANDUEL INC: Violates Consumer Protection Laws, Says "Moton" Suit
FANDUEL INC: "Berg" Suit Alleges Consumer Protection Law Breach

FANDUEL INC: NY AG Schneiderman Seeks Preliminary Injunction
FEDEX CORP: Court Grants Attorneys' Fees & Costs in "Huhmann"
FLOWERS FOODS: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations
FRANK M. JODZIO: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Loan Modification Fees
GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Lawyers Seek "War Room" Details

GOOGLE INC: Privacy Claims in Cookie Class Action Revived
GORGEOUS LANDSCAPES: Rodriguez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
GROUP HEALTH: Sued Over Neurodevelopmental Services Plan Coverage
HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE: May 4 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
HOMEAWAY INC: Faces "Bonnema" Suit Over Theft of Customer Info

HOMELAND SECURITY: "Brown" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
HOSPITAL CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $215 Million
IOVATE HEALTH: "Kline" Suit Alleges CLRA Violations
J&Y CAFETERIA: Faces "Nunez" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: More Risperdal Trials Underway

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Consolidation of Xarelto Case
JP MORGAN: Three Charged in Massive 2014 Computer Hacking
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Minor League Players Get Class Certification
KAYNE ANDERSON: Order Denying Motion to Strike Affirmed
KOHLER CO: Faces "Davis" Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation

LG CHEM: Protective Order Modified in Antitrust Suit by Microsoft
MARKWINS INTERNATIONAL: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay OT
MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collect Debt, "Fekete" Suit Claims
MUDTECH SERVICES: Faces "Richard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Huffman" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

NBTY INC: Faces "Muir" Suit in Ill. Over Product Misbranding
NEW BLISS: "Li" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
NOBILIS HEALTH: "Hall" Suit Alleges Federal Securities Violations
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Generic Gleevac Drugs Delay
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Generic Gleevac Drugs Delay

PACKERLAND WHEY: "Drevenchuk" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
PANERA LLC: Sued in E.D. Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
PANERA LLC: Sued in E.D. Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
PREMIERE MUSIC: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Shah" Suit Claims
PURE RESTAURANT: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over FLSA Violations

RES-CARE INC: "Tankam" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
RESCUE RANGERS: Faces "Vaughn" Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation
SEBERT LANDSCAPING: Faces "Perez" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Faces "Russell" Suit in Calif. Sup. Ct.
SPEED SOLUTION: Faces "Carcamo" Suit for Labor Code Violation

STARWOOD HOTELS: Faces "Serritiello" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TALLADEGA INTERNATIONAL: "Miller" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime
TECO ENERGY: Faces "Kanarick" Suit Over Merger with Emera
TMCD CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "McIntire" Suit Says
TRUE LEAF FARMS: Must Defend Against "Gomez" Suit in N.D. Cal.

TRUMP HOTEL: Denies Multiple Data Breach Allegations
TYSON FOODS: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Class Action
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Chen to Look Into Arbitration Ruling
UNITED STATES: Animal Rights Group Sues DA Over Foie Gras Label
UNLIMITED RESTORATION: Faces "Beck" Suit for FLSA Violation

VILLAGE OF PALATINE: "Murphy" Files Privacy Suit in Ill.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Herrell" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Rosales" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Jassem" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Santos" Suit Over "CleanDiesel" Vehicles

* Worker Misclassification Problem Prevails


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Water Corp. Workers Exposed to Deadly Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nevada Health Agency Downplays Fibro Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Govt Agency to Remove Fibro from Sydney Dumpsite
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Silver Schemes Legal Fees from Fibro Victims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Broadlea Pupils Sent Home Due to Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liverpool Staff Exposed to Fibro Contamination
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concordia Won't Retract Fibro Report
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gateway Arch Museum Project Stopped Due to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Fire Responders May be Exposed to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor to Clean Fibro in Victoria School

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sri Lanka Fibro Industry Cries Foul Over Ban
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Defendant Limited in Ways to Fight Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Fined for Illegal Dumping on Fibro Waste
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jungle 2 Camp Littered with Fibro Waste
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Says Silver Cheated Them on Fibro Deal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Louisiana Court Remands Fibro Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEP Fines Fitchburg Properties Over Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scores of Lisbon Bldgs Cleared of Fibro by 2017
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Damages Claim of Fibro Victim's Family Dismissed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Says Ramsay Liable for Medical Expenses

ASBESTOS UPDATE: $14 Million Awarded in Fibro Death Case
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cinema Owner Violates Fibro Laws
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rotherham Fly Tipper Fined for Fibro Dumping
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Older Marble Pools
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Steelworker Dies of Fibro-related Disease

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Mal Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipbuilders' Bid to Avoid Fibro Claims Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Clarifies Fibro Doc Production Order
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Set in Fibro Death Suits Against 3M
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Files RICO Counterclaim vs. Garlock

ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Had 2,022 New Claims at June 30


                            *********


20/20 COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Smith, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. 20/20 Communications, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00687-UA-CM (M.D.
Fla., November 3, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

20/20 Communications, Inc. provides video production, video
editing, duplication, and commercial photography services for
corporate and industrial clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      12800 University Drive, Suite 600
      Fort Myers, FL 33907
      Telephone: (239) 433-6880


660 OCEAN: Faces "Castillo" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Castillo, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), v. 660 Ocean Drive, LLC d/b/a ON Ocean 7 Cafe,
Stefano Frittella, Case No. 1:15-cv-24106-MGC (S.D.Fla., Nov. 2,
2015), alleges overtime and minimum wage violations under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


A.M.T. GROUP: "McNerney" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shane McNerney, and all others similarly-situated v. A.M.T. Group,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01260 (N.D.N.Y., October 21, 2015), seeks
to recover damages, unpaid wages, injunctive and declaratory
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendants provide banquet servers, bussers,
expediters/runners and restaurant servers at Blu Stone Bistro, in
Albany, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
      THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
      693 East Avenue
      Rochester, NY 14607
      Tel: (585) 272-0540
      E-mail: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com


AAGJ INC: "Juarez" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Leonel Juarez, Salvador Martinez, Maximo Martinez Lopez, Gerzon
Alonso Colalco and Bernardino Vargas, and all others similarly-
situated v. AAGJ, Inc. dba Joya Restaurant, RayRay Thai, Inc. dba
National Thai Kitchen, Rosko Holdings, Inc. dba Song Thai
Restaurant, Andrew Jerro and Ariel Aparicio, Case No. 2:15-cv-
06050 (E.D.N.Y., October 21, 2015), seek to recover unpaid minimum
wage and overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate three Thai restaurants in various
neighborhoods in Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 385-9700
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces "Enger" Suit Over Cal. Home Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------
Linda Enger, an individual on behalf of herself and a class of
similarly situated persons, v. Allstate Insurance Company, an
Illinois Corporation, and Allstate Property And Casualty Company,
an Illinois Corporation, Lauragallagher, Deanne Lashbrook, Warren
Wood, and Does 1- 10, Case No.  ClV536091 (Cal. Super., County of
San Mateo, Nov. 2, 2015), was filed on behalf of a purported Class
of All California residents insured under an Allstate home owners
insurance policy who received a first party settlement, or offer
for settlement, or an appraisal of a personal property claim
containing personal property paid on an Actual Cash Value basis
for less than the applicable policy limits between November 3,
2011 and the time of trial of this action.

The Allstate Corporation is a holding company for Allstate
Insurance Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C. Brooks Cutter, Esq.,
     John R. Parker Jr., Esq.
     KERSHAW, CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP
     401 Watt Avenue
     Sacramento, CA 95864
     Phone: (916) 448- 9800
     Fax: (916) 669- 4499

        - and -

     Robert A. Buccola, Esq.
     Steven:M. Campora Esq.
     DREYER BABICH BUCCOLA CALLAHAM & WOOD, LLP
     20 Bicentennial Circle
     Sacramento, CA 95826
     Phone: (916) 379- 3500
     Fax: (916) 379-3599


APPLE INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Bag Check Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Apple Inc.
bagged a victory Saturday against a class of retail employees who
sought pay for time spent waiting in line for security screenings.

Two years after workers sued over the off-the-clock searches, U.S.
District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of
California granted Apple's motion for summary judgment, finding
employees chose to submit to the anti-theft screenings by opting
to bring bags and personal Apple products to work.

"Our plaintiffs could all freely choose not to bring bags to work,
thereby avoiding Apple's restrictions during exit searches," Judge
Alsup wrote.  "That free choice is fatal to their claims."

Judge Alsup found the free-choice element doomed plaintiffs'
claims in Frlekin v. Apple, 13-3451, even though the employees
were subject to Apple's control while waiting for and undergoing
the bag checks.  Prior cases "plainly demonstrate" that bag checks
must be mandatory as well as controlled by the employer to be
compensable, Judge Alsup ruled, though he acknowledged there's no
decision exactly on point.  Instead, he relied heavily on
decisions from the California Supreme Court and federal appeals
courts involving employer-provided transportation.

The ruling is a win for Apple lawyers at Littler Mendelson, led by
shareholder Julie Dunne.

Plaintiffs, represented by McLaughlin & Stern partner Lee Shalov,
had argued Judge Alsup should look at employee choice as just one
aspect of a five-factor test to determine whether an activity
should be compensated.  Judge Alsup rejected the proposed test,
finding it hadn't been adopted in any prior decisions.

Mr. Shalov also argued that Apple's logic would allow it to impose
other extra work duties on employees as a consequence of their
choices.  For instance, Mr. Shalov offered at a Nov. 4 hearing,
Apple might require employees to clean the bathroom without pay if
they elected to wear red hats to work.  But Judge Alsup found
whereas cleaning the bathroom is work, and therefore is
compensable, waiting in a security line is not.

"Here, Apple's searches had no relationship to plaintiffs' job
responsibilities; they were peripheral activities relating to
Apple's theft policies," Judge Alsup wrote.  "Moreover, the
plaintiffs themselves did not conduct the searches, our plaintiffs
passively awaited as their managers or security guards conducted
the searches."

Judge Alsup drew on last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, which held that employees
were not entitled to compensation for time spent in security
screenings because the screenings were not "integral and
indispensable" parts of the job.

Plaintiffs were forced to abandon claims under the Federal Labor
Standards Act and similar state laws after Busk but proceeded with
a case under California state law.  To facilitate class
certification earlier this year, plaintiffs agreed to assume that
class members who brought bags did so voluntarily and purely for
personal convenience.  Workers who required bags for special
circumstances, for instance to carry prescription medicine, were
permitted to opt out and pursue individual claims. However, none
did so.  With the question limited to personal convenience, Alsup
sided with Apple.

"There is no dispute as to the genuine nature of our plaintiffs'
freedom to choose to avoid searches," Judge Alsup wrote.  "It is
undisputed that some employees did not bring bags to work and
thereby did not have to be searched when they left the store."


ARYANNI LLC: "Lampley" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sharonda Lampley, and all others similarly-situated v. Aryanni LLC
dba Subway, Jili LLC and Ilish H. Patel, Case No. 1:15-cv-09332
(N.D. Ill., October 21, 2015), seek to recover overtime
compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Illinois Minimum Wage Law, the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act and the Chicago Ordinance of Minimum Wage.

Defendant Aryaani LLC dba Subway is an Illinois limited liability
company with its headquarters at 939 North Plum Grove Road, Suite
A, Schaumburg, Illinois. Aryanni is a Subway franchisee which
operates a Subway store at 5215 West Chicago Avenue, Chicago,
Illinois.

Defendant Jili LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with
its headquarters at 939 North Plum Grove Road, Suite A,
Schaumburg, Illinois. Jili LLC is a Subway franchisee which
operates a Subway store at 5973 West Madison Street, Chicago,
Illinois.

Ilesh H. Patel owns Aryaani and Jili.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Fish, Esq.
      THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
      200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123
      Naperville, IL 60565
      Tel: (630) 355-7590
      E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com


BILL COSBY: New Hampshire Woman Files Defamation Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Philip Marcelo, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
New Hampshire woman, Kristina Ruehli, on Nov. 9 filed a federal
lawsuit saying Bill Cosby falsely accused her of lying when she
came forward last year and said he raped her in 1965.

"In making the false and defamatory statements, Mr. Cosby held
Ms. Ruehli up to public scorn and ridicule, injured her good name
and reputation and caused her severe emotional distress," her
lawyers say in the complaint, filed in federal court in
Springfield, near where Mr. Cosby has a home.

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, follows similar
civil actions by other Mr. Cosby accusers in California and
Massachusetts, including another one in Springfield federal court.

Like Ms. Ruehli, three other women -- Tamara Green, Therese
Serignese and Linda Traitz -- say Mr. Cosby drugged them before
having unwanted sexual contact with them.  Mr. Cosby's lawyers
asked a federal judge to dismiss the three women's case before it
goes to trial, but the judge denied that request last month.

The Associated Press generally doesn't identify people who say
they're victims of sexual abuse, but the women have come forward
to tell their stories.  The women are among dozens who in recent
years have accused Mr. Cosby of sexual impropriety spanning
decades.

Mr. Cosby, who played Dr. Cliff Huxtable on "The Cosby Show" from
1984 to 1992 and has been married for decades, has denied the
women's accusations and has not been criminally charged.  The
statute of limitations has expired in most of the cases against
him.  His spokesman Andrew Wyatt had no comment on Nov. 9.

Ms. Ruehli, who lives in Windham, near the Massachusetts state
line, says in her lawsuit that she met Cosby while working as a
secretary at a Los Angeles talent agency, Artists Agency Corp.,
when she was 22 years old.  She says Mr. Cosby invited her and
others to a party at his home but when she arrived there were few
people there, his wife was out of town and a baby was asleep in a
bedroom.

Ms. Ruehli, who was named Donna Czapla at the time, says she took
two drinks from Mr. Cosby and passed out, only to wake up naked
and in Mr. Cosby's bed.  She says Cosby was trying to force her to
give him oral sex.  She says she left the house after becoming
nauseous and throwing up several times and she never saw or spoke
to Mr. Cosby afterward.

Ms. Ruehli told her story to Philadelphia magazine in November
2014.  In her lawsuit, she says Mr. Cosby's then-lawyer responded
to the accusation by issuing a "false and defamatory statement" in
which he called her and Mr. Cosby's other accusers liars.

Ms. Ruehli's lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.


BILOXI, MS: Faces Suit Over 14th Amendment Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Qumotria Kennedy, Richard Tillery, Joseph Anderson, and all others
similarly-situated v. The City of Biloxi, Mississippi, John
Miller, Judge James Steele, and Judicial Correction Services,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00348 (S.D. Miss., October 21, 2015), seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendants' violation of the
due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The City of Biloxi, Mississippi is a municipal governmental
entity.

Defendant John Miller is the chief of the Biloxi Police
Department.

Defendant Judge James Steele is a part-time judge of the Biloxi
Municipal Court.

Defendant Judicial Correction Services, Inc. provides misdemeanor
probation services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Charles Irvin, Esq.
      AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
      FOUNDATION OF MISSISSIPPI
      233 East Capitol Street
      Jackson, MI 39201
      Tel: (601) 354-3408
      Fax: (601) 355-6465
      E-mail: cirvin@aclu-ms.org

          - and -

      Pieter Teeuwissen, Esq.
      SIMON & TEEUWISSEN PLLC
      621 East Northside Drive
      Jackson, MI 39206
      Tel: (601) 366-2292
      Fax: (601) 362-8444
      E-mail: pteeuwissen@bellsouth.net


BLACK DIAMOND PROPERTIES: Order Awarding Attorney's Fees Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice James A. Edwards of the District Court of Appeal of
Florida, Fifth District, reversed an order awarding attorney's
fees and costs to Defendants in the case captioned CHARLES S.
HAINES, ET. AL, Appellants, v. BLACK DIAMOND PROPERTIES, INC., ET.
AL., Appellees, Case Nos. 5D13-4417 AND, 14-1619, (Fla. App. Ct.)

Plaintiffs Charles S. Haines, Kathy Haines, Richard Conboy,
Jackson Randolph, Larry Laukka, Angelo Masut, Brenda Masut, and
Tom Howell lodged the appeal.  The Defendants are Black Diamond
Properties, Inc., Black Diamond Realty, Inc., and Stanley Olsen.

In siding with the Plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal said the ruling
is reversed because Defendants' motions were not timely filed.
The Appeals Court said the trial court erred in ordering the
return of a cash supersedeas bond to Defendants because all
Plaintiffs obtained money judgments, which were affirmed on
appeal, against Defendant Stanley Olsen.

In 2003, several of the Plaintiffs filed suit against the Black
Diamond Defendants alleging false and misleading advertising in
violation of section 817.41, Florida Statutes (2003), and for
deceptive and unfair trade practices (FDUTPA) pursuant to chapter
501, Florida Statutes (2003), all of which concerned the sale of
certain golf memberships purchased by Plaintiffs. Both statutory
actions permit an award of attorney's fees and costs to prevailing
parties. In the early stages of the proceedings, the case was
being pursued and had been certified as a class action.

Defendants appealed and the Fifth District Court of Appeal
reversed the class certification, finding that significant
individual issues predominated over common issues, given that each
plaintiff would have to testify to establish individual contracts,
misrepresentations and damages.

By mid-2004, the remaining Plaintiffs had joined the lawsuit. At
the end of 2007, Plaintiffs added the individual defendant, Olsen,
to the suit and amended their complaint to include common law
claims sounding in constructive fraud and breach of fiduciary duty
against Defendants. The case proceeded to trial in December 2009.
Because each Plaintiff's claims were distinct, a separate verdict
form was used for each individual Plaintiff and for each of the
married Plaintiffs, i.e., the Masuts and the Haines. The jury
returned verdicts in favor of Plaintiffs Masuts, Haines, Conboy,
and Howell on the misleading advertisement claims under section
817.41, against all Defendants. Additionally, the jury returned
verdicts in favor of all Plaintiffs against Defendant Olsen, only,
for breach of fiduciary duties and constructive fraud. Following
trial, all Plaintiffs, except for Laukka and Randolph, moved for
and were awarded attorney's fees as prevailing parties under
section 817.41(6).

A copy of Judge Edwards' Opinion dated October 23, 2015, is
available at http://bit.ly/1KFqSJ8from Leagle.com.

Steve A. Rothenburg and John C. Bell, Jr., Esq. --
john@bellbrigham.com -- of Bell & Brigham serve as counsel for
Appellants

Jack J. Aiello, Esq. -- jaiello@gunster.com -- and Edward A.
Marod, Esq. -- emarod@gunster.com -- of Gunster, Yoakley &
Stewart, P.A. serve as counsel for Appellees


BULLDOG CONNECTION: "Jaso" Case Wins Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Hilda Tagle granted in part and denied in
part the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification in the
case captioned UAN JASO, JR., et al, Plaintiffs, v. BULLDOG
CONNECTION SPECIALISTS LLC, Defendant, Civil No. 2:15-CV-269,
(S.D. Tex.)

From approximately January 2014 through June 2015, Jaso, Jr.,
worked for Bulldog, an oilfield services company, as a Thread
Representative. Bulldog "provides its clients with connection
solutions and employs Thread Representatives . . . to ensure
certain pipe and casing connects properly while working at a well
site/drilling location." The complaint describes Thread
Representatives as "blue collar" workers who do not have
management responsibilities. Bulldog disputes that
characterization and denies those allegations.

Bulldog paid, and pays, Jaso and Thread Representatives a salary
plus a nondiscretionary bonus for hours worked at a job site.
Plaintiffs aver that Bulldog used a "predetermined formula" with
"specific criteria" to decide whether an employee receives a job
bonus. As such, Plaintiffs claim that the job bonuses should have
been included in the computation of their hourly pay rate before
applying applicable overtime multipliers, but they were instead
not paid for more than forty hours per week, even though they
worked longer hours. Specifically, Plaintiff and the Potential
Class Members regularly worked (and continue to work) more than 12
hours in a day, and more than 80 hours in a week.").

Jaso filed his complaint on June 16, 2015. On July 7, 2015, two
additional alleged Thread Representatives who work for Bulldog
opted in as plaintiffs. Bulldog has answered the complaint and an
additional individual, Larry Richardson, filed an opt-in notice on
September 8, 2015, after the pending motion to certify was filed.

A copy of Judge Tagle's Memorandum and Order dated October 15,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/qy3Djxfrom Leagle.com.

William Clifton Alexander, Esq., and Austin W Anderson, Esq., of
Phipps Anderson Deacon LLP; Craig M Sico, Esq. of Sico, White,
Hoelscher, Harris & Braugh, LLP; and Timothy Dean Raub, Esq. of
Raub Law Firm PC serve as counsel for Plaintiff Juan Jaso, Jr.,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Keith B Sieczkowski, Esq. -- ksieczkowski@branscombpc.com -- and
Heather Marie Woods, Esq. of Branscomb, PC serve as counsel for
Defendant Bulldog Connection Specialists LLC


BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Ruiz" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Raymon Ruiz, and all others similarly-situated v. Bumble
Bee Foods LLC, StarKist Company, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, and King
Oscar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02379 (S.D. Calif., October 21,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged conspiracy to
raise, fix, stabilize or maintain prices as well as allocate
customers, and restrict capacity within the market for the sale of
packaged seafood products (PSPs) in violation of the Sherman Act,
the Clayton Act, and state antitrust and unfair competition law.

The Defendants are the three largest domestic manufacturers of
packaged seafood products.

Bumble Bee Foods LLC is a domestic limited liability company with
its principal place of business located at 9655 Granite Ridge
Drive, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92123. Bumble Bee produces and
sells PSPs throughout the United States, its territories and the
District of Columbia. Bumble Bee is privately owned by Lion
Capital LLP, based in the United Kingdom.

StarKist Company is a domestic corporation with its headquarters
at 225 North Shore Drive, Suite 400, Pittsburgh, PA 15212.
StarKist produces and sells PSPs throughout the United States, its
territories and the District of Columbia. StarKist is privately
owned by Dongwon Industries, based in South Korea.

Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, dba Chicken of the Sea International, is a
domestic limited liability company with its principal place of
business located at 9330 Scranton Road, San Diego, CA 92121. Tri-
Union Seafoods LLC produces and sells PSPs throughout the United
States, its territories and the District of Columbia. Unless
otherwise indicated, Tri-Union Seafoods LLC will be referred to
herein as "CoS." CoS is owned by Thai Union Frozen Products
("TUF"), a company based in Thailand.

King Oscar, Inc. is a domestic corporation with its principal
place of business at 3838 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 115, San
Diego, California 92108. King Oscar produces and sells packaged
seafood products throughout the United States, its territories and
the District of Columbia.

CoS and King Oscar are wholly owned by Thai Union Frozen Products,
a public company headquartered in Thailand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis Stewart, Esq.
      HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 1500
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 338-1133
      Fax: (619) 338-1139
      E-mail: dennis@hulettharper.com

          - and -

      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


C&J ENERGY: Faces "Benson" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Benson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00455
(S.D.Tex., Nov. 2, 2015), seeks to recover all back wages,
liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

C&J is a global company providing fracturing, coil tubing,
wireline, pipe recovery, perforating, pressure pumping, and
wellsite make-up and pressure testing services to the oil and gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
     Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
     1150 Bissonnet
     Houston, TX 77005
     Phone: 713-751-0025
     Fax: 713-751-0030
     E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
             jbresler@fibichlaw.com
             adunlap@fibichlaw.com
             litkin@fibichlaw.com

        - and -

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: 713-877-8788
     Fax: 713-877-8065
     E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


CBE GROUP: Faces "Szumilas" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bogdan Szumilas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. The CBE Group Incorporated, Case No. 2:15-cv-08595-AB-
GJS (C.D. Cal., November 3, 2015) is brought against the Defendant
for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting Plaintiff and
class members on their cellular telephones via an automatic
telephone dialing system, without their prior express consent.

The CBE Group Incorporated specializes in debt-collection services
on behalf of third party creditors including businesses in the
communications, financial, utility, education, and healthcare
industries, and prides itself on outsourced call center solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
      Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
      E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
              apersinger@bursor.com
              ykrivoshey@bursor.com


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Settlement in "Cowit" Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy S. Black approved the Settlement Agreement
and Release in the case captioned RAIG COWIT, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:12-CV-869,
(S.D. Ohio)

Craig Cowit, Ina N. Littrell and Ray Dickey, and Defendant
CitiMortgage, Inc. entered into the Settlement Agreement and
Release dated June 19, 2015.

In his Order and Judgment dated October 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/LSoVDTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Black approved the
payment of Representative Plaintiff Awards in the following
amounts:

     $20,000 for Cowit; and
     $10,000 for Littrell and
     $10,000 for Dickey (Litteral's spouse).

The Court also approved an award to Class Counsel in the amount of
$1,325,000.00 covering all of Class Counsel's reasonable fees,
costs and expenses pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h).

The Court overruled the single objection filed by Justin D. Hively
because it lacks merit. The Settlement, the Court held, provides
substantial benefits to the members of the Class. The Settlement
requires one of the largest financial institutions in the country
to improve and standardize the way it handles and accounts for
Court Costs and Refunded Costs to ensure that Court Costs charged
to borrowers in connection with foreclosure actions in Ohio and
subsequently refunded in whole or in part to Defendant, as well as
its agents and/or attorneys, are accurately and timely refunded to
borrowers. Thus the objection that the Class could have obtained
the same benefits had the lawsuit never been filed is wholly
inaccurate. Moreover, the Settlement preserves the right of any
member of the class to pursue an action for money damages.

