CAR_Public/160122.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Friday, January 22, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 15


                            Headlines


619 SOUTH: "Jones" Suit Alleges Housing/Building Code Violation
ACCORD CORPORATION: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Snyder" Suit
ACKERMAN WRECKER: Faces "Cotton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ACT FAST: Faces Class Action Over Wage Payment Practices
AGAPE SENIOR: Renewal Policy Not Void Ab Initio, 4th Cir. Says

AMAZON.COM: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
AMETEK INC: Strict Liability Claim Dismissed in "Trujillo" Suit
APPLE INC: Court Rejects Bid to Reconsider Ruling in "Moore" Case
BARCLAYS BANK: Statute Bars Substitution of Lead Plaintiff
BIEWER LUMBER: Discovery Bid in "Stolzenburg" Granted in Part

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Class Suit Over Counterfeit Materials
BP AMERICA: Court Denies Renewed Motion to Stay Proceedings
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Judge Rules on Bids to Exclude Opinions
CAPITAL BUILDING: Conditional Class Cert. Granted in "Hussein"
CASCADE WATER: Final Fairness Hearing in "Millan" Set for May 31

CATHERINE'S CLEANING: Faces "Bran" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CCB CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lebovitch" Suit Claims
CELERA CORP: Settlement Approved; Attorneys Fees Okayed in Part
CGY & J CORP: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Tagalogon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

CHICAGO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unlawful Transfer Taxes
CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES: Court Approves Incentive Awards to DPPs
CITIGROUP INC: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Judgment in "Ross" Case
COMCAST CORP: Arbitration Resolved Lawyer's Claim, 11th Cir. Says
COMPASS BANK: Judge Narrows Plaintiff's Claim in "Corley" Suit

CONGREGATION B'NAI: Sued Over Employment Renewal Policies
COOK GROUP: Faces "Minter" Suit Over Defective IVC Filters
COOK GROUP: Faces "Minter" 2nd Suit Over Defective IVC Filters
CORINTHIAN INT'L: Judge Remands Suit to Calif. Superior Court
DEEPWATER HORIZON: Judge Makes Allocations to New Classes

DEGGELLER ATTRACTIONS: 8th Cir. Favors Carnival Workers on Appeal
DEMOCRAT NATIONAL: Plaintiff Cannot Proceed in Forma Pauperis
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces "Cook" Suit Over Faulty Pinnacle System
DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces "Hawkins" Suit Over Pinnacle System
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit

EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Judge Narrows Claims in "Kearney" Suit
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Levy" Suit Over FCRA Violation
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Allen" Suit Over Private Data Breach
FANDUEL INC: Faces "Cosper" Suit in Louisiana Over Sports Website
FFP HOLDINGS: Judge Approves Class Settlements in Antitrust Suit

FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Imprudent Investment Strategy
FIFTH GENERATION: "Cabrera" Mislabeling Suit Goes to Trial
FIFTH GENERATION: "Hofmann" Mislabeling Suit Goes to Trial
FIVE STARS: "Daniel" TCPA Suit Dismissed
GALARDI SOUTH: Judge Won't Grant Arbitration Bid in "Espinoza"

GC SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
GEMM RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GERBER PRODUCTS: Judge Certifies Class Suit Over Baby Formula
GODFREY & KAHN: Judge Remands Suit, Denies Bid to Bifurcate
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Norris" Suit in Ala. Over Zofran(R)

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Rickman" Suit Over Zofran(R)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Brown" Suit in Ala. Over Zofran(R)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Mitchell" Suit Over Zofran(R)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Morga" Suit in Cal. Over Zofran(R)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Willis" Suit in Ala. Over Zofran(R)

GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Judge Confirms Class Certification on Taxpayers
HILL CORRECTIONAL: Judge Finds Merit Over Plaintiff's Complaint
HUNTINGTON HONDA: "De La Rosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
IGNITE RESTAURANT: "Ekryss" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
INFINITY INSURANCE: Judge Gives Plaintiff Another Day in Court

INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Final Approval Hearing Set for April 28
INTERSTATE REALTY: Faces Class Action for Unpaid Overtime Wages
KAHALA HOLDINGS: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
KARL STORZ: Sued Over Injuries Caused by Storz Morcellator
KINGSTON, NY: Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bid in Autism Case

LA FITNESS: Faces Class Action for Membership Agreements
LENDER PROCESSING: Settlement in "Lebrun" Case Wins Okay
LOS ANGELES MTA: Ruling in "Flowers" Labor Suit Reversed
MANNKIND CORP: Rosen Law Firm Sues Over Misleading Statements
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Foster" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
MAXIMUS INC: Partial Settlement in Trainers' Suit Approved
MERCK & CO: Faces "Orlando" Suit in N.Y. Over Januvia Drugs
MERIDIAN CAPITAL: 2nd Cir. Affirms District Court's Order
MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court Revives Suit Over XBox 360

MIDLAND FUNDING: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
MISSOURI: Judge Nixes "Mercer" Appeal for Lack of Final Judgment
MITAD DEL MUNDO: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MOHAMED LIVE: Faces "Yakim" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MRC SMART: Sued Over Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses

MY TRADE: "Romero" Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid OT
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hall" Suit Claims
NEVADA POWER: Sued Over Net Metering Rate
NEVADA PROPERTY: Settlement in "Lewis" Case Wins Final Approval
NEW JERSEY: 3rd Cir. Ruled on Former Inmate's Appeal

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Judge Narrows Claims in "Giotta" Suit
OHIO: BOE Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Sued by Shareholders Over False Statements
PACIFIC BROADBAND: "Vazquez" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
PAYPAL: Settles Class Action Suit on Improper Account Holds

PELLA CORPORATION: Judge Narrows Claims in "Sadler" Suit
PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Second Letter Only Extends the 30-Day Period
PREMIUM PACKING: Judge Nixes Arbitration; Jan. 28 Conference Set
PROTECH SECURITY: "Hudson" Suit Alleges IMWL Violations
PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: N.D. Cal. Judge Tosses "Washburn" Case
PVH CORPORATION: Judge Grants Certification on Eight Subclasses
RAWLINGS COMPANY: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss in "Daily" Case
REAL TIME: Judge Stays "Hurrle" Case for Second Time
ROKA AKOR: Class Cert. Bid Okayed; Feb. 26 Status Hearing Set

SALINE RETAIL: Sued for Alleged FCRA Violations
SAXON MORTGAGE: "Gaudin" Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
SCOTTRADE INC: "Kuhns" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: "McLendon" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
SEA BREEZE: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SELIP & STYLIANOU: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
SENSAY INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Jahovica" Suit Claims
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Judge Denies Leave to Amend and Dismisses Suit
SKREENED LTD: Judge Recommends Granting Final Approval of Deal
SPRINGFIELD, MA: Judge Trims Claims in ADA Suit

SUN MAID: Bid to Stay Discovery in "Talavera" Suit Granted
SUN WORLD: Denial of Class Certification Upheld in "Cruz"
SUNTRUST BANK: Georgia Court of Appeals Asked to Save Class Suit
TONAWANDA COKE: NY Supreme Court Won't Dismiss "Deluca" Suit
TOYOTA MOTOR: "Outside Reverse Piercing" Inapplicable

THERMOS LLC: Judge Narrows Claims in Dispute with Insurers
UNITED STATES: BIA Sued Over Indian Tribe Land Trust Policies
UNITED STATES: Judge Narrows Counsel's Bid for Attorneys' Fees
UNUM LIFE: Class Settlement in "Kemp", Counsel Fees Approved
VAALCO ENERGY: "Shapiro" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties

VIM RECYCLING: Non-Appearing Defendants Get Default Judgment
VITESSE WORLDWIDE: Limousine Driver's Suit May Proceed
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Buniatyan" Suit Over Defeat Devices
WESTLAKE SERVICES: Arbitration Ruling in "Ramos" Case Upheld
WILLIAMS COS: Proposed Merger Results to Class Action Suit