In addition, the Court ruled that Hively is not a Settlement Class
Member under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (e)(5) because he does not fall
within the class definition and therefore does not have standing
to object to the Settlement, which is a further basis for
overruling the objection.

Colleen Marie Hegge, Esq. -- chegge@statmanharris.com -- Jeffrey
Phillip Harris, Esq. -- jharris@statmanharris.com -- and Sylvie
Derrien, Esq. of Statman, Harris and Eyrich LLC serve as counsel
for Plaintiff Craig Cowit

Kara Ann Czanik, Esq. of Graydon, Head and Ritchey, LLP; Debra Lee
Bogo-Ernst,  Esq. -- dernst@mayerbrown.com -- Joseph Snapper, Esq.
-- jsnapper@mayerbrown.com -- Lucia Nale, Esq. --
lnale@mayerbrown.com -- and Thomas Panoff, Esq. --
tpanoff@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP serve as counsel for
Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc.


CREDIT CONTROL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Mednick" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meira Mednick, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credit Control Services, Inc. d/b/a Credit
Collection Services, Case No. 1:15-cv-06302 (E.D.N.Y., November 4,
2015) seeks redress for the illegal practices of the Defendant
concerning the collection of debts, in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act

Credit Control Services, Inc. is regularly engaged, for profit, in
the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam J. Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, New York 11516
      Telephone (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile (516) 791-4411


DAN & GLENN: Faces "Rangel-Bustos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Rangel-Bustos and Sara Karina Ramos v. Dan & Glenn
Investments, Inc. d/b/a Chios Peruvian Grill, Glenn O. Ramirez,
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC598177 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
November 3, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and eatery in Los
Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack D. Josephson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON, APC
      3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213)738-5225


DODGE, KS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Due Process Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence J. Martinez, and all others similarly-situated v. The
City of Dodge City, and Ford County, Case No. 2:15-cv-09344 (D.
Kans., October 21, 2015), seeks declaratory, injunctive, and
compensatory relief against the Defendant for alleged violation of
the due process and equal protection clauses of the constitution.

Defendant City of Dodge City is a municipal corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Kansas. The City operates the Dodge
City Police Department and the Dodge City Municipal Court.

Defendant Ford County operates the Ford County Jail. It instructs
indigent arrestees such as Plaintiff that they must remain in jail
unless they can pay the generically scheduled cash bond.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Antosh, Esq.
      GARCIA & ANTOSH, LLP
      1401 Central Avenue
      Dodge City, KS 67801
      Tel: (620) 225-7400
      E-mail: pja22@yahoo.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: NY AG Schneiderman Seeks Preliminary Injunction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed an enforcement action in
New York State Supreme Court in the County of New York, seeking a
preliminary injunction against DraftKings and FanDuel.  The
Attorney General's suit details alleged violations of law by
DraftKings and FanDuel.

The Attorney General's memorandum of law and complaint against
DraftKings can be found at:

     http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/DK_MOL.pdf
     http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/DK_Complaint.pdf

A copy of the memorandum of law and complaint against FanDuel can
be found at:

     http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/FD_MOL.pdf
     http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/FD_Complaint.pdf

The following are excerpts of the memorandum of law filed by the
Office of the Attorney General:

The New York State Constitution has prohibited bookmaking and
other forms of sports gambling since 1894.  Under New York law, a
wager constitutes gambling when it depends on either a (1) "future
contingent event not under [the bettor's] control or influence" or
(2) "contest of chance."  So-called Daily Fantasy Sports ("DFS")
wagers fit squarely in both these definitions, though by meeting
just one of the two definitions DFS would be considered gambling.
DFS is nothing more than a rebranding of sports betting. It is
plainly illegal.

Yet FanDuel and DraftKings insist that DFS is not gambling because
it involves skill.  But this argument fails for two clear reasons.
First, this view overlooks the explicit prohibition against
wagering on future contingent events, a statutory test that
requires no judgment of the relative importance of skill and
chance -- they are irrelevant to the question.  Second, the key
factor establishing a game of skill is not the presence of skill,
but the absence of a material element of chance.  Here, chance
plays just as much of a role (if not more) than it does in games
like poker and blackjack.  A few good players in a poker
tournament may rise to the top based on their skill; but the game
is still gambling.  So is DFS.

FanDuel and DraftKings' current denials about DFS constituting
gambling are belied by how the sites depicted themselves in the
past and how they portray themselves behind closed doors.
FanDuel's DFS contests were designed by a veteran of the legal
online betting industry in the United Kingdom, Nigel Eccles.  The
company admitted to an early investor that its target market is
male sports fans who "cannot gamble online legally."

DraftKings depicts itself to investors in a similar fashion. For
example, in one investor presentation, DraftKings pitched itself
to a prospective investor by noting the "Global opportunity for
online betting," pointing to the massive revenue of the "global
online poker market," and making direct comparisons throughout the
presentation to poker and sports wagering.

The CEO of DraftKings previously spoke openly about DraftKings as
a gambling company.  He called DFS a "mash[-]up between poker and
fantasy sports," suggested that DraftKings operates in the
"gambling space," and  described its revenue model as "identical
to a casino."

The rejection of the gambling label by the DFS sites is
particularly hard to square with the overt strategy of recruiting
gamblers.  For FanDuel, this has meant hiring a former top
executive from Full Tilt, the online poker company, and
affiliating with gambling industry stalwarts like "Vegas Insider"
and BetVega, a sports betting and handicapping website.  For
DraftKings, this has meant aligning itself closely and negotiating
sponsorships with other gambling ventures, like the World Series
of Poker and the Belmont Stakes.

DraftKings has also embedded gambling keywords into the
programming code for its website.  Some of these keywords include
"fantasy golf betting," "weekly fantasy basketball betting,"
"weekly fantasy hockey betting," "weekly fantasy football
betting," "weekly fantasy college football betting," "weekly
fantasy college basketball betting," "Fantasy College Football
Betting," "daily fantasy basketball betting," and "Fantasy College
Basketball Betting."  This increases the likelihood that search
engines, like Google, will send users looking for gambling
straight to the DraftKings site.

FanDuel's advertisements commonly showcase testimonials from
ostensibly ordinary DFS players (g.,"Zack from Fairfield,
California"), and play up the ease of playing and of winning huge
cash prizes . . .  The reality is that like poker, blackjack, and
horseracing, a small percentage of professional gamblers use
research, software, and large bankrolls to extract a
disproportionate share of DFS jackpots.  With poker and DFS,
professional players, known as "sharks," profit at the expense of
casual players, known as "minnows."  The numbers show that the
vast majority of players are net losers, losing far more money
playing on the sites than they win.  DraftKings data show that
89.3% of DFS players had an overall negative return on investment
across 2013 and 2014.

While irresponsibly denying their status as gambling companies,
the DFS Sites pose precisely the same risks to New York residents
that New York's anti-gambling laws were intended to avoid.
Experts in gambling addiction and other compulsive behaviors have
identified DFS as a serious and growing threat to people at risk
for, or already struggling with, gambling-related illnesses.

Jeffrey L. Derevensky, Director of the International Centre for
Youth Gambling Problems and High-Risk Behavior at McGill
University, notes that, among other things, false or misleading
representations of the skill involved in DFS "can lead players to
a preoccupation with DFS, chasing of losses, and developing
symptoms and behaviors associated with a gambling disorder."


ECOSERV LLC: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Berry" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Mitchell Berry, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Ecoserv, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-02632 (W.D.
Lo., November 4, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime and minimum wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Ecoserv, LLC operates an oilfield services company providing
cleaning and waste disposal services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq.
      KENNETH D. ST. PE, LLC
      311 West University Avenue, Suite A
      Lafayette, LO 70506
      Telephone: (337) 534-4043


EQUITRUST LIFE: Summary Adjudication Order Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Dennis M. Perluss of the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Seven, affirmed the trial
court's order granting the motion by EquiTrust Life Insurance
Company for summary adjudication of class action plaintiffs'
contract claims, denying class certification of the plaintiffs'
claim under the unfair competition law, and denying the
plaintiffs' request to add individuals as class representatives.

The appellate case is captioned DANIEL TABARES et al., Plaintiffs
and Appellants, v. EQUITRUST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant and
Respondent, No.  B254409, (Cal. App. Ct.)

The underlying class action was filed in 2008 by purchasers of
EquiTrust's deferred equity-indexed annuities. Named plaintiffs
Daniel and Rhodora Tabares, Judy L. Taylor, Elizabeth Young and
Judith Gilbert appeal from orders granting EquiTrust's motion for
summary adjudication of their contract claims, denying class
certification of their claim under the unfair competition law
(Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.) (UCL) and denying their
request to add Young and Gilbert as class representatives on the
cause of action for declaratory relief. The named plaintiffs
purchased different EquiTrust annuities. According to Daniel and
Rhodora Tabares, they were approached by defendant Joseph Sackey
at their worksite, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA). Sackey held himself out as a
financial planner and annuity specialist who had assisted more
than 100 MTA retirees find profitable investments for their
government pensions. In May 2006 Sackey convinced Daniel, a 23-
year employee of the MTA, to retire early and roll his entire
government pension of more than $395,000 into a MarketValue Index
annuity issued by EquiTrust. Based on Sackey's representations,
Daniel understood he would begin to receive monthly interest
payments of $2,500 shortly after issuance of the annuity. Contrary
to that representation, the annuity purchased by Daniel did not
provide for commencement of distribution payments until 2061 when
Daniel would be more than 100 years old. Further, instead of the
high returns promised by Sackey, the annuity bore a minimum
guaranteed interest rate ranging from 1.5 to 2 percent, and only
87.5 percent of Daniel's investment was guaranteed from loss. Any
withdrawals from the annuity within the first 10 years of purchase
were subject to substantial surrender charges of up to 12 percent.
Daniel was never shown a sample contract before the sale. He never
incurred a surrender charge or MVA.

Plaintiffs moved for certification of two classes in December
2009: (1) all California residents who had purchased one of four
specified deferred annuity insurance contracts from EquiTrust; and
(2) all California residents over the age of 60 who had purchased
one of the four annuities. On August 2, 2010 the court granted
certification on two claims: (1) the contract cause of action on
the theory EquiTrust had breached the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing by manipulating renewal rates and caps to recoup the
costs of commissions and bonuses; and (2) the declaratory relief
cause of action for the second (senior) class based on the alleged
violation of section 10127.13. The court denied certification of
the fraud and UCL causes of action as to both classes on the
ground there was no evidence either Tabares or Taylor, the only
two named plaintiffs at this point, had actually relied on
misrepresentations made by EquiTrust and thus lacked standing
under the UCL. With respect to Taylor, the court also found she
was an inadequate class representative because of discrepancies
between her deposition testimony and her signed declaration:
Taylor remembered virtually nothing about the provisions of the
annuity she had purchased or disclosures made to her about its
provisions. Because Taylor was at the time the only named
plaintiff aged 60 or older, the senior class was left without a
named class representative.

Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred as a matter of law (1) by
concluding EquiTrust had not breached the annuity contracts or
violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by
setting rates at levels that negated its promise of bonuses and
imposing the burden of high commissions on policyholders; and (2)
by refusing to certify the UCL "unlawful" prong claim based on the
class representatives' failure to demonstrate reliance. Further,
plaintiffs contend the court abused its discretion by refusing to
allow a former annuity holder who had surrendered her contract to
serve as the class representative for the declaratory relief
claim.

In his Order dated October 9, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/HXJ6zLfrom Leagle.com, Judge Perluss affirmed the
trial court's orders. EquiTrust is to recover its costs on appeal.
Judge Perluss explained that the integrated contract identifies a
premium bonus that is defined only with reference to the annuity's
Accumulation Value. The purchasers received the premium bonuses
promised in the contracts. That the individual annuities varied in
ultimate credit accumulation based on whether a particular annuity
included an upfront premium bonus or lower credits over time does
not constitute a breach of contract; to the contrary, the rates
were disclosed, as was the range of discretion afforded to
EquiTrust by the contract.

According to Judge Perluss, the perception by some purchasers they
would receive a 10 percent bonus (with no cost to them or tradeoff
in the promised return credits) reflects more than anything the
lack of sophistication of those purchasers and their vulnerability
to misleading sales tactics. It does not, however, give rise to a
contract claim and, indeed, is inadmissible to vary the express
language of the contract. Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the
standing requirement applicable to their UCL cause of action.
There was no breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing as a matter of law.

Robert S. Gerstein, Esq. -- robert.gerstein1@verizon.net  -- of
Law Offices of Robert S. Gerstein; and Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
Gianelli & Morris serve as counsel for Plaintiffs and Appellants

Margaret M. Grignon, Esq., Robert D. Phillips, Jr., Esq. --
rphillips@reedsmith.com  -- James C. Martin, Esq. --
jcmartin@reedsmith.com -- Zareh A. Jaltorossian, Esq. --
zjaltorossian@reedsmith.com -- Kathy J. Huang, Esq. --
khuang@reedsmith.com -- and Thomas A. Evans, Esq. --
tevans@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith serve as counsel for
Defendant and Respondent


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Yoo" Suit for Data Security Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Yoo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-09787 (N.D.Ill., Nov. 2, 2015), claims monetary damages,
statutory damages, and all other relief authorized in equity or by
law on behalf of persons whose private personal information was
alleged compromised by Experian's lax cybersecurity.

Experian is a consumer reporting agency, which regularly engages
in the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit
information or other information on consumers for the purpose of
providing consumer reports to third parties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
     Michael L. Silverman, Esq.
     John S. Marrese, Esq.
     SIPRUT PC
     17 North State Street, Suite 1600
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: 312.236.0000
     Fax: 312.878.1342
     Email: jsiprut@siprut.com
            msilverman@siprut.com
            jmarrese@siprut.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Roche" Suit Over Alleged Text Spamming
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Facebook Inc.
was hit with a lawsuit accusing the company of violating
restrictions on telemarketing by sending "unwanted and annoying"
text messages.

Florida resident Deborah Roche accuses Facebook of sending her
repetitive texts over the past two years using an automatic
telephone dialing system in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  The suit filed in the Northern District of
California by Lemberg Law's Trinette Kent claims that Roche was
"bombarded" with texts inviting her to visit facebook.com and sign
up for its service.  Roche is asking for trebled statutory damages
of up to $1,500 per text.

The suit is the second Kent and her firm have filed this year
against Facebook in the Northern District.  In March, Lemberg Law
filed a class action claiming that Facebook violates the TCPA by
sending unsolicited text messages via its "login notifications"
alerts.  The suit claims that people who have not signed up for
the alerts -- including non-Facebook users -- have been sent spam
text messages by the feature.  Lawyers from Kirkland & Ellis
represent Facebook in that case, which is pending before U.S.
District Judge Jon Tigar.

A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment on the newly filed
suit.


FANDUEL INC: Violates Consumer Protection Laws, Says "Moton" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Moton and Jeffrey Wright, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Fanduel, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and Draftkings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case
No. 2:15-cv-08557-JFW-PLA (C.D.Cal., Nov. 2, 2015), alleges that
Defendants operate daily fantasy sports ("DFS") websites in a
manner that violates California and Ohio law, as well as analogous
common and consumer protection laws in each state in which they
operate.

The Defendants operate daily fantasy sports websites. DFS is a
non-regulated industry where individuals compete against other
individuals in fantasy sports games. Defendant FanDuel, Inc., is a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New
York, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bradley K. King, Esq.
     AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
     1016 Palm Avenue
     West Hollywood, CA 90069
     Phone: (310) 474-9111
     Fax: (310) 474-8585
     E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
             bking@ahdootwolfson.com


FANDUEL INC: "Berg" Suit Alleges Consumer Protection Law Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Berg, Individually And On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. Fanduel, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
Draftkings, Inc. a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-08612
(S.D.N.Y., Nov. 2, 2015) alleges that Defendants violate New York
law, as well as analogous common and consumer protection laws in
each state in which they operate.

The Defendant companies operate daily fantasy sports websites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
     768 Plandome Road
     Manhasset, NY 11030
     Phone: (516) 426-6870
     Fax: (212) 658-9685
     E-mail:pcwhalen@gmail.com

        - and -

     John G. Emerson, Esq.
     EMERSON SCOTT LLP
     830 Apollo Lane
     Houston, TX 77058
     Phone: (281) 488-8854
     Fax: (281) 488-8867
     E-mail:jemerson@emersonfirm.com

        - and -

     David G. Scott, Esq.
     EMERSON SCOTT LLP
     1301 Scott Street
     Little Rock, AR 72202
     Phone: (501) 907-2555
     Fax: (501) 907-2556
     E-mail:dscott@emersonfirm.com

        - and -

     Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
     JOHNSON VINES ATTORNEYS
     2226 Cottondale Lane, #210
     Little Rock, AR 72202
     Phone: (501) 408-2623
     E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com


FANDUEL INC: NY AG Schneiderman Seeks Preliminary Injunction
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed an enforcement action in
New York State Supreme Court in the County of New York, seeking a
preliminary injunction against DraftKings and FanDuel.  The
Attorney General's suit details alleged violations of law by
DraftKings and FanDuel.

The Attorney General's memorandum of law and complaint against
DraftKings can be found at:

     http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/DK_MOL.pdf
     http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/DK_Complaint.pdf

A copy of the memorandum of law and complaint against FanDuel can
be found at:

     http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/FD_MOL.pdf
     http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/FD_Complaint.pdf

The following are excerpts of the memorandum of law filed by the
Office of the Attorney General:

The New York State Constitution has prohibited bookmaking and
other forms of sports gambling since 1894.  Under New York law, a
wager constitutes gambling when it depends on either a (1) "future
contingent event not under [the bettor's] control or influence" or
(2) "contest of chance."  So-called Daily Fantasy Sports ("DFS")
wagers fit squarely in both these definitions, though by meeting
just one of the two definitions DFS would be considered gambling.
DFS is nothing more than a rebranding of sports betting. It is
plainly illegal.

Yet FanDuel and DraftKings insist that DFS is not gambling because
it involves skill.  But this argument fails for two clear reasons.
First, this view overlooks the explicit prohibition against
wagering on future contingent events, a statutory test that
requires no judgment of the relative importance of skill and
chance -- they are irrelevant to the question.  Second, the key
factor establishing a game of skill is not the presence of skill,
but the absence of a material element of chance.  Here, chance
plays just as much of a role (if not more) than it does in games
like poker and blackjack.  A few good players in a poker
tournament may rise to the top based on their skill; but the game
is still gambling.  So is DFS.

FanDuel and DraftKings' current denials about DFS constituting
gambling are belied by how the sites depicted themselves in the
past and how they portray themselves behind closed doors.
FanDuel's DFS contests were designed by a veteran of the legal
online betting industry in the United Kingdom, Nigel Eccles.  The
company admitted to an early investor that its target market is
male sports fans who "cannot gamble online legally."

DraftKings depicts itself to investors in a similar fashion. For
example, in one investor presentation, DraftKings pitched itself
to a prospective investor by noting the "Global opportunity for
online betting," pointing to the massive revenue of the "global
online poker market," and making direct comparisons throughout the
presentation to poker and sports wagering.

The CEO of DraftKings previously spoke openly about DraftKings as
a gambling company.  He called DFS a "mash[-]up between poker and
fantasy sports," suggested that DraftKings operates in the
"gambling space," and  described its revenue model as "identical
to a casino."

The rejection of the gambling label by the DFS sites is
particularly hard to square with the overt strategy of recruiting
gamblers.  For FanDuel, this has meant hiring a former top
executive from Full Tilt, the online poker company, and
affiliating with gambling industry stalwarts like "Vegas Insider"
and BetVega, a sports betting and handicapping website.  For
DraftKings, this has meant aligning itself closely and negotiating
sponsorships with other gambling ventures, like the World Series
of Poker and the Belmont Stakes.

DraftKings has also embedded gambling keywords into the
programming code for its website.  Some of these keywords include
"fantasy golf betting," "weekly fantasy basketball betting,"
"weekly fantasy hockey betting," "weekly fantasy football
betting," "weekly fantasy college football betting," "weekly
fantasy college basketball betting," "Fantasy College Football
Betting," "daily fantasy basketball betting," and "Fantasy College
Basketball Betting."  This increases the likelihood that search
engines, like Google, will send users looking for gambling
straight to the DraftKings site.

FanDuel's advertisements commonly showcase testimonials from
ostensibly ordinary DFS players (g.,"Zack from Fairfield,
California"), and play up the ease of playing and of winning huge
cash prizes . . .  The reality is that like poker, blackjack, and
horseracing, a small percentage of professional gamblers use
research, software, and large bankrolls to extract a
disproportionate share of DFS jackpots.  With poker and DFS,
professional players, known as "sharks," profit at the expense of
casual players, known as "minnows."  The numbers show that the
vast majority of players are net losers, losing far more money
playing on the sites than they win.  DraftKings data show that
89.3% of DFS players had an overall negative return on investment
across 2013 and 2014.

While irresponsibly denying their status as gambling companies,
the DFS Sites pose precisely the same risks to New York residents
that New York's anti-gambling laws were intended to avoid.
Experts in gambling addiction and other compulsive behaviors have
identified DFS as a serious and growing threat to people at risk
for, or already struggling with, gambling-related illnesses.

Jeffrey L. Derevensky, Director of the International Centre for
Youth Gambling Problems and High-Risk Behavior at McGill
University, notes that, among other things, false or misleading
representations of the skill involved in DFS "can lead players to
a preoccupation with DFS, chasing of losses, and developing
symptoms and behaviors associated with a gambling disorder."


FEDEX CORP: Court Grants Attorneys' Fees & Costs in "Huhmann"
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashat granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, costs and pre-and post-
judgment interest in the case captioned DALE HUHMANN, Plaintiff,
v. FEDEX CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-00787-
BAS(NLS), (S.D. Cal.)

In her Order dated October 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/olOuIufrom Leagle.com, Judge Bashant granted in part
and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees, costs
and pre- and post-judgment interest. Defendant is ordered to pay
$227,585.00 in attorney's fees, $75.76 in costs, $217.52 in pre-
judgment interest, and post-judgment interest at a rate of 0.25%
compounded annually.

Brian J Lawler, Esq. -- blawler@pilotlawcorp.com -- of Pilot Law
PC serves as counsel for Plaintiff Dale Huhmann, an individual

Craig E. Lindberg, Esq. -- craig.lindberg@fedex.com -- of FedEx
Express; David Porter Knox, Esq. and Jane M. Flynn, Esq. of
Federal Express Corporation serve as counsel for Defendant Federal
Express Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, inclusive doing
business as FedEx Express


FLOWERS FOODS: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------
Antoine Richard, Darrell Richard, Chris Meche, Derby Doucet, Sr.,
Kevin Rabeaux, Mark Louviere, and all others similarly-situated v.
Flowers Foods, Inc.; Flowers Baking Company of Lafayette, LLC;
Flowers Baking Company of Baton Rouge, LLC; Flowers Baking Company
of Alexandria, LLC; and Flowers Baking Company of New Orleans,
LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-02557 (W.D. La., October 21, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for violations of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and the Louisiana Payment of Employees law.

Flowers Foods, headquartered in Thomasville, Georgia, is a
producer and marketer of packaged bakery foods in the United
States. The company operates 46 bakeries that produce breads,
buns, rolls, snack cakes, pastries, and tortillas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Ryan M. Goudelocke, Esq.
      DURIO, MCGOFFIN, STAGG & ACKERMANN
      220 Heymann Boulevard
      Post Office Box 51308
      Lafayette, LA 70505-1308
      Tel: (337) 233-0300
      Fax: (337) 233-0694
      E-mail: ryan@dmsfirm.com


FRANK M. JODZIO: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Loan Modification Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Smith and Maribel Smith, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Frank M. Jodzio d/b/a Midpoint Law
Group, Does 1 Through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC599724 (Cal.
Super. Ct., November 2, 2015) is brought on behalf of all
California consumers who were charged and paid advance fees and
other compensation for loan modification services by the
Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate a law firm located at 8200 Wilshire
Blvd., Suite 200, Beverly Hills, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Boyko, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. BOYKO
      3655 Torrance Blvd., Suite 240
      Torrance, CA 90503-4842
      Telephone: (310) 316-9797
      Facsimile: (310) 943-2188


GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Lawyers Seek "War Room" Details
----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that amid a ruling on Nov. 9 that General Motors Co. could face
punitive damages over its ignition-switch defect, plaintiffs
lawyers poised for the first trial are demanding details about
what they say was a "war room" the automaker created in the
recalls' aftermath.

The decision by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber of the
Southern District of New York allowing for punitive damages raised
the prospects for a bigger verdict against GM and clarifies his
April 15 ruling that barred lawsuits over injuries and deaths
occurring prior to the automaker's bankruptcy filing in 2009.

In his latest decision, Judge Gerber found that GM could be liable
for punitive damages even if its actions involved knowledge of the
defect it inherited prior to its bankruptcy -- such as old
documents or employees who stayed with the company.

Both sides were scheduled to meet to discuss the impact of Judge
Gerber's ruling on six bellwether trials over injuries and deaths
associated with the defect, the first of which starts Jan. 11.

In preparation for that trial, plaintiffs lawyers filed a motion
this month to fly an employee from Detroit to Seattle for a Nov.
19 deposition about a "war room" the automaker allegedly created
last year to deal with fallout from the defect that involved
recalling 2.6 million cars and trucks worldwide.

The war room contained "death charts" of cases hung in a row on
the wall and pictures of the ignition switch and steering column,
argues Steve Berman, co-lead plaintiffs counsel in the ignition-
switch litigation.

Mr. Berman said plaintiffs attorneys first heard of the room,
where meetings among engineers and lawyers took place, when GM
senior engineer Dwayne Davidson mentioned it at a deposition six
months ago.

"We thought, 'Wow, this is useful -- getting inside their head as
to how they put all this together,'" Mr. Berman said.

GM has since dismantled the room, according to the plaintiffs'
motion.  So Mr. Berman's firm, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, has
used photographs and other materials obtained through discovery to
convert one of its conference rooms in Seattle into a mockup of
the "war room."

Now, plaintiffs lawyers want a GM employee to sit in the room as
part of a videotaped deposition to demonstrate what GM used it
for.

GM has resisted the request, which it called a "stage show" and
contrary to a previous order that its representatives be deposed
in Detroit or New York, according to a court paper filed on
Nov. 9.

Regardless of where it takes place, the testimony of the GM
employee about the war room will join more than 240 people who
have been deposed ahead of the first trial, including former GM
general counsel Michael Millikin and chief executive officer Mary
Barra. With Gerber's ruling, plaintiffs lawyers hope to convince
jurors to award punitive damages in the case.

"We're going to prove that GM knew of the ignition-switch effect
and concealed that defect," Mr. Berman said, "and that it can be
held responsible for both compensatory and punitive damages for
that conduct."

Plaintiffs lawyers, in trying to prove GM's knowledge of the
defect, point to a $900 million deferred-prosecution agreement
that GM reached on Sept. 17 with the U.S. Justice Department in
which it admitted that it failed to adequately disclose the defect
from federal regulators.

GM disputed the significance of the ruling. In an email, spokesman
James Cain noted that Gerber also found GM didn't automatically
assume liability for punitive damages for pre-2009 injuries and
deaths.  The judge also stayed bellwether cases that "improperly
rely on Old GM conduct."

"Although it is true that the Court also held that New GM could be
liable for punitive damages for 'independent claims' based solely
on New GM's conduct, plaintiffs to date have not established any
such independent claims against New GM," Mr. Cain wrote.

To date, GM has settled much of the litigation over the ignition-
switch defect.  On Sept. 17, GM paid $575 million to settle about
1,380 lawsuits -- all personal injury and wrongful death cases,
plus one shareholder action.  GM also has estimated $625 million
in payments went to victims who submitted claims through a
compensation fund.

But hundreds of cases are pending in multidistrict litigation
before U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District
of New York and in state courts across the country.  Most of the
remaining cases are consumer class actions by consumers seeking
economic damages, like the diminished value of their cars, but
hundreds involve injuries and deaths.

The first trial, which will take place in New York, comes in a
case brought by Robert Scheuer, who was injured in a 2014 crash in
Oklahoma, involving his 2003 Saturn Ion.  According to his
complaint, Mr. Scheuer, 47, suffered neck pain and was
hospitalized after the ignition switch slipped into the accessory
position, disabling the air bags when he crashed into a tree at 60
miles per hour to avoid another vehicle.


GOOGLE INC: Privacy Claims in Cookie Class Action Revived
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has said Google's "broad" and
"surreptitious" practice of overriding cookie blockers to access
users' Internet history information raised serious concerns under
California privacy laws, vacating a lower court's dismissal of two
claims in a class action lawsuit.

The court, meanwhile, upheld the dismissal of all other counts
against Google, including claims under federal law that the
company violated federal wiretap and computer fraud laws.

The case, captioned In re Google Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy
Litigation, came out of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware, where U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson tossed the
claims.

Judge Julio M. Fuentes wrote for the appellate panel.  His
decision was joined by Judges D. Michael Fisher and Cheryl Ann
Krause.

The claims were initially thrown out for failing to show a serious
privacy invasion or an egregious breach of social norms.  But on
appeal, the court found Google may have intruded on a reasonable
right to privacy under state law.

"Based on the pled facts, a reasonable fact-finder could indeed
deem Google's conduct 'highly offensive' or 'an egregious breach
of social norms,'" the 60-page opinion read.  "A reasonable jury
could conclude that Google's alleged practices constitute the
serious invasion of privacy contemplated by California law."

The privacy claims were contained in counts IV and V of a class
action lawsuit brought by users of Apple's Safari and Microsoft's
Internet Explorer Web browsers, who made putative claims against
Google and three Internet advertising companies.

The complaint followed a revelation from Stanford University
graduate student Jonathan Mayer that Google and its three co-
defendants, Vibrant Media, Media Innovation Group and WPP, were
exploiting loopholes in both browsers' cookie blockers, despite
public assurances to the contrary.

Cookies enable websites and advertisers to track users' Internet
history, allowing them to create detailed user profiles and
deliver highly-targeted advertisements.

A Wall Street Journal article detailing Mr. Mayer's report touched
off an investigation by the Department of Justice that resulted in
a $22.5 million civil penalty for Google, which admitted no
wrongdoing.  Google also reached a $17 million settlement with 38
state attorneys general.

The flurry of attention triggered the filing of a series of
lawsuits in district courts across the country.  Those were
consolidated into one class action before Judge Robinson in the
District of Delaware, where the court dismissed all nine counts
for failure to state a claim.

On appeal, Judge Fuentes reversed the lower court's dismissal of
parallel privacy claims under the California Constitution and the
state's tort law.

Google argued the plaintiffs voluntarily sent the company their
Internet history information, and that the use of tracking cookies
is commonplace.  Courts "routinely" find no actionable privacy
invasion in such cases, the company said.

Judge Fuentes rejected Google's stance, saying its emphasis on
tracking and disclosure "amounts to a smokescreen."

"What is notable about this case is how Google accomplished its
tracking," he said.  "Allegedly, this was by overriding the
plaintiffs' cookie blockers, while concurrently announcing in its
privacy policy that Internet users could 'reset your browser to
refuse all cookies.'"

Under California tort law, accessing data is considered actionable
when it is an unwanted violation of the law or social norms by
electronic or covert means, and the state's constitution provides
for an opportunity to be notified and consent to intrusion.

"As the activated cookie blocker equates, in our view, to an
express, clearly communicated denial of consent for installation
of cookies, we find Google 'intru[ded] upon reasonable
expectations of privacy,'" Judge Fuentes said.

The two claims were the only counts to survive on appeal. Fuentes
agreed with the district court in tossing four other claims under
state law and three under federal law, which alleged violations of
the Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act and Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act.

Google did not return a request for comment.  The company was
represented by Colleen Bal -- cbal@wsgr.com -- of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati in San Francisco.  She did not return a call
seeking comment.

Jason O. Barnes -- law@mobarneslaw.com -- of Barnes & Associates
in Jefferson City, Missouri, argued for the plaintiffs.  He was
not available for comment.


GORGEOUS LANDSCAPES: Rodriguez Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis H. Rodriguez and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Gorgeous Landscapes & Lawns, Inc. and Jesus L. Rodriguez, Case No.
4:15-cv-10203-JLK (S.D. Fla., November 3, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a landscaping and lawn care
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


GROUP HEALTH: Sued Over Neurodevelopmental Services Plan Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
M.R., by and through her parents and guardians, Mi.R. and C.R.,
individually, on behalf of Puget Sound Energy, Inc. Health Benefit
Plan, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals and plans v.
Group Health Cooperative, Case No. 2:15-cv-01729 (W.D. Wa.,
November 3, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's refusal to provide
coverage for these neurodevelopmental mental health services under
the Mental Health Benefit of the large group self-funded Plans it
administers.

Group Health Cooperative owns and operates a medical center in
King County, Washington

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
      Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
      SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER
      999 Third Avenue, Suite 3650
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 223-0303
      Facsimile: (206) 223-0246
      E-mail: rspoonemore@sylaw.com
              ehamburger@sylaw.com


HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE: May 4 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
If You Bought or Leased a New Motor Vehicle, or Bought Certain
Replacement Parts in the U.S. Since 2000, You Could Get Money from
Settlements.

You Could Get Money Settlements Totaling Approximately $54 Million

Two Defendants and their affiliates ("Settling Defendants") have
agreed to Settlements resolving claims that they fixed the price
of certain motor vehicle components.  This may have caused
individuals and businesses to pay more for new motor vehicles and
certain replacement parts.  The Settling Defendants deny any
claims of wrongdoing.

The Settling Defendants are: Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd.
("HIAMS"), and T.RAD Co., Ltd. and T.RAD North America, Inc.
(together, "T.RAD").

Am I included?

You may be included if, from 2000 to 2015, you: (1) bought or
leased an eligible new vehicle in the U.S. (not for resale), or
(2) indirectly paid for an eligible motor vehicle replacement
part.  Indirectly means you bought the replacement part from
someone other than the manufacturer of the part.  Eligible new
motor vehicles include automobiles, light trucks, vans, mini-vans,
and sport utility vehicles.

What do the Settlements provide?

The Settlements provide money for consumers in 30 states and the
District of Columbia as well as non-monetary relief, including
cooperation, and an agreement by Settling Defendants not to engage
in certain conduct for a period of 24 months.

The 30 states are: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii,
Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,
New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

How can I get payment?

No money will be distributed yet.  Class Counsel will pursue the
lawsuits against the Non-Settling Defendants.  All funds received
in this case will be distributed at the conclusion of the lawsuits
or as ordered by the Court.  You will need to file a valid claim
to receive a payment.  Notice about the claims process will be
provided at a later date.

If you want to receive the notice about the claims process or
future settlements, you should register at www.AutoPartsClass.com

What are my rights?

Even if you do nothing, you will be bound by the Court's decisions
concerning these Settlements.  If you want to keep your right to
sue the Settling Defendants regarding a particular component part,
you must exclude yourself from that Settlement Class by March 28,
2016.  If you stay in a Settlement Class, you may object to one or
more of the settlements by March 28, 2016.

The Court will hold a hearing on May 4, 2016, to consider whether
to approve the Settlements and approve Class Counsel's request
that up to $2 million be set aside for future litigation costs and
expenses.  Class Counsel will also request at the hearing, or at a
later date, attorneys' fees of up to one-third of the Settlement
funds, plus reimbursement of costs and expenses.  You or your own
lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing at your own expense.

If the cases are not dismissed or settled, Class Counsel will have
to prove their claims against the Non-Settling Defendants at
trial.  Trial has not been set yet.

For More Information or to Register: 1-877-940-5043
www.AutoPartsClass.com


HOMEAWAY INC: Faces "Bonnema" Suit Over Theft of Customer Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Bonnema, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Homeaway, Inc., and Yapstone, Inc. d/b/a
Vacationrentpayment, Case No. 4:15-cv-05023-DMR (N.D.Cal., Nov. 2,
2015), seeks sdamages, restitution, and injunctive relief for
Defendant's alleged failure to safeguard Plaintiff's personally
identifiable information and bank account information; to provide
timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff that the information had
been stolen and of the scope and the extent of the breach, which
translates to alleged negligence, breach of implied contract,
unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law, Business & Professions Code, and the California
Data Breach Law, California Civil Code.

HomeAway is a vacation rental company with websites representing
over one million listings of vacation rental homes in 190
countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John H. Donboli, Esq.
     JL Sean Slattery, Esq.
     DEL MAR LAW GROUP
     12250 El Camino Real, Suite 120
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Phone: (858) 793-6244
     Fax: (858) 793-6005
     Email:jdonboli@delmarlawgroup.com
           sslattery@delmarlawgroup.com

        - and -

     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Shane Rowley, Esq.
     Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq.
     Andrea Clisura , Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (866) 367-6510
     Email: shopkins@zlk.com
            srowley@zlk.com
            nkulesa@zlk.com
            aclisura@zlk.com


HOMELAND SECURITY: "Brown" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Brown, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Homeland Security, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-02590-CEH-EAJ
(M.D. Fla., November 4, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Homeland Security, LLC provides security system installation and
repair services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
      P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3341
      E-mail:  CLeach@forthepeople.com


HOSPITAL CORP: Settles Securities Class Action for $215 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Law.com, reports that for the first six
months of the year, it looked like securities class actions were
in the doldrums.  Between January and June, the median settlement
was a mere $5.2 million, the lowest in a decade, according to a
midyear report by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.  New filings were down
too, whether compared with the preceding six months or the 15-year
historical average, another study found.

But since June 30, there have been a series of big-ticket
settlements in securities class actions brought by Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd. Among them: a pending $388 million settlement by JP
Morgan Chase & Co., and a $272 million settlement by Goldman
Sachs.

On Nov. 4, the firm struck again, when Hospital Corporation of
America agreed to pay $215 million to settle a securities class
action stemming from its initial public offering in 2011.

The case is a bit different from the parade of suits against banks
based on residential mortgage-backed securities.  Filed in
Nashville federal court in 2011, the suit pitted the class action
specialists against counsel from Latham & Watkins for HCA and
Davis Polk & Wardwell for the underwriters.

By way of background: HCA is the largest for-profit hospital chain
in the country.  In 2000, it paid $1.7 billion to settle Medicare
fraud charges by the Justice Department., and in 2012 was slammed
in a New York Times article for performing medically unnecessary
procedures.

At a crucial hearing in the class action -- a motion to dismiss
before Chief Judge Kevin Sharp of the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee in 2013 -- the big dogs were out.
Robbins Geller name partner Darren Robbins argued for the
plaintiffs, and Everett "Kip" Johnson Jr., at the time the chair
of Latham's litigation department, made the case for the defense.

The key point of contention: Did the hospital giant fail to
disclose material facts before it went public on March 9, 2011? At
the time, it was the largest ever private equity-backed IPO in the
U.S., with $4.3 billion in securities issued.

Mr. Johnson called the allegations "typical rearview mirror, fraud
by hindsight.  You disclosed it on Tuesday; you must have known it
on Monday.  It was fraud not to disclose it on Monday.  That's
what this case is about," he said, according to a transcript of
the proceedings.

"In this case, the only thing that's in dispute is whether HCA
failed to disclose certain known trends that it was aware of
before March 9, 2011, and which it reasonably believed would have
an unfavorable -- material unfavorable -- impact on its revenues,"
he said.

The trends included a decline in Medicaid revenue per admission
and movement away from cardiac surgical treatment into less
expensive medical treatment.

"Those things are constant in medicine," Mr. Johnson argued.
"There is always movement from one treatment to another.  Every
time somebody invents a drug or a device, there is movement.  But
this is like counting nosebleeds, your honor.  These kinds of
movements don't have any real significant effect until they become
very significant over a very long period of time."

When it was Mr. Robbins' turn, he responded, "These aren't
nosebleed treatments or earaches.  We're talking about, you know,
implants into people's hearts and cardiothoracic surgeries that
were being done and were not medically necessary."

Mr. Robbins continued, "We heard a broad-brush presentation.  But
when you look and drill down into the cases supporting this, they
don't support the law as articulated by the defendants."

He pointed to Item 303 of Regulation S-K, which requires a
registrant to disclose "any known trends or uncertainties" that
could affect its revenue or profits.

"This is a strict liability claim," he said.  "And, in fact, that
strict liability claim applies to HCA for any misrepresentation."

He continued, "Would a reasonable shareholder care that in your
largest market over a quarter of your hospitals are now
dramatically reducing unnecessary -- medically unnecessary --
procedures?"

The judge let the case, which was brought by the New England
Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund and individual
plaintiff Karsten Schuh, go forward, though he trimmed some of the
claims.  Last year, he certified it as a class.

With a January trial date looming, the parties moved to settle.
Robbins in an interview said that negotiations took a year.

"It was either trial or a substantial premium recovery,"
Mr. Robbins said, adding that the settlement "represents one of
the largest percentage recoveries" for investors.

Still, there was a bittersweet element to the win for Mr. Robbins.
In 1997, he tried his first case in Nashville -- another suit
against HCA, which is based there -- teaming up with local counsel
George Barrett.  He continued to work with Barrett many times over
the years and counted him as "my dear friend."

A lion of the bar and civil rights crusader who led the fight to
desegregate Tennessee universities, Mr. Barrett was a name partner
at Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison.

He and Mr. Robbins appeared in court together on Aug. 7, 2014,
successfully convincing Sharp to certify the class.  The next day,
Mr. Barrett checked into a hospital (St. Thomas, not a HCA
facility). He died on Aug. 26, 2014, of acute pancreatitis. He was
86.

"George Barrett was instrumental to the prosecution of this case
and the incredible result we ultimately achieved for shareholders.
George Barrett was truly a great American," Mr. Robbins said.


IOVATE HEALTH: "Kline" Suit Alleges CLRA Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Ronald Patrick Kline, Yamil Caraballo, and all others similarly-
situated v. Iovate Health Sciences U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
02387 (S.D. Calif., October 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for using false, misleading and/or deceptive packaging
and labeling in violation of the California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

Iovate Health Sciences USA Inc. offers muscle builders, fat
burners/thermogenics, and stacks. It sells its products through
retailers, health clubs, gyms, and health food stores. The company
was incorporated in 2003 and is based in Blasdell, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Tel: (619) 233-7770
      Fax: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


J&Y CAFETERIA: Faces "Nunez" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pegui Nunez and other similarly situated waitress, v. J&Y
Cafeteria, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation d/b/a La Palapa
Hondurena and Judy Nunez, Individually, Case No. 33928090 (Fla.
Cir., 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami Dade County, Nov. 2,
2015), seeks damages exceeding $15,000 excluding attorneys' fees
or costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and to recover
unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages, an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages; obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs.

J & Y Cafeteria, Inc. is a Florida Corporation based in Miami.

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
     Phone: (305) 416-5000
     Fax: (305)416-5005


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: More Risperdal Trials Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the recent verdict in a Risperdal-related case may have tipped the
ongoing mass-tort litigation in the plaintiffs' favor, but
attorneys are not expecting a global settlement any time soon.

A Philadelphia jury on Nov. 9 awarded plaintiff Nicholas Murray
$1.75 million on claims that the antipsychotic drug Risperdal
caused gynecomastia, a condition in which boys grow excessive
breast tissue.  Mr. Murray, who has Asperger's syndrome, had been
prescribed the drug for his attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder.

The verdict came several months after a jury awarded $2.5 million
to plaintiff Austin Pledger in the first Risperdal-related case to
hit trial in Philadelphia.  But the following month, another jury
determined Risperdal had not caused plaintiff William Cirba's
breast growth, and rendered a defense verdict.

At this point, attorneys agreed the ball is in Risperdal maker
Janssen Pharmaceuticals' court when it comes to settling the mass
tort.

According to Kline & Specter attorney Thomas R. Kline, who is
handling numerous Risperdal cases along with Sheller P.C. and
Houston firm Arnold & Itkin, there are currently no settlement
talks with Janssen.  But, Mr. Kline said the recent plaintiffs
verdict is encouraging for the plaintiffs' cases.

"While the cases are not formally designed to be bellwether cases,
the fact of the matter is everyone has viewed the initial cases as
bellwether and instructive for the future," Mr. Kline said.  "It
doesn't take a degree in meteorology to see where the wind is
blowing."

Mr. Kline is currently trying a Risperdal case for plaintiff
Tim Stange.  That case is expected to end this week.   Many more
are scheduled to hit trial early next year.

Jason Itkin, who tried the Murray case, said that, while Janssen
"can afford to be involved in this litigation as long as they
want," trying cases can be expensive both in terms of verdicts and
attorney fees.

"The ball is in Janssen's court," Mr. Itkin said.  "As of now,
we're just preparing for trials."

A spokeswoman for Janssen said it will continue trying cases.
"Janssen will continue to defend this litigation and will try
cases where appropriate," spokeswoman Robyn Frenze said in an
emailed statement.

Duane Morris attorney Alan Klein -- AKlein@duanemorris.com -- who
often represents generic drug companies, said it is impossible to
know how long a company may want to extend litigation, but "the
more plaintiffs verdicts you're able to secure in a mass tort, the
more likely you can settle more globally."

"It's always an interesting question of how many verdicts will a
company sustain," Mr. Klein said, noting there were dozens of
verdicts in the Vioxx-related cases before there was a global
settlement. "It's up to the company to decide."

Mr. Klein said mass tort litigation often requires a "critical
mass" of verdicts before the parties begin any serious settlement
talks.

"I don't know if this is the point, or if it's a couple of cases
from now," Mr. Klein said.

While some compared the Risperdal litigation to similar litigation
involving Vioxx and Accutane, attorneys agreed that each mass tort
has its own unique set of determinative factors that must be
decided before the parties can begin to have a grasp of what a
global settlement could look like.

In the Risperdal litigation, causation, which was the key factor
in the Cirba defense verdict, has become a key issue in the
litigation, along with arguments about whether the treating
doctors had been given enough information when prescribing the
drug.

So far, juries have consistently sided with the plaintiffs on the
failure-to-warn claims.  In the defense verdict, while the jury
did not find causation, it determined Janssen failed to warn.

Messrs. Itkin and Kline also both noted that, although the
Risperdal label -- which is central to the failure-to-warn
arguments -- was amended to provide more information about
gynecomastia in 2006, the plaintiff wins have involved claims
related to both pre- and post-2006 use of the drug.

Mr. Klein said the consistency of the jury findings on the
failure-to-warn claims "should be a cause of concern for a
defendant," and will likely be significant in terms of trying to
broker a global settlement.

Another issue affecting a global settlement is that numerous
appeals are ongoing in the mass tort.  Possibly the most important
dispute is whether plaintiffs will be able to seek punitive
damages.

So far, plaintiffs in the mass tort have not.  But, on appeal,
plaintiffs are pointing to conflicting case law from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that they
argue supports their claims.

Mr. Klein said the pending appeals might not factor as much into
the timing of the settlement as it would the terms of the
settlement itself.

"I don't think it would prevent the talks from occurring,"
Mr. Klein said.  "That may be packaged in as part of the
settlement."

Another factor weighing into the future of the litigation is the
fact that one case is on trial and a wave of 10 cases is set to
hit the Philadelphia courts early next year.  Mr. Kline also noted
that together -- his firm, Sheller P.C. and Arnold & Itkin -- are
representing about 8,000 clients with Risperdal-related claims.

Some of the cases are expected to be tried simultaneously, like
the Stange and Murray cases, which were tried only a few rooms
away from each other in Philadelphia City Hall.

"When you have a litigation this large, it's customary for strong
law firms to bind together.  And the combined resources are
important in the ability to discover multiple cases at one time
and to try cases at one time," Mr. Kline said.  "The plan is for
me, Jason Itkin and other trial lawyers to continue to try these
cases, and we're convinced that we'll continue to be successful."


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks Consolidation of Xarelto Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
Janssen Pharmaceuticals is fighting to consolidate a novel Xarelto
case into an existing mass-tort program in Philadelphia that, so
far, has focused on claims the drug led to excessive bleeding.

Late last month, drugmaker Janssen filed a petition to enforce a
case management order from the Xarelto mass-tort program that
would consolidate Mothena v. Janssen Research & Development LLC
into the existing mass tort in Philadelphia.  Plaintiff
David Mothena, who is alleging once-daily dosing fails to protect
against stroke for 24 hours, responded with arguments that his
claims do not stem from the same injury, and therefore the case
should not be consolidated.

"The underlying theory and injuries alleged by plaintiffs in the
instant action differ greatly from the injuries and theories
regarding the mechanism of injury alleged in the Philadelphia
Xarelto mass-tort litigation," Mr. Mothena's opposition filing
said.  "Specifically, plaintiffs in the instant case claim that
Xarelto was ineffective for its intended purpose of preventing
strokes in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation."

Mr. Mothena, who has nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and allegedly
suffered a stroke four days after starting on the medication,
filed his suit Oct. 8 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas'
Day Forward Program.

The 74-page complaint, filed by Brian J. McCormick of Ross Feller
Casey, alleged strict liability for defective design and warnings,
as well as negligence, breach of warranty, fraudulent concealment
and deceptive trade practices.  The complaint also heavily
references the marketing campaign that focuses on once-a-day use,
and recommends the pill as an alternative to rival drugs that
required users to take multiple doses a day and undergo
monitoring.

Albert G. Bixler -- abixler@eckertseamans.com -- of Eckert Seamans
Cherin & Mellott filed the petition to join Mr. Mothena's case
with the mass tort program Oct. 26.  The filing specifically asked
Complex Litigation Center Coordinating Judge Arnold New to
"enforce case management order 1."

The order governs "each Xarelto case" and was entered into in
February to "eliminate duplication of effort, prevent unnecessary
paperwork and promote judicial economy."

In the filing, Janssen contended Mr. Mothena's claims are already
asserted in the Xarelto mass-tort program.  Specifically, both the
mass-tort master complaint and Mr. Mothena's complaint involve
claims of severe injury as a result of taking Xarelto, and claims
related to the marketing of the single daily-dose requirement.

"The Mothena complaint names the same defendants as the master
complaint, and contains the same allegations of liability and
personal injury as those contained in the master complaint,"
Janssen's filing said.  "There are cases in the Xarelto mass-tort
program in which plaintiffs alleged clots as a result of using
Xarelto."

Janssen also said it anticipates discovery will be duplicative due
to the overlapping issues.  The stroke issue, Janssen contended,
is immaterial, since the existing mass tort is composed of
numerous types of claims.

"Defendants anticipate that no factual issues will arise in the
liability portion of the Mothena case that will not also be
addressed in the Xarelto mass-tort program," the filing said.
However, in their Nov. 2 response, the plaintiffs argued "the
overlap between the claims is superficial."