WYNN'S EXTENDED: Waiving of Attorney's Fees Violates "TCCWNA"


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Partially Dismisses "Rhoton"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Feaster"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Syska Fails in Bid to Junk All Craft's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies GM's Appeal in "Bryant"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Montello Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jan. 7 Testimony Deadline in "Covey-Hinzo"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fisher Wins Partial Summary Judgment in PI Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: DOC Directed to Produce Docs in Ex-Worker's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Appeals Court Remands "Brezonick"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Suit Dismissal Bid in "Phillips"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Wins Summary Judgment in "Feaster"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Flips PD Ruling in "Hernandezcueva"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Loses Prelim. Injunction Bid vs. NARCO
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Says Manufacturer Has Duty to Warn
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Trust Named Plaintiff in Suit v. Insurers

ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Viera" Transferred to Fla. District Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Summary Judgment in "Walton"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Bid to Remand Case in ""Zeringue"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sue CSX for Fibro-Caused Lung Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter's Suit Alleges Familial Fibro Exposure

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Company Owner Jailed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dale Farm Fined For Workers' Fibro Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Older Schools Still Poses Health Risk
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Allows Fibro Suit to Proceed to Trial
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alexandria Workers Confront Town Over Fibro

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Leisure Center Closed Due to Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: ND High Court Affirms Summary Judgment Award
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Pleads Guilty to Hiding Fibro
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Fibro Sufferers Thrown Lifeline
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Teacher Sues Over Fibro Cancer

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkeley Farm Worker Dies of Fibro Disease
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Jailed for Fibro Violations


                            *********


619 SOUTH: "Jones" Suit Alleges Housing/Building Code Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vernice Jones, Vasonda Jones, Sharon Evans, and all others
similarly situated v. 619 South 33rd LLC and Does 1-30, Case No.
RG15795644 (Cal. Super., December 7, 2015), seeks damages for
Defendant's violation of the Oakland Housing and Building Codes,
California Civil Code and Health and Safety Code.

The Defendants are owners and property managers or the agents or
employees of the Subject Premises.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 834-3300


ACCORD CORPORATION: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Snyder" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge John L. Kane of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, DALE SNYDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
ACORD CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV-01736-JLK
(D. Colo.).

Plaintiffs are 17 homeowners (and one estate of a deceased
homeowner) whose Colorado homes were destroyed by fires in
February and June of 2012, and one plaintiff whose home was
destroyed by flood damage in September of 2013. The named
Plaintiffs had homeowner's insurance policies issued by ten
defendants Shelter Mutual Insurance Company, American Family
Mutual Insurance Company, United Services Automobile Insurance,
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Liberty Mutual, Country
Mutual Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company, Colorado
Farm Bureau, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, and United Fire
& Casualty Company (Selling Defendants) at the time of their
losses.

Plaintiffs allege that their claims were mishandled in various
ways and that they were misled regarding the terms of their
insurance policies and how those terms would be applied. They
brought a class action including RICO, antitrust, and a raft of
state law claims against their insurance companies, as well as
scores of other insurers and related organizations, related to
those losses. Although Plaintiffs do not directly allege that
ACORD defines the terms or sets any standards in insurance
contracts about which the named Plaintiffs complain,  they allege
that the ACORD organization served as a vehicle for a conspiracy
to define and establish those standards. On November 24, 2014
Plaintiffs filed a stipulated motion to file a Third Amended
Complaint (TAC) in order to make numerous corrections.
In the motion, Defendant State Farm filed a motion to dismiss on
behalf of all Defendants arguing that the TAC fails to comply with
Rule 8 and fails to state any claim for relief. Certain defendants
filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Plaintiffs have failed
to state any claim for relief against them because they had no
contract, transaction, or relationship with the named plaintiffs
at all.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 15, 2016
available at http://is.gd/9zkwo1from Leagle.com, Judge Kane found
that Plaintiffs have not satisfied Rule 9(b) in their allegations
of mail and wire fraud because their vague allegations are plainly
insufficient because they do not specify the "who, what, when,
where and how of the alleged fraud". Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
and quantum meruit claims are dismissed because they did not
allege that that contract is unenforceable or that their claims
relate to any extra-contractual obligations.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Eddie Gene Dougherty, Esq.
     Josue David Hernandez, Esq.
     DOUGHERTY & HOLLOWAY, LLC
     7200 NW 86th St Suite D,
     Kansas City, MO 64153
     Tel: (816)891-9990

Defendants are represented by Frank W. Visciano, Esq. --
DVisciano@SennLaw.com -- SENN VISCIANO CANGES, P.C., Jeffrey
Michael Theodore, Esq. -- jtheodore@steptoe.com -- Mark Frederick
Horning, Esq. -- mhorning@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP-DC


ACKERMAN WRECKER: Faces "Cotton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Cotton, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Ackerman Wrecker Service, Inc. and Walter Glen Smith,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00466-LJA (M.D. Ga., December 11, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a towing, transport, and recovery service
company located in Macon, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Regan Keebaugh, Esq.
      RADFORD & KEEBAUGH, LLC
      315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
      Decatur, GA 30030
      Telephone: (678) 271-0300
      E-mail: regan@decaturlegal.com


ACT FAST: Faces Class Action Over Wage Payment Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
Hoang Tran, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that two
Kanawha County men are suing Act Fast Delivery and Home Care
Pharmacy over allegedly unfair and unlawful wage payment
practices.

Donovan Stewart and Lawrence Washington filed a class-action
lawsuit Dec. 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, Charleston Division against Act Fast
Delivery of West Virginia Inc. and Home Care Pharmacy LLC, doing
business as Omnicare of Nitro and/or Omnicare of Nitro, West
Virginia, over allegations of violations the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs were formerly employed
by the defendants as route drivers hired to collect and deliver
pharmaceutical and medical products ordered by customers of
Omnicare.  They were paid predetermined fees for each route
completed, regardless if it was expedited or routine, the
complaint states.  They allege that the defendants knowingly and
improperly classified them as independent contractors to avoid
paying obligated wages under the FLSA, which includes overtime
pay.

Stewart and Washington are suing for overtime compensation for all
unpaid hours worked in excess of 40 at the rate of one-and-a-half
times regular rates, unpaid minimum wages for all hours worked in
a workweek, an amount equal to their unpaid minimum and overtime
wages as liquidated damages, recovery for all unauthorized and/or
unlawful deductions, attorney costs and fees and other relief
deemed proper.  They are represented by Richard D. Owen --
rdo@goodwingoodwin.com -- and Elise N. McQuain --
elise@goodwingoodwin.com -- of Goodwin & Goodwin LLP in
Charleston.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia,
Charleston Division Case number 2:15-CV-16569


AGAPE SENIOR: Renewal Policy Not Void Ab Initio, 4th Cir. Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, affirmed a district
court conclusion that South Carolina law and its principles of
equity demand that coverage for the innocent co-insureds remain in
place in the case captioned, EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AGAPE SENIOR PRIMARY CARE, INC.; SCOTT
MIDDLETON; FLOYD CRIBBS; KEZIA NIXON, Defendants-Appellees, and
VICKIE WATTS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Dorothy
Jones; MEREDITH WOFFORD; DORA ELIZABETH HANNA, by and through her
Personal Representative, King C. Hanna, Jr., and on behalf of a
Class of Individuals Similarly Situated; AGAPE SENIOR, LLC;
JACKSON & COKER LOCUM TENENS, LLC, a/k/a Jackson and Coker; LAFAY
WALKER, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Martha Sellers
Blackwelder; AMANDA CURTIS; PRESTON WAYNE CHANDLER, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Mildred Louise Chandler, deceased;
PATTY LARIMORE, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Annie
Larimore, deceased; THE ESTATE OF CLARICE POTTER; AGAPE NURSING &
REHABILITATION, INC.; AGAPE ASSISTED LIVING, INC.; AGAPE COMMUNITY
HOSPICE, INC.; CAROLINAS COMMUNITY HOSPICE, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 14-2268 (4th Cir.).