At the crux of Mr. Mothena's case are allegations that the once-
daily dose of Xarelto does not effectively protect against strokes
for a full 24 hours, and the master complaint in the mass tort
program does not mention ischemic or embolic stroke, the
plaintiffs said in the filing.

"A review of the predicate facts and counts in the two complaints
shows a vast difference in the theories and factual allegations
underpinning those claims," Mr. Mothena's response said.


JP MORGAN: Three Charged in Massive 2014 Computer Hacking
---------------------------------------------------------
Ed Silverstein, writing for Legaltech News, reports that two men
are in custody -- and one remains at large -- in connection with
what federal officials describe as "massive computer hacking
crimes against U.S. financial institutions, brokerage firms, and
financial news publishers, including the largest theft of customer
data from a U.S. financial institution in history."

The two under arrest were identified as Gery Shalon and Ziv
Orenstein.  They are awaiting extradition from Israel. The third
defendant, identified as Joshua Samuel Aaron, is still at large.
The latest information links the trio to the massive 2014 hack of
JP Morgan Chase & Co.

"These three defendants perpetrated one of the largest thefts of
financial-related data in history -- making off with the sensitive
information of literally thousands of hard-working Americans,"
Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said in a statement released on
Nov. 10.

A 23-count indictment charged the defendants with such crimes as:
computer hacking, conspiracy in connection with money laundering,
internet gambling, identity theft, securities fraud and wire
fraud.

In describing the far-reaching inquiry, Manhattan U.S. Attorney
Preet Bharara said federal officials "exposed a cybercriminal
enterprise that for years successfully and secretly hacked into
the networks of a dozen companies, allegedly stealing personal
information of over 100 million people, including over 80 million
customers from one financial institution alone."

"The charged crimes showcase a brave new world of hacking for
profit," Mr. Bharara added.  "It is no longer hacking merely for a
quick payout, but hacking to support a diversified criminal
conglomerate. This was hacking as a business model.  The alleged
conduct also signals the next frontier in securities fraud --
sophisticated hacking to steal nonpublic information, something
the defendants discussed for the next stage of their sprawling
enterprise."

When asked about the charges, Brian Kudowitz, who is Bloomberg
Law's commercial product director for privacy and data security,
said, "Revelations from the indictments on the scope of these
breaches, with the impact spanning numerous countries and sectors,
drives home the increasing complexity and severity of cyber-
incidents."

"The practical result is that companies will have to adapt not
only to greater security threats, but also intensifying attention
from a growing list of regulators with skin in the game," he
added.  "Greater investment by boards in their privacy and
security programs is absolutely essential, but realistically many
companies have to bite the bullet and reshape their entire
program, including adopting a bottom-up approach."

The news comes shortly after a survey revealed that just 19
percent of banks were "highly prepared" for a cyberattack,
Legaltech News has reported.

Also, Ms. Lynch noted how the charges came after victims "came
forward and worked with the Department of Justice to hold the
perpetrators accountable."

Specifically, the government alleges that between 2012 to the
middle of 2015, Shalon, Aaron and other suspects stole the
personal information of over 100 million customers.

The defendants also artificially manipulated the price of U.S.
stocks, while Shalon directed hacks and cyberattacks against
several companies.

Moreover, between 2007 and July 2015, Shalon owned and operated
unlawful internet gambling businesses; multinational payment
processors for illegal pharmaceutical suppliers, counterfeit and
malicious software ("malware") distributors, and unlawful internet
casinos; and controlled Coin.mx, an illegal United States-based
Bitcoin exchange that operated in violation of federal anti-money
laundering laws, the government claims.

"Nearly all of these schemes . . . relied for their success on
computer hacking and other cybercrimes committed by [Shalon] and
his co-conspirators," the government adds. They allegedly earned
hundreds of millions of dollars in illicit proceeds, of which at
least $100 million was deposited in Swiss and other bank accounts.
They also allegedly laundered their criminal proceeds, through at
least 75 shell companies, and bank and brokerage accounts.
Anthony Murgio was also arrested in connection with the case.

When commenting on the case, Craig Newman, an attorney at
Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, says the indictment reads "like a
digital-era spy novel about how a global band of cybercriminals
would stop at nothing to hack into the computer systems of top
financial institutions."

He adds how the government's case shows "that we all live in
digital glass houses" -- even the most sophisticated
organizations.


KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Minor League Players Get Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sid Steinberg, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the average Major League Baseball salary in 2015 was $4.2 million.
Assuming that major-league players work (generously) 10 hours per
day, six days per week for nine months (February through October),
they earn, on average, $1,795 per hour -- well in excess of the
$7.25 per hour minimum wage prescribed by the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Some minor-league players, on the other hand, earn as little as
$3,000 per year despite, according to a class action wage-and-hour
suit filed in the Northern District of California, working between
50-70 hours per week.  In addition to the five-month minor-league
season (the only time they are paid), the minor-league players are
required to work in the off-season, as well as during spring
training -- all of which puts them well below the FLSA minimum
wage and deprives them of overtime pay.

SALARIES AS LOW AS $3K/YEAR

In its recent decision in Senne v. Kansas City Royals Baseball,
No. 14-cv-00608-JCS (N. D. Cal., Oct. 20, 2015), the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California granted conditional
certification to a class of all minor-league players who worked
for Major League Baseball since February 2011 but who had not
spent any time in the major leagues.  The allegations are, as
noted, that most of the (roughly 6,000) minor-league players gross
only $3,000 to $7,500 over their five-month season, which is the
only time during the year that they are paid.  Although they work
between 50 and 70 hours per week, arriving in the early afternoon
and leaving sometimes as late as 11 p.m., with extensive work-
related travel, they are not paid overtime, the plaintiffs
alleged.  Further, according to the complaint, the players work
year-round, including mandatory attendance at spring training,
instructional leagues and winter baseball. Plus, the players are
expected to follow team-prescribed exercise regimens during the
off-season without any compensation.

It is important to note that the merits of the case and whether
the players are even "employees" under the FLSA (or whether they
should be considered as "amusement or recreational establishment"
workers) was not considered in the court's conditional
certification decision.  Rather, the court focused on whether
potential opt-ins are similarly situated to the representative
plaintiffs "for the sole purpose of sending notice of the action
to potential class members."  At this early stage, the plaintiffs
are required to show only that there is a "reasonable basis for
their claim of class-wide conduct."

'SIMILARLY SITUATED' TEST

The Senne court found two MLB documents provided the strongest
evidence that the proposed class was "similarly situated."
First, the MLB Rules provide that the 30 major-league franchises
have what the court found to be "extensive control over minor
league baseball, establishing rules . . . under which minor league
players are selected and advance, the minor league playing
schedule and travel."  Further, the rules state that the major-
league franchises employ all minor-league coaches, managers and
trainers.

Uniform Player Contract

Even more importantly, the rules require that every minor-league
player sign the same employment contract -- called the "Uniform
Player Contract," which binds the player to the major-league club
for seven years.  All first-year players earn the same wages,
although teams can give limited raises or require limited pay cuts
in subsequent years. The UPC also provides that the players would
be paid only during the course of the season when games were being
played.

The players submitted declarations that they did "off-season" work
for which they were not paid -- which constituted "off-the-clock"
work -- further reducing their hourly rate below minimum wage.
The clubs argued that the nature and quantity of the work was
idiosyncratic based upon both the individual player and his or her
team's demands and, as such, the players were not "similarly
situated" so as to form a class.  The court rejected these
arguments as more properly addressed at the merits stage of the
case -- after conditional certification and discovery.

LONG HOURS FOR LOW PAY

The players also claimed that they worked in excess of 40 hours
per week during the season and were not paid overtime.  They
argued for conditional certification based upon the contract --
providing that all first-year players would be paid the same
salary and the fact that the rules "establish guidelines as to
scheduling and travel [which] show that the players are similarly
situated as to the long hours they are required to work."

The court again rejected the clubs' defense that the players'
hours may vary -- such that some may not have worked more than 40
hours in a week.  This was found to be an argument best addressed
"at a later stage of the case, on a fully developed record."
Finally, the court granted conditional certification on the issue
of whether, even during the season, the players did not receive
minimum wage due to their long hours.  Again, based upon the rules
and the UPC, the court found that the players could be similarly
situated.

ALLEGATIONS ENOUGH

The case speaks to the fact that at this preliminary stage --
before substantive discovery -- "courts require little more than
substantial allegations, supported by declarations or discovery,
that the putative class members were together victims of a single
decision, policy or plan."  Moreover, the court observed that
competing declarations "will not, as a general rule, preclude
conditional certification."

The most significant defense to the case will likely be that the
FLSA simply does not apply to professional athletes under the
"amusement or recreational establishment" exception to the FLSA
(29 U.S.C. Section 213(a)(3)). The exception applies (in part) if
the "establishment . . .  does not operate for more than seven
months in any calendar year."  Even here, however, the case law is
mixed, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has
applied the exception to find that a minor-league groundskeeper
was not entitled to overtime (Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, 64
F.3d 590 (11th Cir. 1995), while the Sixth Circuit held that the
Cincinnati Reds could not take advantage of the exception because
they were a year-round operation (Bridewell v. Cincinnati Reds, 68
F.3d 136 (6th Cir. 1995).

While it seems unlikely that we will see time clocks next to
batting cages at minor-league parks across America, the case bears
watching for either its settlement or for a long-term impact on
the business of minor-league baseball.


KAYNE ANDERSON: Order Denying Motion to Strike Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the appellate case captioned KAYNE ANDERSON CAPITAL ADVISORS,
LP et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. DAN GHAMMACHI et al.,
Defendants and Appellants, No. B256236, (Cal. App. Ct.), Justice
Tricia A. Bigelow of the Court of Appeals of California, Second
District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial court order denying a
special motion to strike the Kayne Parties' complaint pursuant to
the anti-SLAPP statute.

The appeal arises from a malicious prosecution action filed by two
limited partnership investment firms -- Kayne Anderson Private
Investors, LP (KAPI) and Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors, LP
(KACA).

In March 2009, Kayne Anderson Private Investors, LP (KAPI) and
five individuals entered a written limited liability company
operating agreement for Media Solutions Holdings, LLC.  Media
Solutions was a printer toner cartridge supply business. The 2009
operating agreement identified two classes of members -- Class A
and Class B -- and allotted each member of Media Solutions a
specified "unit" interest in the company, with associated rights
to allocations of profits, to elect persons to the company's board
of managers, and to the redemption of the member's unit interest.
Under the terms of the agreement, upon the termination of a
member's employment with Media Solutions, the company and Class A
members had the "right and/or obligation" to purchase the
terminated member's unit interest, as set forth in the agreement.
KACA was not a member of Media Solutions, but had a connection to
events because it is the general partner of another entity, Kayne
Anderson Private Advisors, L.P., which is the manager of KAPI.
KAPI owned a significant majority of the membership units of Media
Solutions and was its managing director. One of the eventual anti-
SLAPP movants, Dan Ghammachi, was an individual Class B member of
Media Solutions.

Ghammachi sued Media Solutions and the Kayne Parties. He was
represented by the law firm of Mixon Jolly. Ghammachi also filed
an arbitration claim with the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) in accord with a contractual arbitration clause in his
September 2009 employment agreement with Media Solutions (ante).
The demand identified only Media Solutions as the respondent. The
claim description read: "The claims against Media Solutions
Holdings, LLC are stated in the attached complaint which is to be
filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court." Although the attached
complaint named the Kayne Parties as defendants in addition to
Media Solutions, the claim description did not mention them.

The complaint alleged that in April 2011, Ghammachi advised the
defendants of his desire to leave Media Solutions. According to
the complaint, the defendants informed him they did not want him
to leave Media Solutions to work with a former KACA employee who
was engaged in the investment industry, not the printer cartridge
supply industry. The complaint alleged that following
negotiations, the parties reached an oral agreement in which the
defendants promised Ghammachi he would be allowed to continue work
on a limited basis to increase his exit bonus, and that Media
Solutions would repurchase all of his member units for $240,000.
However, the complaint alleged the resulting document purporting
to memorialize the agreement contained unlawful restraints of
trade in violation of Business and Professions Code section 16600,
which sought to prevent Ghammachi from competing in the printer
cartridge supply and private investment industries. When Ghammachi
refused to sign, Media Solutions terminated his employment without
cause. The complaint further alleged the defendants refused to
purchase his unit interest as required under the operating
agreement.

As to KAPI, the complaint asserted a claim for breach of contract
based on the alleged refusal to repurchase his unit interest. As
to both Kayne Parties, the complaint asserted claims for
interference with contractual relations and interference with
prospective economic relations based on alleged interference with
Ghammachi's employment agreement with Media Solutions; declaratory
relief with respect to the non-compete and non-solicitation
provisions; and unfair competition based on the alleged illegal
restraints of trade and defendants' termination of Ghammachi and
refusal to pay money due to him.

A copy of the Court's Opinion dated October 19, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/n8UrKxfrom Leagle.com.

Cameron M. Jolly, Esq. -- cjolly@mixonjollylaw.com -- of Mixon
Jolly -- Douglas G. Benedon, Esq. -- douglas@benedonserlin.com --
and Wendy S. Albers, Esq., Benedon & Serlin serve as counsel for
Defendant and Appellant Dan Ghammachi

Lawrence H. Nagler, Esq. -- LNagler@Nagler.com -- Charles Avrith,
Esq. -- cavrith@nagler.com and David F. Berry, Esq. --
dberry@nagler.com -- of Nagler & Associates serve as counsel for
Plaintiffs and Respondents


KOHLER CO: Faces "Davis" Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Davis and Matt Hoffman, Individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. Kohler Co., a Wisconsin Corporation,
Case 1:15-cv-01263 (W.D.Tenn., Nov. 2, 2015) seeks claims for
"off-the-clock" and overtime violations pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Kohler Co. is known for its plumbing products, but the company
also manufactures furniture, cabinetry, tile, engines, and
generators.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
     James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
     J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
     Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
     JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
     262 German Oak Drive
     Memphis, TN 38018
     Phone: (901) 754-8001
     Fax: (901) 754-8524
     E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com
             pjackson@jsyc.com


LG CHEM: Protective Order Modified in Antitrust Suit by Microsoft
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu signed off on a modified Stipulated
Protective Order to govern discovery and sharing of information in
the antitrust complaint filed by Microsoft entities against LG
Chem America, Inc., et al.

The Stipulation provides that the "Microsoft Action Protective
Order" is meant to apply only to documents and information
produced (i) by the Stipulating Defendants to Microsoft, and (ii)
by Microsoft to the Stipulating Defendants. All other discovery,
including productions made to and by class plaintiffs, continues
to be governed by the Class Action Protective Order in the
umbrella case, IN RE LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST LITIGATION,
MDL NO. 2420, (N.D. Cal.)

The Microsoft case is, Microsoft Mobile Inc. and Microsoft Mobile
Oy v. LG Chem America, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:13-MD-02420-YGR
(DMR)(N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 16, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/a54T9gfrom Leagle.com.

Lance A. Termes, Esq. -- lance.termes@alston.com -- and Ryan W.
Koppelman, Esq. -- ryan.koppelman@alston.com -- of ALSTON & BIRD
serve as counsel for Microsoft Mobile, Inc. and Microsoft Mobile
Oy

Reginald Steer, Esq. -- rsteer@akingump.com -- of AKIN GUMP
STRAUSS HAUER & FELD serves as counsel for LG Chem America, Inc.
and LG Chem, Ltd.


MARKWINS INTERNATIONAL: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Theordore Selvey v. Markwins International, Corp., Markwins
Beauty Products, Inc., and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No.
BC599854 (Cal. Super. Ct., November 2, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

The Defendants manufacture beauty products under a variety of
brand names including Wet n Wild, Black Radiance, Bonne Bell,
Lipsmackers, and Black Radiance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael T. Carr, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL T. CARR, APC
      2670 South Myrtle Avenue, Suite 106
      Monrovia, CA 91016-5077
      Telephone: (626) 254-8901
      Facsimile: (626) 254-8921
      E-mail: mike@michaelcarrlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collect Debt, "Fekete" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Hershel Fekete, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-06000 (E.D.N.Y., October 20, 2015) seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates a financial service
company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MUDTECH SERVICES: Faces "Richard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Richard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v.  Mudtech Services, L.P., Case No. 4:15-cv-03239 (S.D.
Tex., November 3, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek.

Mudtech Services, L.P. provides oil field personnel to operators
and other oil field services companies in need of alternative
project staffing for mud operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS&JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet St.
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              jbresler@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Huffman" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Kristi Huffman, and all others similarly-situated v. Nationstar
Mortgage Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01252 (M.D. Fla.,
October 21, 2015), seeks treble damages and injunctive relief
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is a residential mortgage services company
headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Max Story, Esq.
      328 2nd Avenue, North
      Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
      Tel: (904) 372-4109
      Fax: (904) 758-5333
      E-mail: max@storylawgroup.com


NBTY INC: Faces "Muir" Suit in Ill. Over Product Misbranding
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Muir, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NBTY, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09835 (N.D. Ill.,
November 3, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the who purchased
the dietary supplements St. John's Wort Standardized Extract from
Defendants, that did not contain consistent amounts of the sole
active ingredient Standardized Extract Hypericin listed on their
labels.

NBTY, Inc. is a manufacturer of vitamins and nutritional
supplements which are distributed under many third party brands in
the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 878-1342
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com

         - and -

      Nick Suciu III, Esq.
      BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC
      434 West Alexandrine, Suite 101
      Detroit, MI 48201
      Telephone: (313) 303-3472
      E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com


NEW BLISS: "Li" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Bei Li, and all others similarly-situated v. New Bliss Nail Inc.,
dba New Bliss Nails, Bijou Nails Corp., dba Bijou Nails, Yeun
Jeong An, and John Doe and Jane Doe #1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-06059
(E.D.N.Y., October 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory
relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide a variety of manicure, pedicure, gel and
waxing treatments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NOBILIS HEALTH: "Hall" Suit Alleges Federal Securities Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn M. Hall, and all others similarly situated v. Nobilis Health
Corp., Christopher H. Lloyed and Kenneth J. Klein, Case No. 4:15-
cv-03098 (S.D. Tex., October 21, 2015), seeks to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The federal securities class action is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired Nobilis securities between April 2, 2015 and
October 8, 2015.

Nobilis, together with its subsidiaries, acquires and manages
ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) and healthcare facilities in
the United States. Its ASCs are licensed ambulatory surgery
centers that provide scheduled surgical procedures in clinical
specialties, including orthopedic surgery, podiatric surgery, ENT,
pain management, gastro-intestinal, gynecology, and general
surgery.

Defendant Christopher H. Lloyd has served at all relevant times as
the Company's Chief Executive Officer.

Defendant Kenneth J. Klein has served at all relevant times as the
Company's Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
      ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS,
      SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND
      800 Commerce Street
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 222-7211
      Fax: (713) 225-0827
      E-mail: sford@abrahamwatkins.com

          - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 661-1100
      Fax: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com


NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Generic Gleevac Drugs Delay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corp., Novartis AG, and Novartis Corporation, Case
No. 1:15-cv-13725-ADB (D. Mass., November 3, 2015) seeks monetary
damages to remedy the effects of the unlawful delay of generic
entry into the U.S. market for Gleevec (imatinib mesylate), an
FDA-approved prescription drug that radically improves the lives
of the thousands of patients suffering chronic myeloid leukemia
(CML), a cancer of the blood and bone marrow.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company at 59 Route 10,
East Hanover, New Jersey 07936.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
      Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
      SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
      Seaport East
      2 Seaport Lane
      Boston, MA 02210
      Telephone: (617) 439-3939
      Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
      E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com
              astewart@shulaw.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      John A. Macoretta, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-0300
      Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
      E-mail: jkodroff@srkw-law.com
              bcaldes@srkw-law.com
              jmacoretta@srkw-law.com

         - and -

      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
              hmsilton@locklaw.com

         - and -

      William H. London, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Telephone: (224) 632-4500
      Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
      E-mail: blondon@fklmlaw.com

         - and -

      Christian M. Sande, Esq.
      CHRISTIAN SANDE LLC
      310 Clifton Avenue, Suite 300
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Telephone: (612) 387-1430
      Facsimile: (612) 677-3078
      E-mail: christian@christiansande.com


NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Generic Gleevac Drugs Delay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.,
Novartis AG, and Novartis Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-13726-ADB
(D. Mass., November 3, 2015) seeks monetary damages to remedy the
effects of the unlawful delay of generic entry into the U.S.
market for Gleevec (imatinib mesylate), an FDA-approved
prescription drug that radically improves the lives of the
thousands of patients suffering chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), a
cancer of the blood and bone marrow.

The Defendants operates a pharmaceutical company at 59 Route 10,
East Hanover, New Jersey 07936.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas G. Shapiro, Esq.
      Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
      SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
      Seaport East
      2 Seaport Lane
      Boston, MA 02210
      Telephone: (617) 439-3939
      Facsimile: (617) 439-0134
      E-mail: tshapiro@shulaw.com
              astewart@shulaw.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      John A. Macoretta, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-0300
      Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
      E-mail: jkodroff@srkw-law.com
              bcaldes@srkw-law.com
              jmacoretta@srkw-law.com


PACKERLAND WHEY: "Drevenchuk" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Pavel Drevenchuk, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Packerland Whey Products, Inc. d/b/a
Fermented Nutrition Corporation, Case No. 2015-cv-1298 (E.D.Wis.,
Nov. 2, 2015), seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act for
unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and/or any such other relief the
Court may deem appropriate.

Packerland Whey Products, Inc. is based in Luxemburg, Wisconsin
and has been manufacturing high protein/high energy dairy & beef
feed ingredients for over 30 years.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
     Summer Murshid, Esq.
     Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
     HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
     222 East Erie Street
     Suite 210
     P.O. Box 442
     Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
     Phone: 414-281-8650
     Fax: 414-281-8442
     E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
             smurshid@hq-law.com
             tmaynard@hq-law.com


PANERA LLC: Sued in E.D. Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clara Manchester, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Panera, LLC, Case No. 1:15-at-00886
(E.D. Cal., November 3, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.

Panera, LLC operates a large retail bakery chain that has hundreds
of locations within California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Tracy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 260-9171
      Facsimile: (866) 365-3051
      E-mail: MTRACY@MICHAELTRACYLAW.COM


PANERA LLC: Sued in E.D. Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clara Manchester, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Panera, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01677--
-SAB (E.D. Cal., November 3, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Panera, LLC operates a large retail bakery chain that has hundreds
of locations within California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Tracy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone: (949) 260-9171
      Facsimile: (866) 365-3051
      E-mail: MTRACY@MICHAELTRACYLAW.COM


PREMIERE MUSIC: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Shah" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Imran Shah v. Premiere Music and Film Systems, Inc., Case No.
1:2014cv03669 (Ill. Cir. Ct., November 2, 2015) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages in
violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act, and Illinois Workers' Compensation Act.

Premiere Music and Film Systems, Inc. offers home automation, low-
voltage lighting control, invisible technology, distributed audio,
and integrated home theater systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Uche O. Asonye, Esq.
      John A. Singer, Esq.
      ASONYE & ASSOCIATES
      100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2115
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 795-9110
      Facsimile: (312) 795-9114
      E-mail: jsinger@aa-law.com


PURE RESTAURANT: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Simon Cortez Ramirez, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, v. Pure Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Pure Bistro, Peter
Matheos and Giuseppe Mitilis, Case No:CV 15-6273 (E.D.N.Y., Nov.
2, 2015), alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid
overtime, (2) liquidated damages and (3) attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Plaintiff further alleges that, pursuant to the New
York Labor Law, he and others similarly situated are entitled to
recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid "spread
of hours" premium, (3) statutory penalties, (4) liquidated damages
and (5) attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     Shin Hahn, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


RES-CARE INC: "Tankam" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Robertson Tankam, and all others similarly-situated v. Res-Care,
Inc. and Res-Care Kansas, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09343 (D. Kans.,
October 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
prejudgment interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants provide residential, training, educational, and
support services to populations with special needs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony E. LaCroix, Esq.
      LACROIX LAW FIRM, LLC
      406 West 34th Street, Suite 810
      Kansas City, MO 64111
      Tel: (816) 399-4380
      Fax: (816) 399-4380
      E-mail: tony@lacroixlawkc.com


RESCUE RANGERS: Faces "Vaughn" Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Vaughn, Tammy Vaughn, and Tyler Wright, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Rescue Rangers LLC,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00656-JAG (E.D.Va., Nov. 2, 2015), alleges that
Defendants unlawfully misclassified road service drivers as
"independent contractors" when they are properly classified as
employees under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Rescue Rangers provides service to customers in a
number of major cities in the United States who have been locked
out of their car, run out of gas, or suffered a flat tire.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas Woodfield, Esq.
     The Employment Law Group, P.C.
     888 17tn Street, NW
     9th Floor
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 331-3911
     E-mail: nwoodfield@employmentlawgroup.com

        - and -

     Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
     Thomas P. Fowler, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone: (617) 994-5800
     E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             tfowler@llrlaw.com


SEBERT LANDSCAPING: Faces "Perez" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco J. Perez, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, v. Sebert Landscaping
Company D/B/A Great Impressions, Inc. And Jeffrey A. Sebert,
individually, Case No: 1:15-cv-09786 (N.D.Ill., Nov. 2, 2015), was
filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-Portal
Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Sebert Landscaping Company d/b/a Great Impressions, Inc., provides
landscaping and maintenance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John W. Billhorn, Esq.
     BILLHORN LAW FIRM
     53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 840
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 853-1450

        - and -

     Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
     FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
     33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 784-3541


SKYWEST AIRLINES: Faces "Russell" Suit in Calif. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
Donald Russell, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. Skywest Airlines, Inc., and DOES 1 to 100, Case No:
BC599915 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, Nov. 2, 2015),
alleges that individuals who worked for the Defendants at the Los
Angeles International Airport are owed the Living Wage Ordinance
difference, in addition to penalties, interest, and attorney fees.