In 2012, Evanston Insurance Company issued a renewed Professional
Liability Insurance Policy to Agape Senior Primary Care, Inc. and
certain of its employees, doctors, and nurse practitioners,
including Kezia Nixon and Dr. Floyd Cribbs. Unbeknownst to any
other employee at Agape, Ernest Osei Addo had stolen Dr. Arthur
Kennedy's identity, and was fraudulently practicing medicine as an
Agape "physician" ostensibly insured by Evanston.

Evanston filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a ruling
"that the Renewal Policy does not afford coverage for the
underlying suits and that Evanston is not required to defend or
indemnify." Agape filed a cross-motion for summary judgment,
requesting a ruling "that the Renewal Policy does afford coverage
for the claims made in the underlying actions.

The court ruled that the Renewal Policy was void as to Addo
because of his fraudulent misrepresentations. The court did not
"impute" Addo's conduct to Agape, finding that (1) Addo applied
separately for the Policies and Agape had no knowledge of his
fraud; (2) the Renewal Policy demonstrated an intent to provide
separate insurance coverage for the "co-insureds" and thus the
Renewal Policy was not void ab initio; (3) Exclusion A did not bar
coverage of the other named insureds for malpractice or personal
injury committed in violation of any law or ordinance unless it
was committed by or at the direction of "the Insured"; (4)
Endorsement 5, read in conjunction with Endorsement 7, was
ambiguous and should be construed to afford the maximum coverage,
meaning that not only were the named physicians and nurses covered
by the Renewal Policy but also any employee or volunteer; (5) the
Renewal Policy did not provide Agape coverage for its own
negligent acts; and, (6) the "Medical Director Exclusion" barred
coverage for any insured while acting as medical director, but the
exclusion could not be applied to a specific case without more
factual development.

On appeal, Evanston contends that the innocent co-insured doctrine
does not apply, and that "principles of general contract law
regarding fraudulent procurement support rescission of the entire
policy."

In the Per Curiam dated January 15, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/PcppEGfrom Leagle.com, the Court concluded that the
district court did not err when it concluded that South Carolina
would not allow rescission under the facts of the case and that
the district court's holding that the Renewal Policy is not void
ab initio. South Carolina law and principles of equity demand that
fraudulent misrepresentations on an application for medical
malpractice insurance by a person posing as a doctor should not
vitiate the insurance policy as to his or her innocent employer
and fellow employees.

Evanston Insurance Company is represented by Paul Lindsey Fields,
Jr., Esq. -- pfields@fieldshowell.com -- FIELDS HOWELL

Agape Senior Primary Care is represented by:

     Shaun C. Blake, Esq.
     ROGERS LEWIS JACKSON MANN & QUINN, LLC
     1330 Lady Street, Suite 400
     Columbia, SC 29201
     PO Box 11803-29211
     Tel: (803) 256-1268


AMAZON.COM: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Austin, on behalf of himself and on themselves of all
others similarly situated v. Amazon.com DEDC LLC, Case No. 8:15-
cv-02588-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., November 3, 2015) seeks to pursue
remedies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Amazon.com DEDC LLC is a mail order and catalog shopping company
headquartered in Chambersburg, PA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      Steven Greg Wenzel, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      Suite 300, 1110 N. Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
              lcabassa@wfclaw.com
              swenzel@wfclaw.com


AMETEK INC: Strict Liability Claim Dismissed in "Trujillo" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the Southern District of
California granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions
to dismiss claims in the case DANIELLE TRUJILLO, as Guardian Ad
Litem for KADEN PORTER, a minor, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated; LACEY MORALES, as Guardian Ad Litem for ISABEL
MORALES., a minor, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated; BEVERLY HOY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMETEK, INC., a Delaware
corporation; SENIOR OPERATIONS, LLC, a limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-
1394-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal.)

Aircraft engine parts were manufactured in the Greenfield facility
from 1953 or 1954, when the facility was founded by California
Aircraft Products (CAP), until 1988. In 1964, CAP changed its name
to Straza Industries.  Defendant Ametek, Inc. (Ametek) purchased
Straza Industries in 1968. Defendant Senior Operations, LLC
(Senior) subsequently purchased the Ametek property in or around
1998.

On June 1, 2015, the Board of Governors of the Cajon Valley Union
School District voted unanimously to close Magnolia Elementary
School (Magnolia) for the 2015-2016 school year because of the
risk of toxic vapor intrusion.

Plaintiffs are students and teachers at Magnolia.  Plaintiffs
filed a class action complaint on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated against defendants in the Superior Court
of the State of California in the County of San Diego. Plaintiffs
brought four causes of action for negligence, gross negligence,
public nuisance and strict liability (ultrahazardous activity).
Plaintiffs seek punitive as well as compensatory damages as to
each cause of action, as well as medical monitoring costs.

Plaintiffs allege that from 1963 to 1985, owners of the Ametek
property used a sump to temporarily store toxic waste which
consisted of a 12 feet in diameter and 10 feet deep hole in the
ground. Plaintiffs allege that the various chemicals found in the
waste plume and by vapor monitoring have been found by federal
agencies, including the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry ("ATSDR") and the Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA"), to have toxic health effects.

On June 25, 2015, Defendants removed the case to federal court on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Defendants separately filed a
motion to dismiss.

Judge Curiel granted in part and denied in part Ametek's motion to
dismiss.  Senior Operations' motion to dismiss is also granted in
part and denied in part. Plaintiffs' strict liability
(ultrahazardous activity) claim is dismissed as to all defendants.

A copy of Judge Curiel's order dated November 18, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/JVVDzwfrom Leagle.com.

Danielle Trujillo and Lacey Morales, Plaintiffs, represented by
Carla Burke -- Celeste A. Evangelisti -- cevangel@baronbudd.com
-- Scott Summy -- at Baron & Budd PC; John P. Fiske --
Fiske@TheGomezFirm.com -- at Gomez Trial Attorneys

Beverly Hoy, Plaintiff, represented by Celeste A. Evangelisti --
cevangel@baronbudd.com -- at Baron & Budd PC

Beverly Hoy, Plaintiff, represented by John P. Fiske --
Fiske@TheGomezFirm.com -- at Gomez Trial Attorneys

Ametek, Inc., Defendant, represented by Edward C. Walton --
ed.walton@procopio.com -- Hazel Ocampo --
hazel.ocampo@procopio.com -- Sean Michael Sullivan --
sean.sullivan@procopio.com -- at Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves &
Savitch LLP

Senior Aerospace Ketema, Defendant, represented by David James
Porter -- david.porter@bipc.com -- Mackenzie A. Baird --
mackenzie.baird@bipc.com -- Robert J Parks --
robert.parks@bipc.com -- Kimberly Arouh -- kimberly.arouh@bipc.com
-- at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC

Senior Operations LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert J Parks--
robert.parks@bipc.com -- Kimberly Arouh -- kimberly.arouh@bipc.com
-- at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC


APPLE INC: Court Rejects Bid to Reconsider Ruling in "Moore" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division denied plaintiff's motion for leave in the case
ADRIENNE MOORE, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-
CV-02269-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

On August 4, 2015, the court denied Adrienne Moore's motion to
certify a class. On August 14, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's order
denying class certification pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9 and
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C). Plaintiff contends
that reconsideration is warranted under Rule 7-9(b)(3) for failure
by the court to consider dispositive legal arguments.

In the motion for Leave, plaintiff argues that the court erred for
two reasons. First, plaintiff asserts that the court should have
certified a narrower class instead of denying the class
certification motion for overbreadth. Plaintiff proposes a new
class definition that plaintiff argues would be certifiable: a
narrower class limited to comprise only those putative members of
Moore's initially proposed class who, like Moore herself, were
parties to an unlimited text messaging wireless contract at the
time of their switch from an iPhone to a non-Apple device, to
which the court hereafter refers as the proposed narrower class.
Second, plaintiff argues that the court applied the incorrect
legal standard for causation for tortious interference with
contract claims in California by applying the "but for" causation
test instead of the "substantial factor" test described in Bank of
New York v. Fremont General Corp., 523 F.3d 902, 909 (9th Cir.
2008).

Defendant Apple Inc. filed an opposition to the motion for leave

Judge Koh denied plaintiff's motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of the court's order denying class certification.

A copy of Judge Koh's order dated November 20, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/ud7fYDfrom Leagle.com.

Adrienne Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Roy Arie Katriel --
rak@katriellaw.com -- at The Katriel Law Firm

Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by David Michael Walsh --
dwalsh@mofo.com -- Kai Shields Bartolomeo -- kbartolomeo@mofo.com
-- Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- at Morrison & Foerster
LLP

Adam Backhaut, Interested Party, represented by Joshua Caleb Ezrin
-- jezrin@audetlaw.com -- Theodore H. Chase -- tchase@audetlaw.com
-- at Audet & Partners, LLP

Google Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by Jacob Thayer Veltman
-- jveltman@wsgr.com -- at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

AT&T Mobility, Miscellaneous, represented by Justo G. Gonzalez --
justo.gonzalez@stokeslaw.com -- at Stokes Lawrence, P.S.


BARCLAYS BANK: Statute Bars Substitution of Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New York
denied a bid to substitute the lead plaintiff in the case entitled
In re BARCLAYS BANK PLC SECURITIES LITIGATION, NO.
09 CIV 1989 (PAC) (S.D.N.Y.)

The case deals with four American Depositary Shares (ADS)
offerings (Series 2, 3, 4 and 5) of Barclays Bank PLC, between
April 2006 and April 2008. Plaintiffs alleges that Barclays made
material misstatements and omissions in the offerings, in
violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 (Securities Act).

In January 2011, the court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint. Plaintiffs appealed, and on August 19, 2013 the Second
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the claims as to the Series 2, 3
and 4 offerings, but reversed as to the Series 5 offering claims
and remanded to permit lead plaintiffs to file a proposed second
consolidated amended complaint with respect to the Series 5 ADS
offering of April 8, 2008. Lead plaintiffs Dennis Askelson and
Alfred Fait filed the second consolidated amended complaint on
September 16, 2013, asserting claims individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated purchasers. The court issued on order
on July 9, 2014 confirming the appointment of Askelson and Fait as
lead plaintiffs.

On March 6, 2015, lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. But in April, they informed defendants that, due to
health issues, Fait might withdraw as a named plaintiff.

On November 18, 2015, counsel for lead plaintiffs filed notice of
Fait's death. They propose replacing Fait with nonparty Paul
Spindel as a named plaintiff and putative class representative.

Defendants opposed the motion, arguing that (i) lead plaintiffs
cannot relate back Spindel's claims to their timely claims since
the Securities Act statute of repose bars tolling; and (ii) adding
Spindel is improper because it follows an unexplained delay and
would prejudice defendants.

"The Court holds that the Securities Act's statute of repose bars
Lead Plaintiffs from using Rules 15 and 21 to relate back
Spindel's otherwise untimely claims," Judge Crotty said in denying
plaintiffs' motion to add Spindel as a named plaintiff. Lead
plaintiff Askelson may move for class certification, the Court
said.

A copy of Judge Crotty's opinion and order dated November 19,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/fcIk0Afrom Leagle.com.

Marshall Freidus, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Brown,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Andrew L Zivitz, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Eric I. Niehaus, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Lucas F. Olts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Margaret E. Onasch, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Samuel
Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Sharan Nirmul,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Catherine J. Kowalewski,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher D. Stewart, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren J. Robbins, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
David C. Walton, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Joshua E.
D'Ancona, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP

Stewart Thompson and Sharon Thompson, Trustees for the S.O.
Thompson Rev. Trust and the S.G. Thompson Rev. Trust, Lead
Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Brown, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Andrew L Zivitz, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP,
Eric I. Niehaus, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Lucas F. Olts,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Margaret E. Onasch, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Sharan Nirmul, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Catherine J. Kowalewski, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Christopher D. Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Darren J. Robbins, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Avi
Rosenfeld, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David C. Walton,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Joshua E. D'Ancona, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP

Dora L. Mahboubi, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Brown,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Andrew L Zivitz, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Eric I. Niehaus, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Lucas F. Olts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Margaret E. Onasch, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Sharan
Nirmul, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Catherine J.
Kowalewski, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher D.
Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren J. Robbins,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David C. Walton, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Joshua E. D'Ancona, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP &
Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
Dennis Askelson, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D.
Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Jonathan F. Neumann,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Kevin S. Sciarani, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Michelle M. Newcomer, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Sharan Nirmul, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP & Richard A Russo, Jr, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP

Larry Morrison, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Brown, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Eric I. Niehaus, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Lucas F. Olts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Samuel
Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Catherine J.
Kowalewski, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher D.
Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren J. Robbins,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David C. Walton, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Joshua E. D'Ancona, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP

Jeffrey Lefcourt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Joshua E.
D'Ancona, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP

Beverly Pellegrini, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Andrew J. Brown,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Eric I. Niehaus, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Lucas F. Olts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Catherine J. Kowalewski, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Christopher D. Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren
J. Robbins, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David C. Walton, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP & Joshua E. D'Ancona, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP

Alfred Fait, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D.
Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Kevin S. Sciarani,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Sharan Nirmul, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP & Joshua E. D'Ancona, Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP

Mr. Jerry Goodman, Movant, represented by Russell David Paul,
Berger & Montague, P.C.

Mr. Martin S Ettin, Movant, represented by Russell David Paul,
Berger & Montague, P.C.

Mr. Jerry Goodman, Movant, represented by Russell David Paul,
Berger & Montague, P.C.

Martin S Ettin, Movant, represented by Russell David Paul, Berger
& Montague, P.C.

Barclays Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by David Harold Braff,
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP,Matthew Alain Peller, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Thomas
Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan
and Cromwell, LLP

Barclays PLC, Defendant, represented by David Harold Braff,
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Matthew Alain Peller, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Thomas
Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan
and Cromwell, LLP

John Silvester Varley, Defendant, represented by David Harold
Braff, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Matthew Alain Peller, Sullivan
& Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Thomas
Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan
and Cromwell, LLP

Robert Edward Diamond, Jr., Defendant, represented by David Harold
Braff, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Matthew Alain Peller, Sullivan
& Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Thomas
Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan
and Cromwell, LLP

Sir. Richard Broadbent, Defendant, represented by David Harold
Braff, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Matthew Alain Peller, Sullivan
& Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Thomas
Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan
and Cromwell, LLP

Richard Leigh Clifford, Defendant, represented by David Harold
Braff, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Matthew Alain Peller, Sullivan
& Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Thomas
Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan
and Cromwell, LLP

Dame Sandra J.N. Dawson, Defendant, represented by David Harold
Braff, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Matthew Alain Peller, Sullivan
& Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Thomas
Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan
and Cromwell, LLP

Sir. Andrew Likierman, Defendant, represented by David Harold
Braff, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP ,Matthew Alain Peller, Sullivan
& Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Thomas
Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan
and Cromwell, LLP

Sir. Nigel Rudd, Defendant, represented by David Harold Braff,
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Matthew Alain Peller, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Thomas
Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan
and Cromwell, LLP
Stephen George Russell, Defendant, represented by David Harold
Braff, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Matthew Alain Peller, Sullivan
& Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Thomas
Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan
and Cromwell, LLP

John Michael Sunderland, Defendant, represented by David Harold
Braff, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Matthew Alain Peller, Sullivan
& Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Thomas
Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan
and Cromwell, LLP