Skywest, Inc. is a holding company for two North American regional
airlines. The Company, through its subsidiaries, SkyWest Airlines,
Inc. and ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., offers scheduled passenger
service with approximately 3,600 daily departures to destinations
in the United States, Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert L. Starr, Esq.
     Adam M. Rose, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
     23277 Ventura Boulevard
     Woodland Hills, CA 91364
     Phone: (818) 225-9040
     Fax: (818) 225-9042
     E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com
             adam@starrlaw.com


SPEED SOLUTION: Faces "Carcamo" Suit for Labor Code Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Carcamo, an individual, v. Speed Solution International,
Inc.; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC 599855 (Cal.
Super., County of Los Angeles, Nov. 2, 2015), seeks to recover all
penalties, attorney's fees, costs and other damages and/or relief
available thereunder based on Defendants' alleged violation of
California Labor Code, wrongful termination in violation of public
policy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Speed Solution International is a market leading distributor of OE
quality import replacement parts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael T. Carr, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OFMICHAEL T. CARR, APC
     2670 South Myrtle Avenue, Suite 106
     Monrovia, CA 91016-5077
     Phone: 626.254.8901
     Fax: 626.254.8921
     E-mail: mike@michaelcarriaw.com


STARWOOD HOTELS: Faces "Serritiello" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Serritiello, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. d/b/a The St. Regis Bal
Harbour Resort, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-24122-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
November 4, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. operates a hotel and
leisure company in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


TALLADEGA INTERNATIONAL: "Miller" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Miller, and all others similarly-situated v. Talladega
International Truck & Tractor Company, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01845 (N.D. Ala., October 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to compensate overtime in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant sells tractor and mowing equipment since 1964.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Chester, Esq.
      SCHWARTZ ROLLER & ZWILLING
      600 Vestavia Parkway, Suite 251
      Birmingham, AL 35216
      Tel: (205) 822-2701
      Fax: (205) 822-2702
      E-mail: mchester@szalaw.com


TECO ENERGY: Faces "Kanarick" Suit Over Merger with Emera
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Kanarick, individual and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, v. TECO Energy, Inc., Sherrill W. Hudson, James L.
Ferman, Jr., Evelyn V. Follit, Joseph P. Lacher, Loretta A. Penn,
John B. Ramil, Tom L. Rankin, William D. Rockford, Paul L.
Whiting, Emera Inc., And Emera Us Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-02571-
MSS-JSS (M.D.Fla., Nov. 2, 2015) alleges breaches of fiduciary
duties by the Board of Directors of TECO in connection with the
plan to sell TECO Energy to Emera Inc., and Emera US Inc. as well
as violations of the Securities and Exchange Act.

TECO Energy is an energy-related holding company with regulated
electric and gas utilities in Florida and New Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Evan J. Smith, Esq.
     Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
     Two Bala Plaza, Stc. 510
     Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
     Phone: (610) 667-6200
     Fax: 561.320.0285
     E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com


TMCD CORPORATION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "McIntire" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca McIntire, and all others similarly situated under 29 USC
216(B) v. TMCD Corporation d/b/a The Men's Club Of Dallas, et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-03554-D (N.D. Tex., November 3, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours during any workweek.

TMCD Corporation operates gentleman's clubs locations in Dallas,
Texas; Houston, Texas; and Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      J. Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar St. Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: info@L-B-Law.com

         - and -

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (214) 706-0834
      E-mail: Jack@siegellawgroup.biz


TRUE LEAF FARMS: Must Defend Against "Gomez" Suit in N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald M. Whyte denied the motion to dismiss and
the motion for sanctions, but granted the motion for stay only as
to Plaintiffs' state law claims in the case captioned RAFAEL
GOMEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRUE LEAF FARMS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 5:15-CV-02928-RMW, (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Rafael Gomez, Cesar Ruelas, and Brenda Acevedo filed a
wage and hour class action complaint on June 23, 2015. The
complaint alleges that Defendant Steve Church is "Chief Executive
Officer or other officer" of Church Brothers, LLC; that Tom Church
is "President or other officer" of Church Brothers; and that David
Gill is "Partner or other shareholder or officer" of True Leaf
Farms. Plaintiffs commenced suit on June 23, 2015 alleging that
Defendants failed to pay them minimum wage, compensate them for
all hours worked (including overtime payments), provide them with
legally compliant meal and rest periods, and comply with various
record keeping requirements, among other alleged violations.
Plaintiffs allege eight claims under California state law and two
claims based on federal statutes, the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection
Act (MWPA).

On August 4, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in
the alternative, to stay this action under the Colorado River
doctrine pending the outcome of a separate class action that a
different plaintiff filed in state court against True Leaf Farms.
Individual Defendants Tom Church, Steve Church, and David Gill
also move to dismiss the Fair Labor Standards Act claims against
them under Rule 12(b)(6). Separately, Defendants move for
sanctions against Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 11(b)(1) and the
court's inherent authority.

In his Order dated October 16, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/IYeY5yfrom Leagle.com, Judge Whyte denied the motion
to dismiss and the motion for sanctions, but granted the motion
for stay only as to Plaintiffs' state law claims. Defendants'
motions to dismiss and motion for sanctions are denied.
Defendants' motion to stay Plaintiffs' state law claims is
granted. Plaintiffs' federal claims will proceed. The court
expects and anticipates that the parties will coordinate discovery
in this action and the case, Norzagaray v. True Leaf Farms, LLC,
et al., Case No. CU-14-00160, which was filed in San Benito County
Superior Court on December 5, 2014.

The Court noted that Plaintiffs' allegations against the
Individual Defendants are thin, but in light of the Individual
Defendants' positions within the companies and Plaintiffs'
allegations regarding the actions of all Defendants, the Court
said Plaintiffs have stated at least a plausible claim.

Defendants' position appears to be that sanctions are warranted if
a law firm represents a class action plaintiff in federal court
after a state court stays a proceeding filed by a different, named
class action client against the same defendant. Defendants'
argument is meritless, the Court ruled, saying the authorities
Defendants cite in support of their motion for sanctions do not
support the relief Defendants have requested, and the court is
unaware of any authority that supports Defendants' position.

Eric Daniel Rouen, Esq. -- rouenlaw@att.net -- of The Downey law
Firm LLC and Stuart Rowe Chandler, Esq. -- stuart@chandlerlaw.com
-- serve as counsel for Plaintiff Rafael Gomez, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals

Jennifer Michelle Schermerhorn, Esq. --
jschermerhorn@laborcounselors.com -- Michael Christopher Saqui,
Esq. -- mcs@laborcounselors.com -- and Helen Igorevna Braginsky,
Esq. of The Saqui Law Group serve as counsel for Defendant True
Leaf Farms, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company


TRUMP HOTEL: Denies Multiple Data Breach Allegations
----------------------------------------------------
Ed Silverstein, writing for Legaltech News, reports that Donald
Trump's hotel chain is denying mutiple allegations detailed in a
recent lawsuit following the hacking of its computer network.

Attorneys representing the lead plaintiff -- John Driscoll of
Illinois -- want to turn the federal case into a class action
because of possible damages suffered by the guests.  The lawsuit
claims the defendants violated state consumer protection laws and
state data breach notification laws, as well as violations of
negligence, implied contract, and unjust enrichment laws.  The
plaintiffs want injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as
monetary and statutory damages in connection with the breach,
which took place between May 19, 2014, and June 2, 2015.

"The allegations in the lawsuit filed by Mr. Driscoll are
completely without merit and we are confident that the case will
be dismissed," Jill A. Martin, assistant general counsel for The
Trump Organization, said in a statement released to Legaltech News
on Nov. 5.

"Like virtually every other company these days, we may have been
the target of a cybersecurity threat," she added in the statement.

"Upon notification, we immediately engaged independent forensic
experts," the statement noted.  "Although the forensic experts did
not find that any customer information was removed from our
systems, out of an abundance of caution we provided notice of the
incident to our clients.  We are also working with the U.S. Secret
Service and the FBI to help catch these criminals and prosecute to
the full extent of the law. We are committed to safeguarding all
guests' personal information and will continue to do so
vigilantly."

While the investigation did not find evidence that information was
taken from the hotel's systems, "it appears that there may have
been unauthorized malware access to payment card information as it
was inputted into the payment card systems," according to an
earlier statement from the Trump organization.

But the lawsuit says the defendants failed "to secure and
safeguard . . . personal financial data."  It may have included
names, account numbers, expiration dates, PINs, security codes and
other information.

Trump Hotel Collection was named as a defendant in the suit.  It
operates or owns impacted hotels including: Trump SoHo New York,
Trump National Doral, Trump International New York, Trump
International Chicago, Trump International Waikiki, Trump
International Hotel & Tower Las Vegas, and Trump International
Toronto.

Potential class members, who the Hipskind & McAninch law firm
wants to represent, include "thousands" of those who made
purchases at the hotels through payment cards, the lawsuit says.
Moreover, the "root cause" of the data breach was the defendants'
"failure to fix elementary deficiencies in their security systems,
abide by industry regulations, and respond to other similar data
breaches directed at retailers," the lawsuit claims.  The
defendants also failed to follow "best practices and industry
standards."

If the defendants "acted competently," the criminals "would have
been unable to access the PII [personal identifiable
information]."

The lawsuit claims the defendants failed to have in place:

     Appropriate antivirus and malware detection software.

     Adequate lockout controls and two-factor authentication.

     Firewalls and appropriate network segmentation.

     Appropriate network intrusion detection and monitoring.

     And sophisticated usernames and passwords.

The suit further claims the defendants failed to timely disclose
the extent of the breach and failed to properly notify plaintiffs
and possible class members in a timely manner.

"[The] defendants' security failures enabled the hackers to access
. . . PII from within [the] defendants' computer systems and put
the . . . plaintiffs' . . . financial information at serious,
immediate, and ongoing risk," the lawsuit claims.  "The practice
with such data breaches is that hackers will continue to use the
information they obtained as a result of inadequate security, . .
. to exploit and injure consumers by selling the PII to third
parties and otherwise using the PII for illicit purposes."

The case was assigned to U.S. District Court Judge David R.
Herndon of the Southern District of Illinois.  It is not clear
what the next step in the case will be, according to information
from the court clerk's office.

Meanwhile, Brian Krebs has reported that Trump hotels are just one
of several upscale hotel chains that experienced recent breaches.


TYSON FOODS: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared unsympathetic
toward Tyson Foods Inc. on Nov. 10 in the company's quest to
torpedo a class action brought by employees seeking payment for
time spent donning and doffing protective gear.

If the court's liberal members and Justice Anthony Kennedy end up
voting against Tyson, it would be a rare win for the class action
bar from a court that has been making such lawsuits incrementally
harder to maintain in recent years.

Arguments on Nov. 10 in Tyson Foods v. Bouphakeo represented the
third time the court's young term that the justices have heard
class action arguments.  It is also the third or fourth Supreme
Court case in recent years that's dealt with "donning and
doffing," and whether the time used for putting on or taking off
work clothes is compensable.

At stake in the Tyson case is a nearly $6 million verdict in favor
of workers at an Iowa pork processing plant who joined in a class
action to challenge the underpayment. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit upheld the class action.

Carter Phillips -- cphillips@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin,
arguing on behalf of Tyson, told the justices that the class was
invalid because of the "widely differing" amounts of time workers
at the plant take -- from 30 seconds to 15 minutes -- with the
protective and sanitary gear needed for a wide range of tasks.

"Small differences make a big difference," Mr. Phillips said.  He
banked on the 2011 high court decision in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes
in arguing that the Tyson employees do not have enough in common
to be certified as a class, and that the statistical averaging
offered in the case could not be used.

But several justices pounced on Mr. Phillips, with Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg stating that, from the record, "it did not seem
like that wide a disparity."  Other justices questioned poor
record-keeping and opportunities missed by Tyson at earlier stages
of the case that could have weakened the plaintiffs' case.  They
also wondered whether disparities in compensation could be taken
care of when the case returns to lower courts on remand.

"I just don't understand your argument," Justice Kennedy said, and
Justice Sonia Sotomayor echoed the sentiment.  "I'm completely at
a loss as to what you're complaining about," she told
Mr. Phillips.

David Frederick -- dfrederick@khhte.com -- of Kellogg, Huber,
Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel represented the Tyson plaintiffs.  He
argued that "the variations were very minor" between the donning
and doffing times of the affected employees, no matter what their
specific job was.  Mr. Frederick added that the jury and the
district court in the case also agreed that the time differences
among workers were minor.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Chen to Look Into Arbitration Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the scene
in U.S. District Judge Edward Chen's courtroom would have been
unacceptable to some judges.

Arguments veered off course and left the briefs far behind -- at
one point neither Chen nor the lawyers could tell which motion was
being argued.  The lawyers delved into brand-new arbitration case
law, some of which threatened to undermine a prior ruling from
Chen and force him to reverse himself.

Surprisingly, the judge looked pleased.

In fact, Chen instigated some of the chaos himself.  He kicked off
the Nov. 4 hearing by announcing he was taking "a second look" at
his decision invalidating Uber Technologies Inc.'s 2014
arbitration agreement in light of an August ruling from the
California Supreme Court.  His reconsideration could have major
consequences for the class action challenging Uber's
classification of drivers as independent contractors -- a case
that has pointed a national spotlight on Chen's courtroom and,
fairly or not, will be the crucible that forges his reputation as
an Article III judge.

Depending on who you talk to, 62-year-old Chen is an open-minded
jurist committed to the right result or a liberal-leaning judge
who still wears the American Civil Liberties Union badge that
nearly wrecked his prospects for a judicial appointment.  His
decisions in the Uber case, which forces Chen into the politically
charged position of balancing workers' rights against innovative
business practices in an imperfect legal framework, offer fuel for
both narratives.

While Judge Chen already has drawn criticism for some of his
rulings that sided with drivers against Uber, lawyers who actually
argue in Chen's courtroom tend to describe him as even-handed,
commending him for showing up to hearings exceptionally well
prepared and with no built-in bias.

Judge Chen declined to be interviewed or to answer questions by
email.  Conversations with more than two dozen of his close
friends and colleagues, lawyers who have appeared before him and
those that know him by reputation only -- as well as a look at
Judge Chen's background and his history on the bench -- suggest
there's more to the judge than what one Republican critic famously
decried as the "ACLU chromosome."

Judge Chen's willingness to admit a mistake, which he's already
done once before in the Uber case, speaks to the pains he takes to
reach decisions that are both just and legally sound, lawyers
said.

"It's a rare thing for a judge unilaterally to do that," said
defense-side employment attorney Stephen Hirschfeld --
shirschfeld@HKemploymentlaw.com -- of Hirschfeld Kraemer in San
Francisco.  "It goes to show that this is a judge who is extremely
thoughtful."

It may also signal Chen is taking a meticulous approach to the
case that could define him, acutely aware that whatever he decides
ultimately will be closely reviewed on appeal.

"He knows this is a high-profile case," said Mr. Hirschfeld. "He
wants to get it right."

YOUTH AND CONSEQUENCES

Judge Chen, an Oakland native born to Chinese immigrant parents,
started his career as a passionate civil rights advocate.  He
specialized in discrimination cases, drawn in particular to issues
that affected the Asian-American community.

After graduating from UC-Berkeley School of Law, Judge Chen worked
briefly at the firm now known as Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass
before starting a 16-year stretch with the American Civil
Liberties Union.

"Ed was just somebody who was sensitive to people's rights and the
needs of ordinary people," said retired U.S. District Judge
Charles Renfrew, for whom Chen clerked from 1979 to 1980. (Chen
went on to clerk for Judge James Browning of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 1981 to 1982.)

While at Coblentz, Judge Chen had a hand in reopening the Supreme
Court's landmark 1944 ruling in Korematsu v. United States that
approved the internment of Japanese Americans in internment camps
during World War II.

San Francisco attorney Dale Minami, who led the effort to overturn
the conviction of Fred Korematsu, said Judge Chen was the team's
"go-to guy" for researching tough questions.

Today Judge Chen comes across as brainy in a low-key way.  But he
hadn't always seemed destined for a position of influence, said
Minami, founder of Minami Tamaki.

As an undergrad at UC-Berkeley in the 1970s Judge Chen was "pretty
dorky," recalled Minami, his Asian-American studies professor.
"When he wrote his first papers, I said 'Who wrote these?'" said
Minami. "They were brilliant."

Judge Chen joined the Northern District of California's bench as a
magistrate judge in 2001 at the prodding of U.S. District Judge
Charles Breyer, a former Coblentz partner.  He was the court's
first Asian-American judge.

Eight years later, Judge Chen's ACLU background became the
political equivalent of a scarlet letter as he pursued
confirmation to a district court seat.  Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-
Alabama, famously worried Chen carried the "ACLU chromosome."
After a bruising fight, Judge Chen finally was confirmed in May
2011.  Judge Chen kept his sense of humor throughout the ordeal,
according to his friends, who say he's never been one to take
himself too seriously.

Consider "The Recusals," a goofy rock band of glitter bow-tie-
wearing judges that Judge Chen organized to perform at this year's
Northern District judicial conference.  While the gig was purely
for fun, Judge Chen's friends swear he's really a brilliant
musician.  ("Thanks to him we actually weren't terrible," Judge
Breyer said.)

INTELLECTUAL SPARRING

On the bench, Judge Chen is known for putting counsel through
their paces.  Lawyers who have spent time in his San Francisco
courtroom described the experience as "fun," as well as
intellectually rigorous.

One lawyer who recently appeared in Chen's courtroom said the
judge allowed arguments to flow like a freewheeling debate,
encouraging the lawyers to butt in and interrupt.

"The oral argument was more like a television oral argument than a
traditional oral argument," said the lawyer, who asked not to be
named.  He added, "I found myself having to fight to get in to
respond to some of the points [opposing counsel] would make."

Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, who represented
plaintiffs in privacy litigation over tracking software in
cellphones, said Chen came to court impeccably prepared.

"The other side was quoting a few cases they thought were key, and
several times Judge Chen interrupted them and said 'Wait you need
to read the rest of the sentence, because that changes the
meaning,'" Mr. Berman wrote in an email.  "So he has the key cases
nailed."

Mark Burton of the plaintiffs firm Audet & Partners remembers
Judge Chen carefully scrutinizing a $228 million settlement FedEx
Corp. reached with drivers in a wage-and-hour suit earlier this
year. Chen's concerns that class members were being shortchanged
prompted the parties to amend the agreement and provide drivers
additional compensation.

"He definitely didn't just accept what the parties presented to
him initially," said Mr. Burton.

Judge Richard Seeborg, who sits down the hall from Judge Chen on
the 17th floor of the San Francisco federal courthouse, said he
pays attention if a lawyer cites one of Chen's decisions.

"I may not agree with it," Judge Seeborg said.  "But I know it is
really thoughtful and thoroughly researched, so it is one that
behooves you as a judge to read."

Not everyone has been pleased with Chen's rulings, however, and
those on the political right are usually the ones aggrieved.

In a September blog post, the conservative Washington Legal
Foundation criticized Chen's decision in a case that pit cellphone
retailers against the city of Berkeley. J udge Chen's order
upholding a Berkeley statute that required retailers to warn
customers of the radiation dangers of cellphones, the blog post
stated, is part of a "disturbing trend" that threatens
constitutional protections against compelled government speech.

'NOT KNEE-JERK'

In the Uber case, Chen has been tough on the company from the
start.  He twice foiled Uber's attempts to block the employment
suit.  He's rejected one of Uber's central arguments -- that it's
a technology company that markets an app, not a transportation
business that employs drivers.  And he was unimpressed with the
400 declarations Uber submitted from drivers who said they don't
want to be employees.  In September, he certified a portion of
plaintiffs' prospective class.

Some court watchers say they've spotted a pattern -- and it
doesn't look good for Uber.  UC-Berkeley law professor Steven
Davidoff Solomon is among them. He said Judge Chen seems
"favorably disposed" to the plaintiffs.  "He is giving plaintiffs
the benefit of the doubt in almost every circumstance," Mr.
Solomon said.

Mark Chenoweth, general counsel for the Washington Legal
Foundation, called Judge Chen's class certification order
"troubling."  Uber's own claim that all workers are independent
contractors suggested that common issues predominate the case,
Judge Chen wrote, finding that factor weighed in favor of class
certification.

"Every defendant in Uber's shoes will claim that the plaintiff-
workers are independent contractors," Mr. Chenoweth wrote in an
email.  "By the court's strained logic, this contested fact would
always make class certification appropriate, regardless of other
relevant and significant differences among putative class
members."

In October the U.S. Chamber of Commerce accused Judge Chen of
viewing Uber's arbitration agreements through an overly harsh
"anti-arbitration lens."

His finding that Uber's arbitration agreements are unenforceable
"reflects the very judicial hostility to arbitration that Congress
enacted the [Federal Arbitration Act] to prevent," the Chamber's
lawyers wrote in an amicus curiae brief backing Uber before the
Ninth Circuit.  "If allowed to stand, the ruling would potentially
unsettle many millions of arbitration agreements."

But Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents
Uber drivers, hasn't always been happy with Judge Chen's decisions
either.  Last year he nixed plaintiffs' bid for a nationwide class
action, instead allowing them to bring claims only on behalf of
California drivers.  And he denied certification to a large chunk
of plaintiffs' proposed class -- a cut Uber claimed reduced the
class size by as much as 90 percent.

Before rejecting the nationwide class action, however, Judge Chen
had approved it.  Last year, after reviewing a second judge's
ruling on a nearly identical question, he acknowledged he'd erred
by allowing out-of-state Uber drivers to pursue claims under
California law.

Judge Chen owned up to another possible mistake when he agreed to
rethink his ruling tossing out Uber's 2014 arbitration agreement.
In light of the California Supreme Court's August opinion in
Sanchez v. Valencia, Judge Chen conceded that he may have judged
Uber's agreement too harshly.

To Mr. Liss-Riordan that proves critics taking shots from afar
don't appreciate the care Judge Chen takes in reaching the right
decisions.  "He's certainly not knee-jerk ruling for the
plaintiffs on anything."


UNITED STATES: Animal Rights Group Sues DA Over Foie Gras Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Brontad, writing for Law.com, reports that The Animal Legal
Defense Fund has waged another battle to ban foie gras from
America's dinner menus.

On Nov. 5, the group filed a lawsuit alleging the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's failure to respond to its petition to add warning
labels to foie gras violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
The case is the second the ALDF has brought against the USDA over
foie gras, a controversial French delicacy that comes from the
livers of force-fed ducks and geese -- typically using a tube in a
method called gavage.  It's also one of several challenges across
the country over the production of foie gras in the United States.

"We focus on foie gras because it's in many ways the perfect
example of everything that's wrong with factory farming," said
Carter Dillard, director of litigation at the Animal Legal Defense
Fund, which is based in Cotati, California.  "It is barbaric in
terms of how cruel it is to the animals.  It creates a food
product that violates every food safety standard by inducing
disease in the animals."

A USDA spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment.

The ALDF's latest case comes after the USDA's Food Safety and
Inspection Service has failed to respond to its 2011 petition to
put a label on foie gras warning consumers that it is "derived
from diseased birds," citing liver disease and other ailments.  By
not adding that warning, the USDA runs afoul of the U.S. Poultry
Products Inspection Act's requirement to assure consumers that
products aren't made from "dead, dying, disabled or diseased"
poultry, according to the suit, which was filed in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.

In 2012, a coalition of animal protection groups joined ALDF in a
separate case filed after the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
Service denied an earlier petition to ban foie gras altogether as
an "adulterated" product under the U.S. Poultry Products
Inspection Act. U.S. District Judge Otis Wright of the Central
District of California, ruling on jurisdictional ground, found
that the plaintiffs' challenge of the science behind foie gras
raised "an issue falling squarely under the USDA's discretion."

Oral arguments in that case took place before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 3 at the University of
California at Los Angeles School of Law.  In the USDA's appeal
brief, U.S. Justice Department lawyers challenged the scientific
claims of the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the standing of all
the plaintiffs, which include four consumers.  Morgan Hector, an
attorney in the Los Angeles office of Steptoe & Johnson, presented
oral arguments for the Animal Legal Defense Fund and the other
plaintiffs.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund and other animal rights groups also
have filed an amicus brief in another case before the Ninth
Circuit seeking to overturn a Jan. 7 ruling by U.S. District Judge
Stephen Wilson of the Central District of California striking down
California's ban on foie gras as preempted by the Poultry Product
Inspection Act.


UNLIMITED RESTORATION: Faces "Beck" Suit for FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Beck, on his own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated, v. Unlimited Restoration Specialist, Inc., a
Florida for Profit Corporation, Case No. 8:15-cv-02572-EAK-TGW
(M.D.Fla., Nov. 2, 2015), seeks overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees, declaratory relief and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Unlimited Restoration Specialist, Inc. provides emergency
restoration services for commercial, industrial, institutional,
residential and multi-residential properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
     P.O Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Phone: (407) 420-1414
     Fax: (407) 245-3341
     E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com


VILLAGE OF PALATINE: "Murphy" Files Privacy Suit in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------
Martin Murphy on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. The Village Of Palatine, Illinois a municipal
corporation, Case No: 1:15-cv-09800 (N.D.Ill., Nov. 2, 2015), is a
successor complaint to Case 10 cv 5434 (Senne v. Village of
Palatine, Illinois) in which District Court Judge Matthew F.
Kennelly granted summary judgment in favor of the Village and
against Senne only without first ruling on class certification.
The complaint seeks damages and other relief under the Driver's
Privacy Protection Act.