Barclays Capital Securities Limited, Defendant, represented by Jay
B. Kasner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP , Gary John
Hacker, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP &Scott D.
Musoff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Defendant, represented by Jay B.
Kasner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP , Gary John
Hacker, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP & Scott D.
Musoff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, Defendant,
represented by Jay B. Kasner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP , Gary John Hacker, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP
& Scott D. Musoff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jay B.
Kasner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP , Gary John
Hacker, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP & Scott D.
Musoff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Jay
B. Kasner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP , Gary John
Hacker, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP &Scott D.
Musoff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

UBS Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Jay B. Kasner,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP , Gary John Hacker,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP & Scott D. Musoff,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

RBC Dain Rauscher Inc., Defendant, represented by Jay B. Kasner,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP , Gary John Hacker,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP & Scott D. Musoff,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Marcus Agius, Defendant, represented by Matthew Alain Peller,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell,
LLP, Thomas Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar
Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP

Dr. Christopher Lucas, Defendant, represented by Matthew Alain
Peller, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan
& Cromwell, LLP, Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and
Cromwell, LLP, Thomas Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP &
Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP

Gary A. Hoffman, Defendant, represented by Matthew Alain Peller,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell,
LLP, Thomas Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar
Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP

Frederik Seegers, Defendant, represented by Matthew Alain Peller,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell,
LLP, Thomas Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar
Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP

David G. Booth, Defendant, represented by Matthew Alain Peller,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell,
LLP, Thomas Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar
Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP

Fulvio Conti, Defendant, represented by Matthew Alain Peller,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell,
LLP, Thomas Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar
Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP

Daniel Cronje, Defendant, represented by Matthew Alain Peller,
Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David Possick, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Michael Thomas Tomaino, Jr, Sullivan and Cromwell,
LLP, Thomas Charles White, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP & Yavar
Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP

Banc of America Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Jay B.
Kasner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP , Gary John
Hacker, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP & Scott D.
Musoff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP


BIEWER LUMBER: Discovery Bid in "Stolzenburg" Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri granted in part a motion for production of documents in
the case captioned, MARK A. STOLZENBURG, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v.
BIEWER LUMBER, LLC, et al., Defendant, Case No. 4:14-CV-1533 RLW
(E.D. Mo.).

Specifically, District Judge Ronnie L. White granted in part
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents from
Defendant Biewer Lumber, LLC, and Suggestions in Support Thereof
and Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents from
Defendant Green Tree Composites, L.L.C. and Suggestions in Support
Thereof and granted in part Biewer Lumber LLC and Green Tree
Composites, LLC's Unopposed Motion for Clarification

In his putative Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he
purchased Monarch Composite Decking, which required replacement
after less than 20 years and that Defendants failed to honor their
warranties regarding the decking. In May 2015, this Court entered
an order allowing limited jurisdictional discovery.

In the motion, Plaintiff moved to Compel Production of Documents
from Defendant Biewer Lumber, LLC, and Suggestions in Support
Thereof and to Compel Production of Documents from Defendant Green
Tree Composites, L.L.C. and Suggestions in Support Thereof, and
Biewer Lumber LLC and Green Tree Composites, LLC's Unopposed
Motion for Clarification. Plaintiff contends that these documents
are "integral to Plaintiff's contention that the defendants are
acting as alter egos of each other." Plaintiff argues that the
emails may demonstrate that employees of Biewer also held
themselves out as employees of Green Tree.

Plaintiff has not filed a reply in support of his Motions to
Compel but the time for filing a reply has expired.

In his Memorandum and Order dated January 14, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/NZwn5Ifrom Leagle.com, Judge White denied
Plaintiff's requests for "All documents prepared by or on behalf
of Green Tree from 2004 to present, showing year-end balances,
interim balances, profit and loss, income, evidence of cash flow,
and/or statements of shareholders' equity"; and "Every balance
statement of Green Tree from 2004 to present" finding that
Plaintiff has not provided any support for the proposition that he
needs this financial information to demonstrate that Defendants
are alter egos and that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that
additional documents will assist him with the jurisdictional
analysis and granted motion to compel as requests 16-17.  The
Court said the parties have not provided any information to the
Court that a supplemental document production has occurred or that
the Motion to Compel is moot.

The Court ordered Defendants to file any responsive pleadings
within 30 days of the date of the Order.

Mark A. Stolzenburg is represented by:

     Dennis N. Smith, Jr., Esq.
     THE SMITH LAW FIRM, LLC
     19716 Sea Air Avenue, Suite 2
     Rehoboth Beach, DE 19971
     Tel: (302) 703-6043

Defendants are represented by James L. Craney, Esq. --
James.Craney@lewisbrisbois.com -- Justin S. Zimmerman, Esq. --
Justin.Zimmerman@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS AND BRISBOIS, LLP


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Faces Class Suit Over Counterfeit Materials
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Wattles, writing for CNN Money, reports that a class action
lawsuit against Boston Scientific was made public, alleging the
company used counterfeit material from China to manufacture toxic
vaginal mesh implants.

The suit filed in a West Virginia federal court is yet another in
the mounting litigation that's been brought against makers of
vaginal mesh implants.

Patients have said the devices caused miscarriages and other
severe medical issues. A few cases have been settled, and more
than 70,000 civil lawsuits have been consolidated into an ongoing
case playing out in federal court.

The West Virginia suit goes beyond the claims made in those cases.
It says Boston Scientific -- one manufacturer of mesh implants --
"concocted a scheme" to defraud regulators and received
counterfeit materials from China.

If the allegations are substantiated, Boston Scientific (BSX)
could face criminal charges and even heftier payouts than it would
in other civil cases.

At issue is an ingredient called resin. The Food and Drug
Administration approved a name-brand resin for use in Boston
Scientific's vaginal mesh, though the supplier has since
recommended that it not be used in permanent implantation devices.

The suit alleges that when a name-brand resin supplier stopped
selling it to Boston Scientific, the company "smuggle[d] 15 tons
of the material from China without verifying or fully testing the
contents," according to a statement from Mostyn Law.

Amber Mostyn, the lead attorney in the case, said the primary goal
is to get an injunction to halt the sale of Boston Scientific's
vaginal mesh implants. The suit is also seeking class action
status, which could include thousands of women, the firm said.

According to the complaint, Boston Scientific received shipments
of the counterfeit resin from China between June 11, 2011 and the
fall of 2012. Mostyn said the company could still be using it to
manufacture implants.

Boston Scientific said in a statement that "patient safety is of
the utmost importance, and we dedicate significant resources to
deliver safe, high-quality products. We don't believe the case has
merit and intend to vigorously defend these claims."

The company declined further comment.

According to public filings, Boston Scientific had over 30,000
pending cases relating to vaginal mesh as of November 2, 2015. The
company has denied wrongdoing.

Vaginal mesh implants can be used to treat certain minor
conditions such as poor bladder control.


BP AMERICA: Court Denies Renewed Motion to Stay Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Keith P. Ellison of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Defendants'
renewed motion for stay of proceedings in its entirety in the case
captioned, IN RE: BP P.L.C. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This document
relates to: IN RE: BP ERISA LITIGATION, Case No. 4:10-MD-2185,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:10-CV-4214 (S.D. Tex.).

On January 15, 2015, the Court granted in part Plaintiffs' motion
for leave to amend their complaint. Defendants subsequently filed
motions to (i) certify the January 15th decision for interlocutory
appeal, which the Court granted and the Fifth Circuit accepted,
and (ii) stay further proceedings pending the appeal, which the
Court denied.

As Defendants' interlocutory appeal began to wend its way through
the appellate process, Defendants filed a motion in this Court
seeking a partial dismissal of Plaintiffs' First Amended
Consolidated ERISA Complaint (FAC). The Court granted Defendants'
motion on October 30, 2015, substantially narrowing Plaintiffs'
"Count I" claims, and dismissing their "Count II" claims entirely.
Plaintiffs' only remaining claims are: (i) that Lamar McKay, Neil
Shaw, and James Dupree (the "Remaining Insider Defendants")
violated ERISA's duty of prudence; and (ii) that the Remaining
Insider Defendants violated ERISA's duty of loyalty. Defendants
now renew their request, initially made on January 30, 2015, that
the Court exercise its discretion to stay further proceedings in
this case pending the Fifth Circuit's decision on Defendants'
interlocutory appeal.