Palatine is a village in Cook County, Illinois, United States. It
is a northwestern residential suburb of Chicago.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Martin J. Murphy, Esq.
     1222 W. Arthur
     Chicago, IL 60626
     Phone: (312) 933-3200
     E-mail: mjm@law-murphy.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Herrell" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
Jack Herrell, Sandra Herrell, Brett Alters, John Costello, Melissa
Costello, Susan Sherman, and all others similarly-situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case No.
2:15-cv-13734 (E.D. Mich., October 21, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for common law fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of
express warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Act and the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business within the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Tana Lin, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Tel: (206) 623-1900
      Fax: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: tlin@kellerrohrback.com

          - and -

      Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Tel: (415) 956-1000
      Fax: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Rosales" Suit Alleges Common Law Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Rosales, Philip Satchell, and all others similarly-
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG and
Audi AG Case No. 2:15-cv-08259 (C.D. Calif., October 21, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for common law fraud, breach of
implied warranty, breach of express warranty and violation of
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business within the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      840 Malcolm Road
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Tel: (650) 697-6000
      Fax: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com

          - and -

      Joseph C. Wilson, Esq.
      CURIALE WILSON LLP
      One Maritime Plaza, Suite 1000
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 908-1001
      E-mail: jwilson@curialewilson.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Jassem" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Jassem, and Nathan Wheeler, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America,
Inc., Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Audi Of America LLC, Audi Of
America, Inc., Porsche AG and Porsche Cars North America, Inc.,
Case no: 2:15-cv-13865-DML-MJH (E.D.Mich., Nov. 2, 2015), alleges
that Defendants deceived its customer when it installed "defeat
devices" on vehicles and called these environmentally-friendly
cars.

Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc. is a global auto manufacturer.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew Preusch, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1129 State Street
     Suite 8 Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Phone: (805) 456-1496
     Fax: (805) 456-1497
     E-mail:mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Santos" Suit Over "CleanDiesel" Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Santos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., a New Jersey
Corporation, Volkswagen Ag, and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-13864-NGE-DRG (E.D.Mich., Nov. 2,
2015), was filed over the sale of more than 482,000 Volkswagen
vehicles that Volkswagen touted as "CleanDiesel" and "eco-
conscious" despite knowing allegedly that the vehicles fail to
satisfy even the baseline state and federal emission standards.

Volkswagen AG is the parent corporation and sole owner of
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. Volkswagen AG is based in
Germany and directly controls and directs the actions of
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., which acts as its agent in the
United States. As a result, the Court has specific jurisdiction
over Volkswagen AG.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David J. Shea, Esq.
     Claudia C. Boonenberg, Esq.
     SHEA AIELLO, PLLC
     26100 American Drive, Second Floor
     Southfield, MI
     Phone: (248) 354-0224

        - and -

     William C. Carmody, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
     560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 336-8330
     Fax: (212) 336-8340
     E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com

        - and -

     Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
     Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
     1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
     Phone: (310) 789-3100
     Fax: (310) 789-3150
     E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
             ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

        - and -

     Vineet Bhatia, Esq.
     SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
     1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 651-9366
     Fax: (713) 654-6666
     E-mail: vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com


* Worker Misclassification Problem Prevails
-------------------------------------------
Catherine L. Fisk, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Companies often hire workers as independent contractors to
avoid minimum wage and overtime laws and because workers can be
terminated without liability for discrimination, retaliation or
harassment, and the employer need not pay its share of payroll
taxes to fund unemployment, disability and Social Security
insurance.  But an employer that maintains control over its
workforce while avoiding compliance with employment laws has
misclassified its employees.

Federal, state and local governments object to misclassification
when the public must foot the bill for unemployment or other
benefits -- an annual tax shortfall that the Congressional
Research Service estimated at $290 billion in 2011.  The
misclassification problem is so endemic in some industries,
especially ridesharing, that states should consider adopting a
model pioneered in Minnesota and presume that all workers in
certain sectors are employees unless the employer proves to a
regulatory agency that workers are genuinely independent
contractors.

When a company offering services controls how the services are
provided to ensure a steady supply of labor of uniform quality and
price, the company is the employer.  When ordering an Uber, the
user has little choice in picking the driver, and Uber gives the
driver no control over price or whether to accept a ride.
Some companies in the "sharing" economy serve only as a hub (like
online classified ads) for consumers and providers and do not
control the people who offer services.  But Uber is not one of
them.

FedEx regulates the kind of truck drivers use, the routes they
drive, when they pick up packages from the warehouse, and what
drivers are paid.  As a consequence, FedEx drivers have no real
ability to use their truck for other jobs or to make a larger
profit by working harder or more efficiently.  For this reason,
the National Labor Relations Board has consistently rejected
FedEx's claim that its drivers are independent contractors.

Uber claims they give drivers a fair amount of discretion in how
to provide transportation service, but it issues
"recommendations," which can be as specific as the type of music
the driver should play in the car, and gives drivers no freedom to
negotiate fares or to choose clients based on the length or the
trip or the destination. True independent contractors are free to
hire assistants, but ridesharing companies do not allow it.

Courts and state agencies in California and Oregon have
preliminarily rejected ridesharing company arguments that they are
technology companies that simply provide a platform for drivers
and passengers to meet.  In O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, a
federal judge in the Northern District of California denied Uber's
motion for summary judgment, reasoning that Uber would not
function without drivers giving rides and Uber exercises
substantial control over fares and selection of drivers.  In
Cotter v. Lyft, the Central District of California denied summary
judgment for another ridesharing company, Lyft, which at the time
only recommended a fare, leaving passengers to choose to pay a
greater or lesser amount, of which Lyft would take a 20 percent
cut. (Lyft has since switched to the standard practice of not
giving passengers fare discretion beyond the gratuity.)

Nearly half the states have simplified their law to focus on only
three criteria to distinguish employees from contractors.  This
streamlined "ABC" test considers: (A) whether the worker is free
from control or direction; (B) whether the work is done outside
the usual course of business of the person or entity that hires
the worker; and (C) whether the worker is customarily engaged in
an independent trade or business of the same nature as that
involved in the work performed for the hiring entity.

Yet misclassification still occurs. Some companies attempt to
maintain effective control over their workforce without being
employers by requiring workers to form business entities,
typically LLCs or franchises.  In Awuah v. Coverall North America,
the Massachusetts federal district court held that janitors who
were nominally franchisees of Coverall were actually employees.
The court applied the three-prong ABC test of Massachusetts and
granted summary judgment to the workers on the ground that their
service was the usual course of business of the employer.  The
court found that, since Coverall trained staff, contracted with
and billed customers and kept a percentage of cleaning revenue,
its janitors were employees.

New York has enacted legislation attempting to prevent
misclassification of construction workers as business entities by
saying that a worker operating as a separate business entity is an
employee unless he has substantially invested capital in the
entity beyond equipment and a vehicle, regularly making services
available to the general public when the worker chooses.  Oregon
law provides that business entities may be employees.  In
addition, at least one court has found that a company that offers
the service of helping other companies and their employees set up
separate business entities is aiding and abetting
misclassification.

To end the cat-and-mouse game, states should create a presumption
of employee status. Washington state considered and Minnesota
enacted laws classifying workers as employees by default unless
employers first show that they are independent contractors.

Minnesota provides that any construction industry company wishing
to hire workers as contractors must petition to obtain independent
contractor status for its labor.  The Minnesota system is narrowly
tailored to target specific industries where misclassification is
rife, without imposing additional regulation in industries where
misclassification is not an issue.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Water Corp. Workers Exposed to Deadly Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------
ABC News reported that fifty more people than first thought were
potentially exposed to asbestos while working on a Water
Corporation maintenance project in Western Australia's Wheatbelt,
the State Government has said.

Water Minister Mia Davies confirmed in State Parliament, 138
people were potentially exposed to asbestos from a tank at a
reservoir near Wyalkatchem earlier.

At first it was thought 88 people may have been exposed to the
asbestos, a number that included both corporation staff and
contractors, but Ms Davies said that number had grown after
further investigations.

The Water Corporation ordered an investigation when the problem
first came to light.

That is continuing, but the corporation said the health risk to
workers was "relatively low".

Ms Davies said the additional affected people were now being
looked after.

"We have taken time to make sure we have cast a very broad net to
ensure everyone that may have had an involvement or interaction in
that site is availed of the information the Corporation is
providing and that they are offered assistance," Ms Davies told
Parliament.

"There is unfortunately an increase in the numbers from when we
first spoke about this in this place but it has been a result of a
very thorough and ongoing investigation into how this came about.

"In the interim [while the investigation is ongoing] the Water
Corporation is looking at their other sites, making sure they are
putting in place mechanisms to prevent this from happening again."

Asked for details about the investigation, a Water Corporation
spokeswoman said preliminary outcomes showed the utility's
processes for managing asbestos on the site were "not adequate".

"It has also identified opportunities to deliver improvements in
the management of asbestos across its business," the spokeswoman
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Nevada Health Agency Downplays Fibro Concerns
--------------------------------------------------------------
George Knapp and Matt Adams, writing Las Vegas Now, reported that
for Nevada's Department of Health and Human Services might be
facing tough questions once the governor learns about the content
of their internal emails.

Messages obtained from state computers show high-ranking officials
displayed contempt for those who disagreed with them about
asbestos issues.

The 8 News NOW I-Team requested all emails to or from the two top
officials at the health agency. Those officials have insisted the
public has nothing to worry about because of natural asbestos
deposits in southern Nevada, even though other state agencies and
outside experts strongly disagree.

The emails spell out how far these officials would go to make sure
their opinions prevailed.

State health officials latched onto one viewpoint about asbestos,
right in the beginning, and have since rejected all other opinions
or input. They've declined requests to study asbestos issues side
by side with university professors. Their emails contain snarky
potshots aimed at media members, and they worked in unison to
avoid outside accountability, even when asked to do so by the
governor of Nevada.

It's probably fortunate that Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval never
granted any interviews about asbestos issues, because if he had
relied on the talking points provided to his office by state
health officials, it could have been a major embarrassment.

The talking points are rife with errors and spin. Ever since
naturally occurring asbestos was discovered in southern Nevada in
2012, state health officials have struggled to control the
narrative.

Never once, in the scores of emails obtained by the I-Team, do
state officials ask themselves whether they might be wrong about
the risk posed by asbestos. Instead  they focused almost
exclusively on how to convince everyone else that they were right.

From the beginning, they developed an ever-changing list of
talking points. From the earliest version of an email to a 2015
edition of the email which was written for the governor a few days
after a series of stories by the I-Team aired. The talking points
email blasted the I-Team stories.

"The media coverage of the issue -- most acutely George Knapp --
is sensational, biased and incomplete."

It also attacked the two UNLV professors for creating panic and
hysteria while being outside their area of expertise.

"When geologists step outside their field ... and that engender
alarm, panic and hysteria."

Earlier, Chief Medical Officer Dr.Tracey Green on May 5, 2105
opined that she and her staff looked solid in the news stories,
while the "reporter looked crazy."

That same day, Green got an email from her boss Mike Willden
telling her, "As you can read below ... the governor wants a
follow up with reporter George Knapp."

But Green defied the governor, saying, "We spent over an hour with
him ... I do not feel more time with Mr. Knapp would be
productive."

It wasn't the only time she, and her staff, blew off a directive
from the boss.

Governor Sandoval has shown a keen interest in the asbestos flap
since early on. After all, he's been a strong proponent of
building the I-11 bypass, which -- it turns out -- plows right
through the heart of the asbestos fields discovered by UNLV
medical geologists Brenda Buck and Rod Metcalf.

When the state heard that Buck and Metcalf were working on a paper
suggesting a possible link between the asbestos in the desert and
elevated levels of disease, state officials shut them down, forbid
the team from talking about their findings, and barred them from
ever accessing the Nevada Cancer Registry again.

Even though state health officials intimated in emails that Buck
and Metcalf might be engaged in scientific fraud comparable to
disgraced vaccine researcher Andrew Wakefield, the same opinion
wasn't shared by another state agency. The Department of
Transportation, NDOT, which hired the two to study asbestos for
the I-11 project.

"We were surprised that this segment of the state was interested
in the asbestos and the other segment, you know, said cease
working on it," Buck said.

Unlike its counterparts in the health agencies, NDOT took the
asbestos issue very seriously, which is why it suspended the
highway project for a year and spent millions of dollars to
protect workers from asbestos exposure during construction.

Health officials, who had told the public many times that the
asbestos posed no risk, reluctantly had to change their stance.

"We never said the occupational workers or construction workers
could not be at increased risk. We have never said that," said
Green.

"But you are saying there is no risk, no increased risk?"  I-Team
George Knapp asked.

"To the community," Green answered.

It wasn't the only time words were parsed by health officials,
which might explain why in January 2014 the governor said he
wanted to see an independent agency to review  the asbestos data.
The request caused a bit of a tizzy.

"Not sure why the governor is requesting this," one email
remarked. But, they quickly came up with an idea for sidestepping
the boss again ... get Paulo to do it.

That first name appears throughout the health agency emails, so
familiar to his colleagues that there was no need to mention his
last name.

Dr. Paolo Pinheiro is a UNLV epidemiologist who has repeatedly
been touted by health officials an independent investigator not
affiliated with state health, Green told the I-Team.

But as the I-Team discovered, Dr. Pinheiro has accepted tens of
thousands of dollars in grants from Green's agency and he is
listed as the official epidemiologist for the Nevada Cancer
Registry, which Green oversees.

Back in 2012, when the state first learned that Dr. Francine
Baumann was working on a paper about asbestos an email went out
Oct. 14, 2012 to all senior staff at the agency, including Dr.
Pinheiro.

"Probably we need to discuss again our next step in dealing with
this doctor (Dr. Baumann) especially that she did not previously
respect our rules and regulations."

That next step turned to be the cease and desist order. Pinherio
became the go-to guy when state health needed something written to
counter the idea that natural asbestos might be a danger to public
health.

In February, Pinherio exchanged multiple emails in which he was
asked to write to a medical journal to rebut an article by
Baumann. Still, the agency pretended it was all done independently
... "if he would like to, it needs to be initiated and done by
him, not at our request," Green wrote.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Govt Agency to Remove Fibro from Sydney Dumpsite
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo News, reported that the NSW road authority has been given
less than a month to start removing piles of asbestos from
Sydney's inner-west.

The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has told the Roads and
Maritime Services (RMS) to start shifting stockpiles of asbestos-
laden soil from a former St Peters landfill site by December 7.

RMS has been given until May to clear the deadly fibres from the
site.

The maximum penalty for not complying with the clean-up notice is
$1 million, and $120,000 every day the offence continues.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Silver Schemes Legal Fees from Fibro Victims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Saul and Bruce Golding, writing for New York Post, reported
that Sheldon Silver was so eager to get his hands on legal fees
paid by asbestos victims that a top lawyer at his firm had to
personally deposit the checks into the pol's bank account to speed
up the process, a witness testified at the former Assembly
speaker's corruption trial.

Prosecution witness Gary Klein, managing attorney of asbestos-
litigation firm Weitz & Luxenberg, said Silver pitched a fit when
he thought he wasn't receiving his money quickly enough.

"He said that he was upset or angry that it took a couple of weeks
from when a check was issued to when it reached his mail," Klein
told jurors in Manhattan federal court.

In an effort to placate the powerful politician, Klein told the
firm's accounting department to deliver Silver's checks to the
speaker's secretary at the firm, but they just "sat in a drawer"
waiting for Silver to pick them up, he testified.

Klein said he then had Silver supply him with a custom-made rubber
stamp so Klein could endorse Silver's checks and take them to the
bank himself -- even if it required a special trip "to make sure
the deposits were more timely."

"I would go to HSBC Bank. I would deposit the check with a
teller," Klein said.

Upon completing the errands, the high-powered lawyer would send
Silver a "text or e-mail, or I would leave a deposit slip on his
chair," Klein testified.

According to previous testimony, Silver pocketed more than $3.3
million by bringing dozens of asbestos victims to Weitz &
Luxenberg, which specializes in litigation over asbestos-related
cancer.

The feds say Columbia University cancer doctor Robert Taub steered
patients to Silver as part of an illegal quid pro quo in which
Silver funneled Taub $500,000 in taxpayer-funded research grants.

Taub ratted out Silver to avoid prosecution in the alleged scheme
and spent two days on the witness stand.

In addition to asbestos-related income, Silver collected $804,000
for bringing Weitz & Luxenberg negligence claims involving friends
and neighbors.

He would have made even more, but the firm rejected 22 cases he
referred to it between 2003 and 2014, according to internal
documents presented by prosecutors.

Silver was also paid $120,000 a year by Weitz & Luxenberg, with
Klein testifying that the Manhattan Democrat was the firm's only
lawyer who got a salary without having "to work on any case
files."

Klein said the personal services he performed for Silver also
include upgrading the pol's cellphone and taking care of the
costs.

"[Firm co-founder] Arthur Luxenberg and I were kidding around that
Shelly had to come out of the Dark Ages because he had a flip
phone," Klein said.

"So I had Aaron Zuckerman go out to Verizon to pick him up a
BlackBerry."

Klein said he had the phone added to his personal account, noting,
"I paid the bill, and the firm reimbursed me."

Also, Luxenberg testified that Silver was hired based on the
belief that he "would bring prestige to the firm and help the name
of the firm."

"We didn't think he would use his position at all to bring cases
to the firm," Luxenberg said.

Luxenberg also said that throughout Silver's time there, the firm
refused to handle any cases involving state government, to avoid
the "appearance of impropriety."

Following Silver's January arrest, Weitz & Luxenberg announced
that he was taking a leave of absence pending resolution of the
charges against him, with Silver saying he didn't want "to be a
distraction, especially since there was no wrongdoing by the
firm."

Silver also stepped down from his longtime Assembly leadership
post but held on to his seat.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Broadlea Pupils Sent Home Due to Fibro Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Island Echo reported that parents and guardians were requested to
collect their children 'as soon as possible' shortly before midday
with a vague explanation of 'due to work near the kitchen area',
which left many confused as to what was going on.

Rumours of something more sinister than a gas or water leak began
to circulate, with fears exacerbated after Emscar asbestos removal
vans were spotted parked outside the school last night.

Parents need not worry though -- it has now been confirmed that
asbestos has indeed been found at the school during work to fix a
water leak, however the risk of contamination 'was extremely low
at all times'.

A spokesperson for the Isle of Wight Council, the Local Education
Authority, has told Island Echo:

"During work to detect a water leak and reinstate hot water and
heating in the kitchen area, a small amount of asbestos was
discovered when removing part of the floor. This is very common in
the fabric of older buildings.

"Although the risk of contamination was extremely low at all
times, the area was closed as a precaution and the school
management team contacted the council for advice.

"Because the school was therefore unable to provide meals, either
on site or using external caterers, the school closed at midday as
a precaution and parents were contacted in advance.

"Work is already underway to remove the small amount of asbestos
that was discovered and it is expected this will be completed by
(11 November). A thorough clean of the affected area will then be
undertaken.

"The school opened as normal (10 November). Children who usually
receive school dinners will instead be provided with a packed
lunch."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liverpool Staff Exposed to Fibro Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohamed Taha, writing for ABC News, reported that Liverpool
councillors passed the motion unanimously in an extraordinary
meeting on night after initial concerns about contaminated soil
were raised.

Asbestos is a notorious carcinogen and more than 10,000
Australians have died from mesothelioma since the 1980s.

The disease is caused by exposure, and strict laws over asbestos
removal and disposal apply nationwide.

Councillor Peter Ristevski first raised the issue at a meeting on
November 3 after he received information from the United Services
Union about 22 sites which could be affected by the contaminated
fill, including parks, reserves and waterways, some of which are
near schools.

"I do believe council was fined about two years ago by the
Environment Protection Authority (EPA) for $150,000 for not
following process [asbestos-related records]," he said.

"Here we are two years later and the EPA is back with a fine I
believe in the $4-million mark, that doesn't include the clean-up
cost.

"The contingent liability to ratepayers could be $20-million plus.
That's unacceptable."

Councillor Ristevski said there was a potential health risk to
council workers and residents who might come across the
contamination.

"A lot of the footpaths that have been built by us in the last 18
months to two years have used this asbestos-contaminated
backfill," he said.

"If a council worker mows across this material, that then becomes
airborne.

"That will affect not only council workers but residents that live
around the local area."

Councillor Ristevski said he was concerned that council's
management did not act on the matter sooner.

"The mayor and the CEO have known about this for months, for them
to not act upon it, but more importantly stifle debate when I
raised the motion is concerning," he said.
Council first told about contamination earlier in 2015

Liverpool Council CEO Carl Wulff said the council was first told
about the contamination earlier.

"The alleged contamination probably earlier in a general sense, we
didn't have a significant idea of the totality of it," he said.

"It's fair to say what we found in the testing program is very
minuscule in terms of asbestos contamination overall."

Mr Wulff said the council had not acted on the information earlier
as the contamination was small and it was waiting for direction
from the NSW EPA.

"There wasn't an urgency because the extent of the contamination
in terms of asbestos is very small," he said.

"It's in solid form and, as most people would know, asbestos is
only a problem if it's in airborne form so it's not a public
hazard at the moment.

"So there wasn't a need to do dramatic things when we did find out
there was some contamination in the material."

Mr Wulff said the council's soil storage facility, the Western
Depot in Kemps Creek, was one of the potential sources for the
contamination.

"The whole site has been fenced off, it's not excluded," he said.

"None of the workers are going on those sites.

"It'll be one of the sites we remediate in consultation with the
EPA."

Mr Wulff said the council was now working closely with the EPA to
address the 22 sites under investigation.

"We've gone through an audit process," he said.

"We're now providing them with a statement about how we anticipate
remediating those sites."

The EPA told the ABC it had begun an investigation into sites of
potential contamination.

"The NSW Environment Protection Authority is currently
investigating allegations that Liverpool Council has unlawfully
disposed waste at a number of properties in the Liverpool Council
area," a spokesperson said.

Residents and workers concerned about sites, union says

Hammondville resident John Davis has lived in his Sligar Avenue
home for 45 years.

He lives with his wife Joan and is currently being treated for
oesophageal cancer.

Mr Davies said he received a letter from the council in September
stating a tree hedge in front of his home had asbestos-
contamination in the soil and the clean up would take five days.

He said the site still had not been completed and he was concerned
about his health.

"So when the wind blows ...we have to put up with more of it," he
said.

"We thought Council would be more responsible to allow this to
happen without testing the soil."

Mr Davies said he wanted the council to finish the site
immediately.

"Get something done with it, get off your arse and put us a decent
nature strip there, instead of a dust ball that's probably full of
asbestos."

General secretary of the United Services Union Graeme Kelly, which
represents council workers, said the union found out about the
contamination from workers in late October.

"We raised those concerns with Council on the 27th of October and
got it sent to a Council meeting on the 29th of October," he said.

"The council rejected the union's claims."

Mr Kelly said many of the union's members were concerned about
their health.

"We've had members crying because they know the affects of
contamination by asbestos is long-term, it's a very debilitating
death," he said.

"To have a council that has taken a blaze attitude to workers'
health is nothing short of a disgrace."

He said the union would meet with the Minister for Local
Government Paul Toole to take the issue further.

"If they've [the council] known about it for five months and
they've breached EPA regulations and directions from a previous
event then they need to be dealt with," he said.

"We're calling on the Minister for Local Government to take a very
strong look at Liverpool City Council, at their failure to notify
the community of the dangers in their area."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Concordia Won't Retract Fibro Report
-----------------------------------------------------
Jesse Feith, writing for Montreal Gazette, reported that despite
acknowledging an "oversight" by failing to notice a conflict of
interest before commissioning and publishing a report on Quebec's
asbestos industry, Concordia University does not plan to
officially retract the report in question.

"The university believes that the actions that have been taken are
appropriate given the circumstances. That further investigation or
any other action is not necessary or warranted," said spokesperson
Chris Mota. "We are not considering retracting the report."

The report, published in July, on public relations lessons that
can be learned from Quebec's asbestos industry was written by John
Molson School of Business lecturer John Aylen. It aimed to answer
whether or not "there can be meaningful dialogue and consensus
when facts come up against feelings."

Aylen argues facts will never trump feelings when it comes to
public opinion, and attempts to prove as much by using events in
the two years leading up to the Quebec government cancelling the
$58-million loan planned for the Jeffrey Mine as an example.

Kathleen Ruff, a senior adviser with the Ottawa-based Rideau
Institute, took issue with the report for not disclosing that
Aylen has repeatedly spoken and written in favour of the asbestos
industry. Aylen had in the past been a paid spokesperson for
Baljit Chadha, who was the lead proponent of the Jeffrey Mine
expansion, and thanks him under a pseudonym in the acknowledgments
section of the report.

A letter Ruff and a group of scientists and human-rights advisers
wrote to Concordia sparked a review of the report, which led to
the university removing it from its website on July 24.

In a response sent to Ruff on Oct. 26, Concordia president Alan
Shepard wrote that "a formal inquiry was conducted into this
matter."

"The inquiry revealed that the analysis and disclosure of the
author's previous involvement with the asbestos industry was dealt
with inadequately and that a review of some of the process of the
Luc Beauregard Centre of Excellence in Communications Research
should and will be undertaken," Shepard's response reads.

Motta said the university will be assessing the process that
allowed the report to be published in the first place. "We're
going to have someone look into this and see what we can do to
make sure something like this doesn't happen again," she said.

But Ruff said she feels that isn't enough.

"The reality is that it's an official report endorsed by Concordia
University," she said. "A report that's full of false information
that will help sell asbestos and promote the misinformation that
asbestos is safe."

"We're glad they're not promoting it on their website," she added,
"But they have not retracted it."

The university has not released any statement or press release
about the issue since removing the report from its website.

Ruff wants Concordia to officially retract the report, and explain
how it was allowed to be published in the first place.

"This is what reputable scientific publications do, what reputable
scientific and academic organizations do," she said. "When they
find there has been wrongdoing, that false information has been
published in their name, they take responsibility for it and they
make it clear that it is no longer an official report that
represents (them)."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Gateway Arch Museum Project Stopped Due to Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Banker, writing for Fox2Now.com, reported that a work zone at
the Gateway Arch has been shut down until further notice because
of asbestos.

This is in the museum work zone, under the Arch. Tests came back
positive for the cancer-causing material, but neither the
contractor nor the National Park Service informed the public.
There was no public alert; workers told Fox 2 News that insulation
on a steam pipe in their demolition zone was exposed for a month
or more before it was finally tested.

According to a statement from the National Park Service, prior to
the work starting, all materials known to contain asbestos were
safely removed. However, the pipe in question was in an area that
was inaccessible until after the demolition began. And while the
work area is sealed off from where visitors catch tram rides to
the top of the Arch, there are no signs anything about an asbestos
exposure.

Workers have gotten the initial test results and letters offering
them lung testing, chest x-rays, and a doctor consultation at the
contractor's expense.

The NPS said the museum work zone will remain closed until final
test results come back negative for any airborne asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: School Fire Responders May be Exposed to Fibro
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Demer, writing for Alaska Dispatch News, reported that as
many as 50 city workers and volunteers may have been exposed to
asbestos or other hazardous materials while responding to the Nov.
3 school fire in Bethel, City Manager Ann Capela.

It's unlikely that any exposure was long enough to cause health
issues, which can take decades to materialize, a state public
health official said.

Capela said the city still is obligated by worker safety rules to
notify employees and volunteers of possible exposure so they can
decide whether any testing or treatment is needed.

The group includes city fire crews, volunteer firefighters, city
water truck drivers who delivered water to holding tanks at the
scene and private operators of heavy equipment that cut the school
in two to make a firewall, she said. More than 250,000 gallons of
water were used, all delivered to the fire scene by truck since
that part of Bethel doesn't have piped water.

The city is identifying the affected workers and volunteers and
intends to set up a meeting with an environmental specialist so
they can get questions answered quickly, Capela said.

But they may not have reason to worry, said Ali Hamade, a state
environmental public health program manager.

"To put things into perspective, we do not believe the short-term
exposure . . . would be associated with any adverse long-term
risks," he said.

The city and the Lower Kuskokwim School District on took part in a
fire aftermath teleconference that involved various local, state
and federal agencies offering assistance.

The school district intends to bring in an environmental
specialist to test the site for asbestos and other containments, a
necessary step before the district can enter the building and
evaluate whether any part of it is salvageable, Superintendent Dan
Walker said.

The district knew there was asbestos in the building, which was
built in 1962 and housed two schools, he said. There is asbestos
in many schools and other structures from that era and into the
early 1980s, Walker said. It isn't considered problematic as long
as it isn't disturbed, environmental experts say.

The district had done a survey of the asbestos, as required by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But the district, scurrying
to make sure students were safe, may not have flagged its presence
to the city as the fire raged.

Fire crews (including volunteers) wore protective breathing
apparatuses, which virtually eliminates the risk of inhaling
asbestos when done correctly, Fire Chief Bill Howell said.

But water truck drivers and heavy equipment operators didn't have
that gear, Capela said. Had the asbestos been flagged, it's hard
to know what could have been done differently, she said. Nearby
residents may have been warned to stay indoors.

Two investigators from the state fire marshal's office spent just
a day in Bethel investigating the fire. They cut short their work
once they learned of the asbestos. The state office said it is not
equipped to investigate a fire involving asbestos. Its
investigators are not certified in hazardous materials and they
lack the proper protective equipment, according to the office.

The school district said it is working to keep the site safe. It
ordered fencing from Anchorage to secure the site because there
weren't enough materials in Bethel, the superintendent said. The
district intends to dismantle the school playground equipment so
children aren't lured to the debris field.

The EPA recommends that debris in this situation be kept wet and
covered so it doesn't go airborne. The weather is helping. Rain
has kept the site wet and fresh snow now is covering it.

The big debris pile won't end up in the city of Bethel's landfill,
Capela said. The landfill is not approved for toxic waste, she
said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor to Clean Fibro in Victoria School
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo News reported that a contractor who contaminated a Melbourne
primary school with asbestos has been ordered to perform a
detailed clean-up.

The unnamed contractor carted truckloads of soil strewn with
asbestos fragments into Syndal South Primary School in Mt Waverley
as part of landscape gardening works in October.

The soil was sourced from a former industrial site.

The education department has hired an occupational hygienist to
study the soil to determine the spread and depth of any asbestos.

Visible fragments have been removed and any remaining asbestos
poses minimal risk if left undisturbed, the education department
says.

The Environmental Protection Authority has ordered the contractor
to preform a clean-up, and it's been given until December 4 to
specify how the clean up and ongoing management of the school will
be carried out.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Sri Lanka Fibro Industry Cries Foul Over Ban
-------------------------------------------------------------
Induli Hewahe, writing for Daily News, reported that the Fibre
Cement Products Manufacturers Association in Sri Lanka claimed
that government's decision to ban the use and import of asbestos
cement roofing sheets by 2018 has created an unnecessary 'scare'
with negative information reaching society.

"Though there are many forms of asbestos, Sri Lanka imports only
the white variety of asbestos (Chrysotile) for production of
roofing and ceiling sheets,where asbestos is mixed with cement
acting as a binding agent reducing fiber escape. "Though,it has
been scientifically proven that only blue and brown asbestos fibre
can cause cancer, it has been accepted that white asbestos has no
adverse impact on human health.The decision of the government to
ban asbestos roofing sheets will be highly controversial
here,"Fibre Cement Products Manufacturers' Association Coordinator
Anton Edema said.

Compared to Asbestos Blue form, the dangers from Chrysotile
products are arguably zero because its soft magnesium silicate
fibers rapidly dissolve in the human lung. Chrysotile is currently
used in 152 countries across the world including the USA,Edema
said.

This decision has been made without conducting a proper scientific
study to prove health hazards linked to asbestos. For more than 60
years Sri Lanka imported white asbestos mainly from various
countries.There is no concrete evidence to prove that inhaling
white asbestos fibres causes lung cancers .Although the cancer is
considered as one of the leading causes of deaths in Sri Lanka,
not even a single case of asbestos-related lung cancer has been
reported .

"The government decision to ban the use of asbestos roofing sheets
would directly affect the poor and middle class who struggle to
put up a house of their own.Many people are so confused and they
are bombarded with negative information convincing that a harmless
asbestos roof might somehow pose a lethal danger. The organization
has already come up with a proper marketing campaign to build a
genuine confidence with the product. We have tried our best to
communicate with the relevant authority in this regard. However we
haven't been invited to discuss the issue at length." Rhino
Roofing Products Limited Marketing Manager Priyantha Jayasinghe
said.

The importation and the use of Blue and Brown asbestos has been
banned under the Consumer Protection Act and Imports Regulation
Act in Sri Lanka since 1970.

Relevant government authorities have allowed themselves to be
talked into confusing the genuinely dangerous forms of asbestos
with those that pose no risk -- simply because they share the same
general name, asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Defendant Limited in Ways to Fight Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Campisi, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that rulings in
the Newport News, Va., asbestos docket are handcuffing defendants
that attempt to fight lawsuits, a national legal reform group
feels.

In asbestos cases playing out before judges in Newport News,
plaintiffs routinely call an industrial hygienist to testify about
controls and protections that are necessary to protect an
industrial worker from harm.

"As such, evidence of an employer's knowledge of hazards, along
with what safety procedures the employer did (or did not) observe,
is relevant to a number of issues in the litigation," reads a
report from the American Tort Reform Association condemning the
jurisdiction as a "Judicial Hellhole."

And one of those issues is causation.

Defendants, however, are not allowed to offer such evidence while
plaintiffs experts are immune from cross-examination concerning
the knowledge of employers -- i.e. the U.S. Navy or a shipyard --
about the hazards of asbestos-containing products being used and
their failure to implement safety procedures, ATRA says.

ATRA's annual report pegs what it feels are the least fair
jurisdictions in the country as "Judicial Hellholes." It issued a
mid-year report to add Newport News to that list.

In an op-ed he wrote for the Newport News Daily Press, Robert
Hatten, a plaintiffs attorney who brings most of the asbestos
cases in that city, states that the refusal of all judges to
permit evidence of an employer's knowledge or negligence in
failing to warn their workers about the dangers of asbestos is not
improper.

Virginia laws and federal statutes prohibit negligence lawsuits
against employers for work-related injuries, and maritime law
prohibits the "sophisticated purchaser defense," Hatten wrote.

Asbestos cases in Newport News are litigated under maritime law,
not Virginia state law, a decision of the United States Supreme
Court.

"In plain English, the law requires manufacturers of deadly
asbestos products to directly warn workers with a warning label on
the product. If the manufacturer fails to warn, the law does not
allow the manufacturer to blame the employer," Hatten stated.

ATRA also singled out the jurisdiction's prohibition on a "dose
reconstruction" defense.

The term refers to a process of recreating a plaintiff's exposure
history to a product based upon existing evidence.

Because development of disease is often attributed to dose and not
simply the product itself (think Aspirin, which could be harmless
in small doses, but dangerous in large ones), defendants in
asbestos cases seek to explore dose as it relates to the
litigants' asbestos-related diseases.

In Newport News, however, judges, rely upon Virginia common law
that prohibits accident reconstruction evidence and disallow
defendants' dose reconstruction evidence in asbestos cases,
according to ATRA.

Defense experts in Newport News also cannot express opinions of a
numerical threshold of exposure below which mesothelioma does not
occur, even though such opinions come from peer-reviewed
scientific literature that is often used in asbestos trials in
other jurisdictions, ATRA's report states.

"In the face of such evidentiary limitations, a defendant can
mount no effective counter to the plaintiff's causation theory,"
the report says.

ATRA claims that the prohibition on dose reconstruction evidence
is not equally applied to plaintiffs, who are allowed to offer
evidence of "work practice simulations," which involve videotaped
testing of a given product manipulated in various ways, the report
states.

ATRA claims that this is basically dose reconstruction testimony
going by a different name.

This issue of dose reconstruction and another issue concerning a
lower-than-typical causation standard threshold are handled at the
judicial level, and in Newport News it's often the same judges who
are presiding over those matters.

According to ATRA, out of five Newport News judges, it is often
the same two judges who have presided over asbestos cases.

They are Judge David Pugh and former Judge Aundria Foster.

ATRA provided Legal Newsline with a number of pretrial orders from
asbestos cases in which Pugh, a majority of the times, Foster on
one occasion, and one other jurist ruled against defendants, often
for the same reasons.

In most of these cases, the judges granted the plaintiffs' motions
to strike the "sophisticated user defense," limit testimony of
industrial hygiene and medical experts, and prohibit dose
reconstruction testimony.

ATRA maintains that it is simply unfair to prohibit dose
reconstruction evidence from the defense while permitting
plaintiffs to offer evidence of "workplace simulations," often
through a materials science expert named William Longo.

Longo's studies typically show results that are said to be
representative exposure levels that an individual may experience
in a given activity, according to ATRA's report on Newport News.

Longo is then allowed to offer testimony in court regarding the
volume of air one breathes in a given period of time and explain
to jurors how many asbestos fibers a person may experience
throughout the span of a career.

"To any reasonable observer," the ATRA states in its report, "this
appears to be dose reconstruction testimony."

Furthermore, ATRA claims that defense experts in Newport News
asbestos cases are not allowed to introduce numerical evidence
comparing the potency or toxicity of different asbestos fibers.

Because of the limitations, ATRA claims attorneys representing
asbestos defendants cannot mount an effective defense that
counters plaintiffs' causation theories.

Hatton wrote in his op-ed that this isn't the case.

"(L)ocal judges routinely permit defense experts to testify that
low exposure to the defendant's product was not a significant
cause of the plaintiff's mesothelioma," he wrote.

"The juries have never believed their testimony because it is
contradicted by well accepted science that low exposures do cause
mesothelioma."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Fined for Illegal Dumping on Fibro Waste
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Doyle, writing for Rotherham Advertiser, reported that a
sunnyside man has been charged over GBP1,000 for fly-tipping a
"large amount" of asbestos.

Christopher Rowlands, of The Wellway, was fined GBP750 and ordered
to pay GBP634.86 in costs after admitting the offence at Rotherham
Magistrates' Court.

Rowlands dumped the cancer-causing substance and other
construction waste at Laudsdale Road, East Herringthorpe on
February 5.

A witness saw the dumping happen and noted down the registration
of a Ford Transit van.

Council officers interviewed Rowlands, who initially denied being
responsible.

He then failed to attend two further interviews, so Rotherham
Council referred the case to magistrates.

Rowlands pleaded guilty to fly tipping in court on November 4.

Cllr Kath Sims, cabinet member for waste and enforcement, said:
"We are committed to doing all we can to stop fly tipping.

"I hope this case sends out a strong message that these crimes are
serious and we will do all we can to secure convictions on behalf
of the borough's residents."

Illegal dumping costs the council GBP87,600 to clear up every
year, with money coming out of the street-cleaning budget.

The authority collects furniture and appliances for disposal --
the charge is just GBP21 for up to three items, with 50 percent
off for Rothercard holders.

Cllr Sims added: "There is absolutely no excuse for fly tipping,
especially in cases like this when what was dumped was corrugated
asbestos sheeting.

"This type of waste needs to be handled and disposed of correctly
to avoid it becoming a health hazard.

"I would urge anyone who sees any fly tipping to report it to us
so that we can take action against the culprits."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jungle 2 Camp Littered with Fibro Waste
--------------------------------------------------------
James Dunn, writing for Daily Mail, reported that the Jungle 2
camp is littered with asbestos that could pose a cancer risk to
thousands of migrants at the infamous Calais site, it has been
revealed

Many migrants are using dangerous white asbestos blocks to hold
down plastic sheeting on their makeshift homes in the Jungle 2
camp, which is home to around 6,000 migrants.

The sand in the infamous camp is also scattered with small pieces
of the banned substance, and health experts say the fact they are
fractured makes them even more dangerous.

The samples were gathered from an area of the site -- mainly
occupied by Sudanese migrants -- and taken to a UKAS accredited
laboratory in Tyneside which confirmed they are carcinogenic.

One group of young Sudanese men invited Channel 4 News, which
found the substance, into to their temporary home and said it is
almost impossible to avoid treading in asbestos fragments while
walking around the camp.

Dr Surindar Dhesi, an expert in Occupational Health, Safety and
the Environment at the University of Birmingham, said: 'All forms
of asbestos are known to increase the risk of cancer and the
mechanism for that is asbestos is made up of fibres and these
fibres can get deep into the lungs.'

He added: 'Once that material is broken, there's a potential for
the fibres to escape and then they can be inhaled and that's where
the risk is.'

The Tyneside laboratory confirmed that the substance is a form of
asbestos called Chrysotile, which is designated a highly
carcinogenic substance by the International Agency for Research on
Cancer and is a main cause of Pleural Mesothelioma.

The French government, which is responsible for building
accommodation at the site, banned the importation and sale of all
forms of asbestos for public health reasons in 1996.

The discovery of deadly asbestos at the camp is the latest health
hazard to be identified at the camp, which reportedly was
previously a landfill site.

The site is just across the road from two large chemical plants
which are covered by the European Union's Seveso III directive as
sites which contain dangerous substances and which could pose
serious health hazards in the event of an accident.

A French government emergency plan shows an accident at the site
could lead to the 'risk of intoxication, fire and explosions'
because the chemicals used at the plant are 'inflammable, toxic to
humans and toxic to the environment.'

Joe Murphy and Joe Robertson run the Good Chance Theatre at the
camp for those who pass through here or stay longer, trying in the
main, to get into Britain.

They came across the asbestos and once found in one place, they
quickly realised it is all over the camp.

'We didn't know what it was until it was pointed out to us but it
is everywhere and nobody seems quite sure how it got here,' said
Joe Robertson.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Family Says Silver Cheated Them on Fibro Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Saul, Lia Eustachewich and Bruce Golding, writing for New
York Post, reported that relatives of an asbestos-cancer victim
steered to former Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's law firm in
what the feds called an "illegal quid pro quo" say the disgraceful
deal-making cheated them out of a rightful settlement.

Andrea Rega of Cape Cod, Mass. -- whose late father, Aniello, was
one of scores of cancer patients sent to Silver's law firm, Weitz
& Luxenberg, by a doctor allegedly in exchange for New York state
research grants -- told The Post that the Manhattan Democrat's fee
from the deals cheated the family out of money.

"I'm convinced the law firm would've worked much harder for my
father's case if they weren't giving Sheldon Silver the 33
percent," Rega said. "That's why the law firm wasn't working as
hard as they could -- because somebody else was taking the money."

Aniello Rega, an Italian-immigrant who lived in Valley Cottage,
NY, was diagnosed in 2011 with mesothelioma that his family blames
on his work as a barber at the Nanuet Mall, where asbestos was
removed during a 2012 reconstruction project. He died in 2013.

Andrea Rega specifically faulted Weitz & Luxenberg for not suing
the mall owners.

Another woman said her granddad was affected by Silver's alleged
shenanigans.

"It's really disappointing to know that my grandfather was taken
advantage of when he was so vulnerable," Moriah Nutter said of
Robert McKinley, who died in 2009.

"That doesn't sit with me too well, that somebody would use him in
that way just to get money," she said.

McKinley and Aniello Rega were among dozens of mesothelioma
patients sent to Silver by Columbia University cancer doctor
Robert Taub in exchange for $500,000 in taxpayer-funded research
grants, prosecutors say.

Silver made more than $3.3 million from the scheme, the feds say,
while Taub turned rat to avoid getting charged as a co-defendant
and spent two days on the witness stand.

Silver's defense lawyers didn't respond to requests for comment,
but a Weitz & Luxenberg spokeswoman said: "In mesothelioma cases,
we vigorously pursue any company responsible for exposing the
victim to asbestos, to try and seek restitution for the
immeasurable suffering of victims and their families.

"However, the law in New York prohibits plaintiffs from pursuing a
direct cause of action against their employers . . . Victims are
only able to seek justice from the companies responsible for their
exposure to asbestos."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Louisiana Court Remands Fibro Suit
---------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin.com reported that a Louisiana federal court has
remanded an asbestos exposure lawsuit, saying that a bankrupt
defendant's citizenship is still relevant for the purposes of
determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

In the Nov. 10 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana rejected Foster Wheeler's position that
since it was the only remaining defendant in the case against
which claims could actively be pursued, federal jurisdiction was
proper.

The plaintiffs asserted the claims on behalf of Paul Poche,
contending that he developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure
to asbestos-containing products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DEP Fines Fitchburg Properties Over Fibro
----------------------------------------------------------
Sentinel & Enterprise News reported that the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection has assessed Fitchburg
Properties LLC a $35,625 penalty for violation of state asbestos
regulations that occurred at its facility located at 32 Oak Hill
Road in Fitchburg.

In September 2013, MassDEP inspectors observed that asbestos-
containing pipe insulation had been improperly removed from a
decommissioned heating system.

Pieces of dry, friable asbestos-containing insulation were
observed on the floor throughout the facility, on a loading dock
and on the ground outside the building at the site.

MassDEP required Fitchburg Properties to retain an asbestos
contractor licensed by the Massachusetts Department of Labor
Standards to clean up and decontaminate all affected parts of the
facility.

MassDEP regulations require asbestos-containing materials to be
removed wet, and to be sealed while wet into leak-tight containers
with appropriate warning labels. Areas where asbestos removal will
occur must be sealed off and air-filtration equipment must be
operated during the abatement work.

Under the terms of a consent order, the company will pay $15,000
of the penalty, and the remaining $20,625 will be suspended
providing it has no further violations for one year. The company
must also follow all asbestos regulations on future projects.

"Before starting demolition or renovation, property owners must
identify asbestos-containing materials so they can be properly
removed and handled in accordance with the regulation.

Asbestos is a known carcinogen, and following the required work
practices protects workers as well as the general public," said
Mary Jude Pigsley, director of MassDEP's Central Regional Office
in Worcester. "Failure to do so will result in penalties, as well
as escalated cleanup, decontamination and monitoring costs."

MassDEP is responsible for ensuring clean air and water, safe
management and recycling of solid and hazardous wastes, timely
cleanup of hazardous waste sites and spills and the preservation
of wetlands and coastal resources.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Scores of Lisbon Bldgs Cleared of Fibro by 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Portugal News Online reported that Lisbon Town Hall has said
that over the next three years it intends to take care of the 42
municipal buildings that have been identified by council services
as containing asbestos, and rid them of the hazardous material.

Manuel Salgado, Councillor for Urbanism, said that council
services last October flagged 42 municipal buildings as having
asbestos in them.

"By 2017 it will be removed from all of them," Salgado said at a
municipal assembly, in response to a question posed by the PEV
green party.

Of the 42 buildings identified by the council, 13 are used for
municipal services, five are used by local fire-fighters and
municipal police, 14 are schools, four are sports facilities and
two are cemeteries.

The councillor also said that of the private buildings that have
been identified, two in Benfica "have already been demolished."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Damages Claim of Fibro Victim's Family Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scottish Legal News reported that the relatives of a mechanical
fitter who died as a result of exposure to asbestos have had an
action for damages against his former employers for alleged
wrongdoings that occurred in England dismissed as "irrelevant" by
a judge in the Court of Session.

Lord Boyd of Duncansby heard that the 24 pursuers, all relatives
of the late James Docherty, had brought a personal injury action
against the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills,
the first defender, as successor to the rights and liabilities of
Scott's Shipbuilding and Engineering Company Limited, and Imperial
Chemical Industries Limited, the second defender.

The first pursuer Louise Docherty, the widow and executrix
nominate on the deceased's estate, along witht the 23 other
pursuers, sought damages from the defenders jointly and severally
under the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011.

The pursuers averred that the deceased was a mechanical fitter and
served an apprenticeship as a marine engineer with the first
defenders in or about 1941 to 1947, and that in the course of that
employment he was exposed to asbestos dust.

Then from in or about 1954 to 1979 the deceased was employed as a
maintenance fitter by the second defenders at a plant in Wilton on
Teesside, during which time he was exposed to further substantial
quantities of asbestos dust.

It was said that as a result of these exposures he developed
asbestosis and pleural plaques and died on 30 September 2011.

However, the second defender's argued that the case against them
was "irrelevant" on the basis that the "wrongs complained of
occurred exclusively in England".

The deceased had worked for the first defenders in Scotland for a
few years in the 1940s, but otherwise he had lived and died all
his life in Teesside and none of the pursuers had any connection
with Scotland.

It was submitted that the issue fell to be decided at common law,
as any alleged wrongdoing occurred before the coming into effect
of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act
1995 or the Rome II Regulations.

On behalf of the second defenders, Roddy Dunlop QC said the remedy
which was sought in this case was under the 2011 Act, which had
"no applicability" in England.

The claim that could be sought in English law was under the the
Fatal Accidents Act 1976, but the only person who would be
entitled to an award of damages was the first pursuer, the widow
of the deceased.

It was not disputed that the Scottish court had jurisdiction, but
it was "wrong in principle" that the pursuer should be able to
claim damages in Scotland, available under Scottish law for a
wrong committed in England simply because jurisdiction was
established in Scotland.

The pursuers argued that liability was at common law, which was
essentially the same in Scotland and in England, and the heads of
damage, although expressed in different terms in different
jurisdictions, were also essentially the same.

If the deceased had raised an action while still alive he could
have pursued both defenders in Scotland or England.

Liability could have been established against both defenders on
the basis of a joint and several liability or apportioned against
the defenders, it was argued.

It was competent to proceed against both defenders as joint
wrongdoers where the disease, as here, was a cumulative one and
each contributed to a single result.

In Scotland and England the claims available on death were
governed by statute and although differently expressed, section
4(3)(b) of the 2011 Act and section 1A(1) of the 1976 Act were
"essentially the same".

Solcitor advocate Tom Marshall for the pursuers invited the court
to consider the issue from the perspective of the deceased, but
the judge considered that to be the "wrong approach".

In a written opinion, Lord Boyd said: "A claim under section 4 of
the 2011 Act is one that vests in the relative of the deceased.
They are the pursuers. This is of course in contrast to the
position in England under the 1976 Act where the right to bring an
action is at the hands of the executor or administrator of the
deceased.

"The number of people who may bring a claim in England is much
more limited; section 1A of the 1976 Act. If Mr Marshall was
correct then it would mean that the second to twenty-third
pursuers who have no claim in England for a tort committed in
England can not only bring an action for damages in Scotland but
seek a remedy not available under English law."