In his Memorandum and Order dated January 14, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/IOe3vyfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ellison found that
Defendants have failed to meet the first requirement and it is
unnecessary for the Court to address the second. Because
Defendants have not shown that the balance of equities weighs in
their favor, much less heavily in their favor, Defendants have
failed to meet their burden under Ruiz.

Plaintiffs are represented by Ana M. Cabassa, Esq. --
acabassa@zsz.com -- Robert S. Schachter, Esq. --
rschachter@zsz.com -- Sona R. Shah, Esq. -- sshah@zsz.com --
ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP, W. Mark Lanier, Esq. -- THE
LANIER LAW FIRM & Mary K. Blasy, Esq. -- mblasy@rgrdlaw.com --
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

          - and -

     Anthony Chu, Esq.
     Don K. Ledgard, Esq.
     CAPRETZ & ASSOCIATES,
     5000 Birch St # 2500,
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Tel: (949)724-3000

Defendants are represented by George Denegre, Jr., Esq. --
gdegenre@liskow.com -- John C. Anjier, Esq. -- janjier@liskow.com
-- LISKOW & LEWIS, Marc De Leeuw, Esq. -- deleewm@sullcrom.com --
Daryl A. Libow, Esq. -- libowd@sullcrom.com -- Richard C.
Pepperman, II, Esq. -- peppermanr@sullcrom.com -- SULLIVAN &
CROMWELL LLP


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Judge Rules on Bids to Exclude Opinions
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joanna Seybert of the Eastern District of New York
ruled on the parties' motions to exclude certain evidence in the
run-up to the trial in the case THEODORE PEARLMAN, MARC TELL,
JULIA GALLO, DOROTHY RABSEY, and JOHN AZZARELLA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant No. 10-CV-
4992(JS)(GRB)(E.D.N.Y.)

On October 16, 2010, Cablevision's retransmission agreement with
News Corp., Fox Cable Network Services' parent company, expired.
As a result, Cablevision lost its right to broadcast WNYN, WWOR,
WTXF, Fox Business Network, National Geographic Wild, and Fox
Deportes. The Fox Channels were unavailable for two weeks until
October 30, 2010, at which time Cablevision and News Corp. reached
a new transmission agreement allowing Cablevision to resume
broadcasting the Fox Channels.

Cablevision did not provide a credit or alternative program to its
subscribers during the two-week period that they were without the
Fox Channels. Cablevision's subscribers were billed monthly in
advance for services to be received.

Plaintiffs Theodore Pearlman and Marc Tell's, who were Cablevision
subscribers, commenced a class action based on Cablevision's
failure to provide certain television programming during a two-
week period in 2010.

On March 28, 2012, the court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims
except for its breach of contract claim. On March 31, 2014, the
court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The
certification order notes with respect to plaintiffs' theories of
liability and damages, that the measure of damages for the alleged
breach is straightforward, Cablevision subscribers would be
entitled to a uniform pro rata refund of that portion of their
monthly subscriber fees attributable to the absence of the Fox
Channels.

Defendant presented damages expert Jonathan Orszag, while
plaintiff presented Todd Buchholz and Larry Gerbrandt as their
experts.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to exclude the opinions of Orszag, the
damages expert for defendant Cablevision Systems Corporation), and
Cablevision also filed a motion to exclude the opinions of
plaintiffs' experts, Buchholz and Larry Gerbrandt.

The court is troubled that the parties have filed memoranda of law
and exhibits in conjunction with their pending motions that are
redacted in their entirety (Docket Entries 144, 150, 155, 164,
167, 169).

Accordingly, Judge Seybert denied, without prejudice to renewal at
trial, plaintiffs' motion to exclude Orszag's opinions, while
Cablevision's motion to exclude the opinions of Buchholz and
Gerbrandt is granted in part and denied in part without prejudice
to renewal at trial. The opinion of Plaintiffs' expert, Larry
Gerbrandt, is excluded and he will be precluded from testifying at
trial.

The parties are further ordered to re-file any documents that were
entirely redacted and filed under Docket Entries 144, 150, 155,
164, 167, and 169 to reflect the redaction of only the
confidential portions of these documents within 30 days of the
date of the memorandum and order.

A copy of Judge Seybert's memorandum and order dated December 28,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/P6J35Jfrom Leagle.com.


CAPITAL BUILDING: Conditional Class Cert. Granted in "Hussein"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the District of Minnesota
granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification in the
case, Duniyo Hussein, Naima Omar Issa, Leyla Yusuf, Raymond
Deshler, Assiongbonvi "Luc" Kangnigan, Melvin Holmes, Abraham
Quevedo Orantes, Leticia Zuniga Escamilla, on behalf of
themselves, the Proposed Rule 23 Class, and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Capital Building Services Group., Inc.,
Defendant, CIVIL NO. 15-CV-2498 (SRN/BRT) (D. Minn.)

Defendant Capital Building Services Group, Inc. is an Illinois
company that provides commercial cleaning services to retail,
corporate, commercial, industrial, banking, and educational venues
in 25 different states, including Macy's and Herberger's in
Minnesota.

Plaintiffs Duniyo Hussein, Naima Omar Issa, Leyla Yusuf, Raymond
Deshler, Assiongbonvi "Luc" Kangnigan, Melvin Holmes, Abraham
Quevedo Orantes, and Leticia Zuniga Escamilla work or worked as
cleaners at Macy's and Herberger's department stores in Minnesota.
They are or were directly employed by Capital. The eight named
plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all cleaners, including
crew leaders, who worked for Capital in Minnesota within a three-
year period. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit on May 20, 2015, asserting
minimum wage, overtime, record keeping, and method of payment
violations under the Minnesota Fair Labor Standards Act (MFLSA),
minimum wage, overtime, and retaliation claims under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Unpaid wages and earnings statement
violations under the Minnesota Payment of Wages Act (MPWA) and a
violation of the Minnesota Whistleblower Act.

Plaintiffs seek conditional certification of a FLSA collective
action on behalf of all cleaners including crew leaders who work
or worked for Capital in Minnesota at any time within three years.
Plaintiffs argue that they meet the fairly lenient standard for
conditional certification under Section 216(b) of the FLSA. They
assert that all members of the proposed FLSA collective perform
the same job duties, work in Minnesota under the same district
manager, are subject to the same payroll and timekeeping policies,
and are subject to a common plan. Under this alleged plan,
Plaintiffs contend that Capital under reports their hours and
fails to pay them overtime compensation.

Capital, however, argues that conditional FLSA certification is
not appropriate because plaintiffs cannot meet the fairly lenient
standard. Capital argues that the allegations of minimum wage and
overtime violations are substantially false and unsupported,
pointing to Capital's records to disprove certain of plaintiffs'
allegations. Capital urges the court to reject plaintiffs' faulty
and deceptive math in determining whether plaintiffs have a
colorable basis for their claims. Further, Capital argues that
plaintiffs assert only generic, conclusory allegations that merely
restate the averments in the complaint.

Judge Nelson, in his memorandum opinion and order dated November
20, 2015, available at http://goo.gl/4DPoLKfrom Leagle.com,
granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification
and judicial notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), class
certification under Rule 23, and for a preliminary injunction
under Rule 65 as to conditional certification under Section
216(b).  The matter is conditionally certified as a Section 216(b)
collective action.  Plaintiffs' request for Rule 23 class
certification and injunctive relief remain under advisement.
Plaintiffs' proposed notice of lawsuit is approved to the extent
that it is amended to comply with the order.