He added: "Accordingly in my opinion the action as drafted against
the second defenders is irrelevant. I intend to dismiss the action
insofar as it is brought by the second to twenty-fourth pursuers
against the second defenders.

"I would also propose dismissing the action against the second
defenders at the instance of the first pursuer. However before
doing so I shall put the case out by order to enable Mr Marshall
to consider a minute of amendment to bring a claim under the 1976
Act and to deal with the question of expenses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 5th Cir. Says Ramsay Liable for Medical Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Casady, writing for Law360, reported that transportation
company Ramsay Scarlett & Co. must cover the medical expenses of a
former employee who was diagnosed with asbestosis, the Fifth
Circuit ruled, upholding a lower court's opinion.

Ferdinand Fabre, 64, worked for the cargo unloading company from
1969 to 1991 and was exposed to asbestos on the job, making the
company liable under the Longshore Harbor Worker's Compensation
Act to cover the costs of his treatment, the court ruled,
rejecting the company's argument that it could have been
contracted elsewhere.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $14 Million Awarded in Fibro Death Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reported that
the family of a man who died of mesothelioma has reportedly been
awarded $14 million in their asbestos lawsuit, which alleged that
the man's mesothelioma was linked to his time working at a
polyester plant. In awarding the $14 million, the jury reportedly
found that the owner of the polyester fiber plant, Celanese Corp.,
was negligent in neither posting warnings about, nor providing
protection from, asbestos exposure.

According to a news release, Dennis Seay died in 2014 at age 70.
He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2013 after having worked at
a Celanese factory from 1971 to 1980. An attorney for Seay's
family said that in his of life, Seay's lungs collapsed 10 times
and were drained 11 times causing immense suffering. The lawsuit
alleged Seay did not know about the dangers associated with
asbestos and received no warnings or protections from it.

The jury in the lawsuit ultimately agreed with the plaintiffs that
Celanese should have provided proper warnings about or protection
from asbestos, and awarded $12 million in actual damages and $2
million in punitive damages.

A spokesperson for Celanese indicated the company planned to
appeal the jury's decision. The lawsuit also named John Crane -- a
company that made asbestos-containing gaskets -- as a defendant.
The jury, however, found John Crane not liable for Seay's
injuries.

Asbestos is linked to serious health problems including
mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer, all of which are fatal.
In many cases, however, the onset of symptoms does not occur until
decades after asbestos exposure. That can make it difficult to
determine which companies are responsible for a plaintiff's
asbestos exposure, particularly if there are many possible
incidents in which the plaintiff was exposed.

Lawsuits have been filed against various companies alleging they
knew or should have known about the dangers associated with
asbestos exposure but failed to adequately protect workers or
consumers.

In April, as reported by Gordon Gibb, Colgate-Palmolive lost an
asbestos lawsuit after the plaintiff alleged the company's talcum
powder -- Cashmere Bouquet -- was contaminated with asbestos and
caused her mesothelioma. The plaintiff in that case, Judith
Winkel, was awarded $13 million when the jury found that Colgate-
Palmolive acted with malice. Colgate-Palmolive was found 95
percent responsible for Winkel's mesothelioma, with four other
companies responsible for the remaining five percent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cinema Owner Violates Fibro Laws
-------------------------------------------------
St. Alban and Harpenden Review reported that the owner of an
independent cinema in St Albans is believed to have broken
asbestos regulations and will be appearing in court later.

James Hannaway from Berkhamsted will appear at Stevenage
Magistrates' Court on November 26 for three charges made by the
Health and Safety Executive.

The first, is for breaking Section 3 of the Health and Safety at
Work Act 1974 and the second is for breaking regulation 5 of
Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006.

The third is breaking regulation 16 of the same act but the 2012
revision.

The Health and Safety Executive has alleged that work had been
undertaken at the cinema which exposed or was liable to expose
employees to asbestos.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Rotherham Fly Tipper Fined for Fibro Dumping
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Star reported that a fly tipper has been fined GBP750 after he
was spotted dumping asbestos and construction waste at the side of
a Rotherham road.

Christopher Rowlands, of The Wellway, Sunnyside, was seen dumping
the waste on Laudsdale Road, East Herringthorpe, and his
registration number was passed on to the authorities.

He denied the offence when interviewed by council officers but was
found guilty in his absence when he failed to attend his court
hearing.

Rowlands was ordered to pay court costs of GBP634.86.

Councillor Kath Sims, of Rotherham Council, said: "We are
committed to doing all we can to stop fly tipping. I hope this
case sends out a strong message that these crimes are serious."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Found in Older Marble Pools
--------------------------------------------------
PoolandSpareview.com.au reported that according to information
from WorkCover NSW via SPASA, a small number of older Australian
swimming pools -- dating pre-1980 -- may have had minute levels of
asbestos added to the marble sheen interior when it was first
applied.

The addition of asbestos to the marble sheen may have been done to
provide for a more pliable interior during the application process
as well as delivering a smoother finish to the end product.

Many older pools are nearing the time where home owners are now
looking to have their pools renovated. SPASA says members may have
identified, or be concerned about how to identify, a swimming pool
containing asbestos.

In addition, asbestos not directly associated with swimming pools
may still be dug up during the excavation of a new pool or as part
of a more comprehensive project, not limited to landscaping and
outdoor rooms.

Swimming pool builders and pool and spa technicians should
approach older marble sheen swimming pools and surrounds with a
view that asbestos may have been used. If unsure, seek expert
advice from a licensed asbestos practitioner.

Builders and technicians need not worry if they do not disturb the
interior or the surrounding environment. If the pool and/or its
surroundings require renovation or some other minor works, then
the pool builder or technician should seek the opinion of a
licensed asbestos practitioner.

Some pool builders have advised SPASA that they have sent samples
to National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA)-approved
laboratories for testing. These tests are approximately $100 and
results are generally available in 24 hours.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Steelworker Dies of Fibro-related Disease
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scunthorpe Telegraph, reported that a former steelworker died of
industrial disease years after being exposed to asbestos, a
coroner ruled.

Robert Spencer, 93, died on June 22 after being diagnosed with
mesothelioma in April this year.

An inquest into his death held at the Civic Centre heard Mr
Spencer worked at the Appleby-Frodingham works from 1937 as an
apprentice boilermaker, before moving to the loco repair shop,
stripping down motors.

He joined the navy and returned to the steelworks in 1945 as an
engineer before he moved to Redpath Dorman Long repairing blast
furnaces.

In a statement Mr Spencer wrote before he died, which was read to
the court, he said he was exposed to it on a regular basis over
the years.

Of his time repairing blast furnaces, he said: "It was extremely
dusty work and our hair and clothes would be covered. We would
shower after work."

Mr Spencer said his health was good until he reached his 80s when
he suffered two large heart attacks.

His wife Barbara Spencer said in a statement her husband showed no
symptoms until his 90s.

Mrs Spencer said: "Robert had been made aware of many of his
former steel workmates suffering and dying due to asbestos
disease.

"As he reached his 90s he thought he had been one of the lucky
ones and would see out the rest of his days without being affected
by this awful condition.

"He had always been such a fit and strong man in his younger days
and to see him bedridden by this condition was awful."

Coroner Mark Kendall ruled his death was due to industrial disease
after a report found the cause to be "malignant mesothelioma".
Asbestos fibres were in both his lungs.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Mal Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a state
appeals panel kept the door shut on a legal malpractice action
brought by a family whose legal action over asbestos exposure was
tossed, saying a circuit court was correct in finding that, no
matter how plaintiffs juggled the calendar, they still brought
their lawsuit too late.

Vernon Nelson and John Q. Nelson filed suit two years ago, as
administrators of Eva Nelson's estate, against Cascino Vaughan Law
Offices. The firm has offices in Chicago and Milwaukee, and
focuses on asbestos suits.

The case stems from a wrongful death suit the Nelsons filed in
2005, in which they were represented by Cascino Vaughan. The 2005
suit targeted several companies for allegedly causing Eva's death
through asbestos exposure. Two of the companies were Aurora
Equipment Company and Plastics Engineering Company.

In May 2007, discovery was closed in the asbestos suit, and six
months later, the cases against the two companies were dismissed.
The overall suit continued, with the Nelsons hiring new attorneys
about July 2011, who made a motion to reopen discovery. The motion
was denied Dec. 1, 2011.

In November 2013, the Nelsons brought their action against Cascino
Vaughan, alleging, after hiring their new attorneys, they learned
Cascino Vaughan had failed to obtain "essential" evidence prior to
the close of discovery -- evidence which they believed would have
won them their original suit against the two companies. The
Nelsons further claimed Cascino Vaughan never told them discovery
closed in 2007 or that the case against the two companies had been
dismissed.

In spring 2014, Cook County Associate Judge William E. Gomolinski
tossed the malpractice suit. The Nelsons then took the case to the
Illinois First District Appellate Court. A three justice panel of
that court signed off on Gomolinski's decisions in an unpublished
order Nov. 10.

Gomolinski had ruled the starting date for the suit was May 15,
2007, when discovery was shut down, which gave the Nelsons, under
the statute of repose, until May 15, 2013, to bring action against
Cascino Vaughan. However, the Nelsons did not file until six
months after that date. Gomolinski added that even if Nov. 13,
2007, was used as the starting date -- the date the suit against
the two companies was tossed -- more than six years had still
elapsed.

The Nelsons also contended Cascino Vaughan fraudulently concealed
its alleged dereliction in the case, which prevented the alleged
malpractice from coming to light until about July 2011. The
Nelsons claimed the concealment should have triggered a five-year
statute of limitations, beginning in July 2011.

Gomolinski discounted this argument and the appellate court backed
him up. The appellate court noted courts have shied away from
applying the five-year concealment doctrine. To illustrate the
point, the appellate decision cited a 1987 Third District
Appellate Court opinion stating the six-year statute of repose
should still apply if a "reasonable time remains within the
remaining limitations period."

The appellate court found 22 months were left to run on the
statute of repose in the Nelsons' case -- an ample amount of time,
in the court's view.

Failing their other arguments, the Nelsons contended they learned
of the alleged malpractice in December 2011, when their motion to
reopen discovery was refused and the suit was dismissed. Under
this scenario, the statute of limitations would have provided them
two years from that date to bring a lawsuit, and they would have
ended up filing with two weeks to spare. Gomolinski throttled this
argument, however, by pointing out the clock would have begun
ticking around July 2011, when plaintiffs belatedly learned of the
May 2007 discovery cut-off, which again made them tardy in lodging
their suit by four months.

The appellate court drew attention to one of its rulings from
earlier in 2015, saying the statute of limitations launches when a
plaintiff discovers their alleged cause of action, even if they
did not know exactly what harm they may have suffered until later.

The Spellmire Law Firm, of Chicago, represented the Nelsons in the
malpractice lawsuit. Cascino Vaughn was defended by Hinshaw &
Culbertson, of Chicago.

The appellate order was authored by Justice John B. Simon with
justices Daniel J. Pierce and Michael B. Hyman concurring.

The appellate court filed the order under Supreme Court Rule 23,
which means the order may not be cited as precedent, except in the
limited circumstances allowed by the rule.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Shipbuilders' Bid to Avoid Fibro Claims Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Oppenheimer, writing for Mesothelioma.net, reported that it
is not at all unusual or even unexpected for a company that is
being accused of exposing their employees to asbestos to use every
legal maneuver available to them to avoid litigation. This
happened recently in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where
U.S District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno heard the case of Tesseer v.
A-C Product Liability Trust, in which the defendant, a shipowner
being sued by multiple plaintiffs harmed by their exposure to
asbestos, attempted to bar the cases because the plaintiffs had
failed to disclose their pending litigation as assets in previous
bankruptcy proceedings.

There were a total of eleven individual cases for which the
shipbuilder's law firm attempted to get summary judgment. In each
case the plaintiffs had originally been party to a multi district
litigation asbestos case that had been dismissed in 1997.
Following the dismissal they each then filed their own separate
bankruptcy litigations, and their cases were all reinstated in
2009 following the ending of the bankruptcy litigation against the
company. The company's lawyer now claimed that because the
plaintiffs had not disclosed the fact that they had litigation
pending against the company as part of their bankruptcy filings,
they had waived their rights to file the lawsuit.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs argued that because their
original claims had been dismissed for about seven years when they
filed the bankruptcy filing, they were no longer to be considered
assets and that it would not have been possible for them to have
anticipated that their cases would have been reinstated. They
additionally noted that even if those items should have been
considered assets, the mistakes were honest and not made in bad
faith.

Ruling on the case, Judge Robreno agreed with the plaintiffs'
attorneys, saying that even though it might have made sense to an
expert in the field that the dismissal orders in the multi
district litigation might have eventually led to reinstatement,
"Subject to certain conditions, none of the cases that were
administratively dismissed was ever reinstated from 1997 to 2009,
until this court, sua sponte, did so en masse. That a layman would
have had the foresight to know in 2007 when he filed for Chapter 7
bankruptcy that two years later a new presiding judge of the MDL
would reopen his asbestos case, albeit nine years after it was
filed, would have required unrealistic powers of prescience."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Clarifies Fibro Doc Production Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin.com reported that a New York appellate court has
entered an order clarifying parameters under which an asbestos
plaintiff can seek access to documents from boiler defendant
Cleaver-Brooks.

In the Nov. 12 order, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, First Department, stated that while the defendant must
produce all documents that reference asbestos or asbestos-
containing products, but not "the entirety of its commercial
files."

Cleaver-Brooks Inc. moved to vacate a set of orders in which it
was directed to produce documents, including commercial files,
that reference or mention asbestos or asbestos-containing products
used in conjunction with its boilers.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Trial Set in Fibro Death Suits Against 3M
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Kaufman, writing for BNA.com, reported that trial will begin
Feb. 16 against 3M in a consolidated suit asking whether the
respirator manufacturer should have done more to prevent the
deaths of several workers allegedly exposed to asbestos at a
Wisconsin door manufacturing plant owned by Weyerhaeuser.

A Nov. 9 order set the trial date for 3M Co. in this complex
litigation against Weyerhaeuser Co. and 3M in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

The February trial involving 3M will be bifurcated, court
documents show. The first phase will cover common claims
concerning liability, while the second phase will address
individual issues of causation and damages, including punitive
damages

A review of court filings shows the trial judge is struggling with
complex multiparty causation issues, including whether the
plaintiffs' medical experts can separate the plaintiffs' possible
exposure to asbestos in their respective communities and
households from the "very significant" occupational exposure at
the plant alleged in the complaints.

The seven suits contend asbestos was used for decades at the
Marshfield, Wis., facility as a fireproofing or insulating
material in the production of doors. The claims against 3M contend
the manufacturer defectively designed the model 8710 respirator
that was provided to employees, and failed to warn of the known
risks.

Separate Trials Eyed

The suit by the sole living plaintiff, Milton Boyer, was
consolidated for pre-trial purposes with claims on behalf of six
other workers who died from mesothelioma: Richard Masephol, Urban
Pecher, Valmore Prust, Roger Seehafer, Sharon Heckel and Rita
Treutel.

Court orders by Judge William M. Conley are paving the way for
separate trials against 3M and Weyerhaeuser by overlapping groups
of plaintiffs. The Feb. 16 trial date only applies to claims
against 3M by Boyer and the families of former workers Masephol,
Pecher and Seehafer.

The causes of action also differ among the plaintiffs, but
generally include counts in negligence, strict liability and
nuisance.

In June, the court ruled that airborne asbestos allegedly released
from the plant into the surrounding community provided a
sufficient basis for private and public nuisance claims (2015 BL
173375) (30 TXLR 575, 6/11/15). The claims, however, were
preempted by the Clean Air Act to the extent they relied on
federal clean air regulations.

Expert Ordered to Appear at Deposition

The Nov. 9 ruling also ordered the plaintiffs to make Dr. Daniel
Brody available to 3M for a deposition by Dec. 31.

The plaintiffs contended Brody -- who plans to testify on the
physiological design and function of the lungs, how asbestos
fibers migrate through the body and the science of asbestos-
related diseases -- was already questioned by the same defendant
in an earlier case.

But the court said the plaintiffs' position was "untenable."

Regardless of "3M's familiarity with Brody, it has a right under
Rule 26 to depose Dr. Brody," the court said.

The plaintiffs' failure to produce Brody for a deposition by Dec.
31 will result in "plaintiffs being prevented from offering his
testimony at the trial against 3M," the court warned.

The court also set Dec. 7 for a hearing to determine whether the
testimony of additional plaintiffs' experts-including Drs. Frank
M. Parker III, Henry A. Anderson and Jerrold L. Abraham-meet the
admissibility standards set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Summary judgment motions by each of the remaining defendants are
pending. The court noted in the Nov. 9 order that the negligence
claim against 3M, and "perhaps" even the strict liability claim,
"appear likely to survive the motion."

Three other companies were dismissed as defendants: Donaldson Co.
and Gardner Denver Inc. in 2014; and Owens-Illinois Inc. in June.

Plaintiffs' attorneys include Cascino Vaughan in Chicago, and
Motley Rice in Washington.

Forman Watkins & Krutz in Jackson, Miss., represents Weyerhauser.

Segal McCambridge Singer & Mahoney in Chicago represents 3M.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Law Firm Files RICO Counterclaim vs. Garlock
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, filed a
counterclaim today in federal court alleging violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and
other claims against asbestos gasket manufacturer Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC.

The counterclaim is asserted in response to a January 2014 RICO
claim filed by Garlock against the Dallas-based law firm, which
represents victims and their families in cases involving
mesothelioma, a deadly form of cancer caused by exposure to
asbestos.

In its counterclaim, Simon Greenstone alleges that Garlock and
Garrison Litigation Management Group, which manages Garlock's
asbestos litigation, "made and caused others to make false and
fraudulent misrepresentations in asbestos personal injury and
wrongful death litigation and knowingly withheld evidence of the
dangers of Garlock's products, and Garlock's knowledge of those
dangers, in order to depress verdicts and settlements obtained by
individuals represented by Simon Greenstone."

Among the highlights of the counterclaim filed in Garlock Sealing
Technologies LLC, et al. v. Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, et
al., No. 3:14-CV-00116:

In its lawsuit against Simon Greenstone, Garlock and Garrison
claim that "plaintiffs dying of mesothelioma, at their lawyers'
urging, concealed the existence of plaintiff's historical exposure
to asbestos-containing thermal insulation. Yet, in each case,
there is clear testimony from the plaintiff of his exposure to
thermal insulation that Garlock and Garrison simply ignore for the
purpose of contriving fraudulent claims against Simon Greenstone.
It is Garlock and Garrison, not Simon Greenstone, that have
engaged in a startling pattern of misrepresentation." (p. 64)
Garlock showed every desire to settle and little inclination to
take mesothelioma cases to trial. In one case, even when the
plaintiff and the plaintiff's experts had testified to exposure to
amphibole insulating products, "Garlock and Garrison's attorney
agreed to a settlement figure 42 minutes after [Garlock's
lawyer's] initial email seeking to settle the case." (p. 75)
"Garlock and Garrison's ulterior purpose in bringing the RICO
Lawsuit against Simon Greenstone was to gain improper leverage
against Simon Greenstone in the Garlock Bankruptcy by putting
Simon Greenstone at financial risk with threats of economic harm
through the damages pled in the RICO Lawsuit and by damaging Simon
Greenstone's reputation."  (p. 64)
The counterclaim alleges that, in the underlying lawsuits,
Garlock, rather than Simon Greenstone, gave false answers to sworn
interrogatories and failed to produce evidence in its possession
that contradicted its claims:

Garlock claimed that it did not learn of the relationship between
exposure to asbestos fibers and lung cancer until the "early
1970's," "But in truth, Garlock learned no later than March of
1956, at a meeting of the Asbestos Textile Institute, that
exposures to asbestos as short as six months cause lung cancer."

In the underlying lawsuits, Garlock repeatedly claimed that there
was no "competent scientific or medical evidence" that Garlock's
asbestos-containing products posed a health hazard -- even though
Garlock's own documents state that the products can be hazardous
when "subjected to mechanical actions that would cause the
asbestos fibers to be released," such as occurred during removal
of the gaskets.

During discovery in the underlying lawsuits, while still claiming
that no precautions were necessary when working with asbestos
gaskets, Garlock withheld a 1980 "Garlock Gasketing Materials
Manual" in which Garlock admitted the need to "Avoid creating
dust. Breathing asbestos dust may cause serious bodily harm."
Simon Greenstone did not know about this document until it found a
copy on eBay.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MetLife Had 2,022 New Claims at June 30
--------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received 2,022 new 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 30, 2015.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is and has been a defendant in
a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state
courts. These suits principally allege that the plaintiff or
plaintiffs suffered personal injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos and seek both actual and punitive damages. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company has never engaged in the business of
manufacturing, producing, distributing or selling asbestos or
asbestos-containing products nor has Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company issued liability or workers' compensation insurance to
companies in the business of manufacturing, producing,
distributing or selling asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
The lawsuits principally have focused on allegations with respect
to certain research, publication and other activities of one or
more of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's employees during the
period from the 1920's through approximately the 1950's and allege
that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company learned or should have
learned of certain health risks posed by asbestos and, among other
things, improperly publicized or failed to disclose those health
risks. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company believes that it should
not have legal liability in these cases. The outcome of most
asbestos litigation matters, however, is uncertain and can be
impacted by numerous variables, including differences in legal
rulings in various jurisdictions, the nature of the alleged injury
and factors unrelated to the ultimate legal merit of the claims
asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company employs a number of resolution strategies
to manage its asbestos loss exposure, including seeking resolution
of pending litigation by judicial rulings and settling individual
or groups of claims or lawsuits under appropriate circumstances.

Claims asserted against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company have
included negligence, intentional tort and conspiracy concerning
the health risks associated with asbestos. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's defenses (beyond denial of certain factual
allegations) include that: (i) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no special relationship
with the plaintiffs and did not manufacture, produce, distribute
or sell the asbestos products that allegedly injured plaintiffs;
(ii) plaintiffs did not rely on any actions of Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company; (iii) Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
conduct was not the cause of the plaintiffs' injuries; (iv)
plaintiffs' exposure occurred after the dangers of asbestos were
known; and (v) the applicable time with respect to filing suit has
expired. During the course of the litigation, certain trial courts
have granted motions dismissing claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, while other trial courts have denied
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motions. There can be no
assurance that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company will receive
favorable decisions on motions in the future. While most cases
brought to date have settled, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
intends to continue to defend aggressively against claims based on
asbestos exposure, including defending claims at trials.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received approximately 4,636
asbestos-related claims in 2014. During the six months ended June
30, 2015 and 2014, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company received
approximately 2,022 and 2,569 new asbestos-related claims,
respectively. The number of asbestos cases that may be brought,
the aggregate amount of any liability that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company may incur, and the total amount paid in
settlements in any given year are uncertain and may vary
significantly from year to year.

The ability of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to estimate its
ultimate asbestos exposure is subject to considerable uncertainty,
and the conditions impacting its liability can be dynamic and
subject to change. The availability of reliable data is limited
and it is difficult to predict the numerous variables that can
affect liability estimates, including the number of future claims,
the cost to resolve claims, the disease mix and severity of
disease in pending and future claims, the impact of the number of
new claims filed in a particular jurisdiction and variations in
the law in the jurisdictions in which claims are filed, the
possible impact of tort reform efforts, the willingness of courts
to allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company when exposure to asbestos took place after the
dangers of asbestos exposure were well known, and the impact of
any possible future adverse verdicts and their amounts.

The ability to make estimates regarding ultimate asbestos exposure
declines significantly as the estimates relate to years further in
the future. In the Company's judgment, there is a future point
after which losses cease to be probable and reasonably estimable.
It is reasonably possible that the Company's total exposure to
asbestos claims may be materially greater than the asbestos
liability currently accrued and that future charges to income may
be necessary. While the potential future charges could be material
in the particular quarterly or annual periods in which they are
recorded, based on information currently known by management,
management does not believe any such charges are likely to have a
material effect on the Company's financial position.

The Company believes adequate provision has been made in its
consolidated financial statements for all probable and reasonably
estimable losses for asbestos-related claims. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's recorded asbestos liability is based on its
estimation of the following elements, as informed by the facts
presently known to it, its understanding of current law and its
past experiences: (i) the probable and reasonably estimable
liability for asbestos claims already asserted against
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, including claims settled but
not yet paid; (ii) the probable and reasonably estimable liability
for asbestos claims not yet asserted against Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, but which Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
believes are reasonably probable of assertion; and (iii) the legal
defense costs associated with the foregoing claims. Significant
assumptions underlying Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
analysis of the adequacy of its recorded liability with respect to
asbestos litigation include: (i) the number of future claims; (ii)
the cost to resolve claims; and (iii) the cost to defend claims.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company reevaluates on a quarterly and
annual basis its exposure from asbestos litigation, including
studying its claims experience, reviewing external literature
regarding asbestos claims experience in the United States,
assessing relevant trends impacting asbestos liability and
considering numerous variables that can affect its asbestos
liability exposure on an overall or per claim basis. These
variables include bankruptcies of other companies involved in
asbestos litigation, legislative and judicial developments, the
number of pending claims involving serious disease, the number of
new claims filed against it and other defendants and the
jurisdictions in which claims are pending. Based upon its
reevaluation of its exposure from asbestos litigation,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has updated its liability
analysis for asbestos-related claims through June 30, 2015.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of MetLife, Inc.








                            *********

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  * * *