The notice period is 60 days. During this notice period,
plaintiffs' counsel may mail the notice at the beginning of the
60-day period and send a reminder notice via mail and email on
approximately the 30th day of the notice period. Defendant shall
post the notice in a conspicuous location in each of defendant's
Minnesota offices located in Macy's and Herberger's stores, along
with sufficient quantities of blank consent forms for all Capital
employees at each store and defendant shall produce a list of
employees and related information as set forth herein and in the
format so specified within five days of the issuance of the order.

Carl F. Engstrom -- cengstrom@nka.com -- Paul J. Lukas --
lukas@nka.com -- Adam W. Hansen -- ahansen@nka.com -- at Nichols
Kaster, PLLP, for Plaintiffs

David A. Schooler -- dschooler@briggs.com -- Ellen A. Brinkman --
ebrinkman@briggs.com -- Michael C. Wilhelm -- mwilhelm@briggs.com
-- at at Briggs & Morgan, for Defendant


CASCADE WATER: Final Fairness Hearing in "Millan" Set for May 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California approved the
amended settlement agreement in the case captioned, NICHOLAS
MILLAN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CASCADE WATER SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 to 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:12-CV-01821-AWI-EPG (E.D. Cal.).

On October 23, 2015, the Court granted conditional Rule 23 class
certification and FLSA collective action certification but denied
preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. The
Court went through a thorough examination of the settlement
agreement and noted concerns regarding calculation of the rates of
occurrence of the Labor Code violations, the claim form submission
requirement as to the Rule 23 class, the need to create separate
funds for payment of Rule 23 and FLSA claims, and the potential
reversion.

The parties submitted an amended proposed settlement agreement
that wholly ameliorates the Court's concerns. Class Counsel has
explained the need for approximation of the violation rates. Next,
the amended settlement agreement:

     -- eliminates the requirement that class members submit a
        claim form for the Rule 23 class, Second Joint
        Stipulation of Class Action Settlement and Release,

     -- divides the net settlement fund, allocating 66% to the
        Rule 23 claims and 34% to the FLSA claims, and

     -- eliminates the reversion provision, S.A. at Sec. VI.
        The amended agreement further provides that the unclaimed
        FLSA funds will be distributed between all settlement
        class members on a pro-rata basis.

The parties' amended proposed settlement agreement wholly
ameliorates the Court's concerns.

In his Order dated January 14, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/HF0FG2from Leagle.com, Judge Ishii found that the
Parties' amended agreement is the product of serious, informed,
non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not
grant preferential treatment to class representatives, segments of
the class, or counsel, and falls within the range of possible
approval.

The Court scheduled a Final Fairness Hearing is set for Tuesday
May 31, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

Nicholas Millan is represented by:

     Darren Michael Cohen, Esq.
     Eric Bryce Kingsley, Esq.
     KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY APC
     16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
     Encino, CA 91436
     Tel: (888)500-8469

Cascade Water Services is represented by Melinda S. Riechert, Esq.
-- mriechert@morganlewis.com -- Yin Zheng, Esq. --
yzheng@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP


CATHERINE'S CLEANING: Faces "Bran" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Bran, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Catherine's Cleaning, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06239
(E.D.N.Y., October 30, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Catherine's Cleaning, LLC operates a cleaning service company in
New York.

Maria Bran is a pro se plaintiff.


CCB CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lebovitch" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Zoltan Lebovitch, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. CCB Credit Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
06155 (E.D.N.Y., October 27, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

CCB Credit Services, Inc. specializes in recovering active and
inactive bank, retail, and consumer receivables.

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

CELERA CORP: Settlement Approved; Attorneys Fees Okayed in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, granted plaintiff's motion for
class certification but granted in part and denied in part the
plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the case
entitled In re CELERA CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION, CASE NO.
5:10-CV-02604-EJD (N.D. Cal.)

Lead plaintiff Washtenaw County Employees' Retirement System filed
a putative class action against defendants Celera, its Chief
Executive Officer Kathy Ordonez, its former Chief Financial
Officers Joel R. Jung and Ugo DeBlasi, its Chief Business Officer
of Berkeley Heartlab, Inc. (BHL) Christopher M. Hall, and
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP asserting claims of violation of
Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and SEC Rule 10b-5, violation of
Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against the Celera defendants and
violation of Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and SEC Rule 10b-5
against PwC.

Plaintiff alleges that the Celera defendants failed to account for
a significant portion of BHL's accounts receivable that were
critically impaired and largely uncollectible as required by
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules. Consequently,
plaintiff alleges that the Celera defendants made materially false
and misleading statements in Celera's financial statements filed
with the SEC, in press releases and during investor conference
calls regarding Celera's reported net revenue, earnings, bad debt
and accounts receivable. Plaintiff alleges that the Celera
defendants knew that Celera's accounts receivable were impaired as
a result of Blue Cross/Blue Shield's decision to stop paying
Celera directly for its lab services.

Furthermore, plaintiff alleges that PwC knew Celera was no longer
being paid directly by Blue Cross/Blue Shield, but nevertheless
failed to account for the significant change in circumstances in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Standards and, instead,
issued clean audit reports for Celera's FY08 financial statements
and for the six-month transitional period ending December 27,
2008.

In October 2013, plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification, which was unopposed and was granted by the court
and certified the class. In November 2013, PwC filed a motion to
dismiss, but the motion was not resolved because, in May 2014, the
parties reached an agreement to settle the case. The parties
reached an agreement and executed the proposed settlement
agreement on August 28, 2014.  Plaintiff filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the class action, which the court granted
preliminary approval.

Defendants have agreed to pay a total amount of $24,750,000 into a
settlement fund, of which the Celera Defendants will pay
$23,000,000 and PwC will pay $1,750,000.

In April 2015, plaintiff filed the motions, seeking final approval
of the class action settlement, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff attorneys' fees and costs show that it seeks 25% of the
settlement fund, which amounts to $6,187,500, and costs of
$222,521.32.

In his ruling, Judge Davila awarded $4,950,000 in attorneys' fees,
and $222,521.32 in attorneys' costs.

A copy of Judge Davila's order dated November 20, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/q5U1GNfrom Leagle.com.

Washtenaw County Employees Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Catherine J. Kowalewski -- Darren Jay Robbins --
darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- David Conrad Walton -- davew@rgrdlaw.com
-- Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Tricia Lynn
McCormick -- TriciaM@rgrdlaw.com -- Willow E. Radcliffe --
willowr@rgrdlaw.com -- Aelish Marie Baig -- aelishb@rgrdlaw.com
-- Ryan Anthony Llorens -- ryanl@rgrdlaw.com -- Sunny September
Sarkis -- ssarkis@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP; Robert Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP

Celera Corporation, Kathy Ordonez, Joel R. Jung, Ugo DeBlasi and
Christopher M. Hall, Defendants, represented by Mikael A. Abye --
mikael.abye@shearman.com -- Stephen D. Hibbard --
shibbard@shearman.com -- Brian Howard Polovoy --
bpolovoy@shearman.com -- Sara Ann Ricciardi -- at Shearman &
Sterling LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Defendant, represented by Geoffrey M.
Ezgar -- gezgar@kslaw.com -- James J. Capra, Jr. --
jcapra@kslaw.com -- Satyam N. Bee -- sbee@kslaw.com -- Timothy
Tully Scott -- tscott@kslaw.com -- at King & Spalding LLP


CGY & J CORP: Faces "Mendoza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Mendoza, on behalf of others similarly situated v. CGY & J
Corp., Guo Yong Chen and Tina Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-09181
(S.D.N.Y., November 20, 2015) is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

CGY & J Corp. is a corporation based in New York that is engaged
in commerce.

Gerardo Mendoza is a pro se plaintiff.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Tagalogon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elnora T. Tagalogon, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC603620 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
December 10, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. owns and operates a
restaurant in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      Daniel H. Chang, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      A Professional Corporation
      550 S. Hope St., Suite 2655
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213)488-6555
      Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
      E-mail: lwlee@diversitvlaw.com

         - and -

      Edward W. Choi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
      3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90010-2006
      Telephone: (213) 381-1515
      Facsimile: (213) 465-4885
      E-mail: edward.choi@calaw.biz

         - and -

      Thomas M. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LAW OFFICES, APLC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 251-5533
      Facsimile: (213) 251-5534
      E-mail: leethomas.esq@gmail.com


CHICAGO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unlawful Transfer Taxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lelani Fetrow, and all others similarly situated v. City of
Chicago, Chicago Department of Finance, Chicago Department of
Administrative Hearings, Rahm Emanuel, Daniel Widawsky and
Patricia Jackowiac, Case No. 2015-CH-17701 (Ill. Cir., December 7,
2015), seeks recovery of unlawfully collected Transfer Taxes and
the penalties and interest imposed and collected on the late
payment of such Transfer Taxes.

This is a class action lawsuit to recover illegally collected City
of Chicago transfer taxes on the transfer of real property owned
by the Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation (collectively referred to as the "Government
Enterprises"). The Government Enterprises are expressly exempt
from taxation by state or local governments.

The Plaintiff alleged that the City of Chicago has illegally
required thousands of purchasers of Government Enterprise-owned
properties to pay Transfer Taxes.

The City of Chicago is a municipal corporation and a political
subdivision of the State of Illinois.

Chicago Department of Finance is the administrative agency seeking
to impose and collect the City of Chicago transfer tax.

Chicago Department of Administrative Hearings is the
administrative agency that oversees hearings of disputes involving
Transfer Taxes and calculates, assesses, and collects unpaid
Transfer Taxes, penalties, and interest.

Rahm Emanuel is the Mayor of the City of Chicago.

Daniel Wida Wsky is the Comptroller of the City of Chicago.

Patricia Jackowiac is the Director of the City of Chicago
Department of Administrative Hearings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Krentz, Esq.
      KINNALLY FLAHERTY KRENTZ
      LORAN HODGE & MASUR, P.C.
      2114 Deerpath Road
      Aurora, IL 60506
      Tel: (630) 907-0909
      E-mail: pkrentz@kfkllaw.com

         - and -

      Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
      DITOMMASO+ LUBIN, P.C.
      17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
      Oakbrook Tenace, IL 60181
      Tel: (630) 333-0000
      E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com


CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES: Court Approves Incentive Awards to DPPs
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted a motion for
approval of incentive awards  in the case captioned, IN RE:
CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST LITIGATION This Order Relates To:
ALL DIRECT PURCHASER, MDL No. 1917, Case No. C-07-5944 JST (N.D.
Cal.).

A civil suit was originally filed in 2007, ECF No. 1, consolidated
by the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation shortly thereafter.
The case is predicated upon an alleged conspiracy to price-fix
cathode ray tubes (CRTs), a core component of tube-style screens
for common devices including televisions and computer monitors.
The conspiracy ran from March 1, 1995 to November 25, 2007,
involved many of the major companies that produced CRTs, and
allegedly resulted in overcharges of millions, if not billions, of
U.S. dollars to domestic companies that purchased and sold CRTs or
finished products containing CRTs for purposes of resale.

In the motion, the Class Representatives for the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiff (DPP) moved for approval of incentive awards to each of
ten DPPs. They seek awards of $25,000 to each named Plaintiff, for
a total of $250,000. DPPs maintain their class suit against
Mitsubishi and also have a settlement that was recently approved
with Thomson and TDA.

In his Order dated January 13, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/8iwXcIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tigar found that an
incentive award of $25,000 per Class Representative is
appropriate. The Court notes that the incentive rewards constitute
a very small percentage of the class' total recover.

The incentive awards shall be paid from the Settlement Fund and
the interest earned thereon.

Plaintiffs are represented by Clinton Paul Walker, Esq. --
dwalker@damrell.com -- Fred A. Silva, Esq. -- fsilva@damrell.com -
- Roger Martin Schrimp, Esq. -- rschrimp@damrell.com -- Kathy Lee
Monday, Esq. -- kmonday@damrell.com -- DAMRELL NELSON SCHRIMP
PALLIOS, PACHER & SILVA

          - and -

     Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Esq.
     Gianna Christa Gruenwald, Esq.
     Guido Saveri, Esq.
     SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
     555 Montgomery St., Suite 1210
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 500-6800

Defendants are represented by Joel Steven Sanders, Esq. --
jsanders@gibsondunn.com -- Austin Van Schwing, Esq. --
aschwing@gibsondunn.com -- Rachel S. Brass, Esq. --
rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Adam C.
Hemlock, Esq. -- adam.hemlock@weil.com -- WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGES
LLP, David C. Brownstein, Esq. -- dbrownstein@fbj-law.com, Jacob
P. Alpren, Esq. -- jalpren@fbj-law.com & William S. Farmer, Esq.
-- wfarmer@fbj-law.com -- FARMER BROWNSTEIN JAEGER LLP


CITIGROUP INC: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Judgment in "Ross" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the
district court's judgment in the appealed case entitled ROBERT
ROSS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
ANDREA KUNE, WOODROW CLARK, S. BYRON BALBACH, JR., MATTHEW
GRABELL, PAUL IMPELLEZZERI, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, RICHARD MANDELL, RANDAL WACHSMUTH, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. CITIGROUP, INC., CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A.,
CITICORP DINERS CLUB, CITIBANK USA, N.A., UNIVERSAL BANK, N.A.,
UNIVERSAL FINANCIAL CORPORATION, DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC., DISCOVER BANK, AMERICAN EXPRESS CO., AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL
RELATED SERVICES CO., INC., DB SERVICING CORPORATION, Defendants-
Appellees, NOS. 14-1610(L), 14-1616(CON) (2nd Cir.)

Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, which entered
judgment in favor of defendants-appellees following a five-week
bench trial. Plaintiffs challenge the finding that defendants did
not collusively adopt class-action-barring arbitration clauses in
violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1.

Defendant American Express argues separately that the district
court's judgment should be affirmed for lack of Article III
standing because plaintiffs are not American Express cardholders.

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment.

A copy of the Second Circuit's summary order dated November 19,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/4aWDFgfrom Leagle.com.

Merrill G. Davidoff -- mdavidoff@bm.net -- David A. Langer --
dlanger@bm.net -- at Berger & Montague, P.C., for Plaintiffs-
Appellants

Eamon P. Joyce -- ejoyce@sidley.com -- David F. Graham --
dgraham@sidley.com -- T. Robert Scarborough --
tscarborough@sidley.com -- Patrick E. Croke -- pcroke@sidley.com -
- David W. Denton, Jr. -- ddenton@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin
LLP, for Defendants-Appellees Citigroup Inc., Citibank, N.A. (as
successor-in-interest to Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., for itself
and as successor-ininterest to Citibank U.S.A., N.A., Universal
Bank, N.A., and Universal Financial Corp.), and Citicorp Diners
Club Inc.

Elizabeth P. Papez -- epapez@winston.com -- Robert Y. Sterline --
Robert Y. Sterline and Christopher J. Letkewicz --
cletkewicz@winston.com -- at Winston & Strawn LLP, for Defendants-
Appellees Discover Financial Services, DB Servicing Corporation,
and Discover Bank

Rowan D. Wilson -- rwilson@cravath.com -- Evan R. Chesler --
echesler@cravath.com -- Gary A. Bornstein --
gbornstein@cravath.com -- at Cravath, Swaine, & Moore LLP, for
Defendants-Appellees American Express Company, American Express
Travel Related Services Company, Inc., and American Express
Centurion Bank

The Second Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Dennis Jacobs,
Pierre N. Leval and Gerard E. Lynch.


COMCAST CORP: Arbitration Resolved Lawyer's Claim, 11th Cir. Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed a district court's order in the appealed case of TYLER
KASPERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMCAST CORPORATION, Defendant-
Appellee, NO. 15-12066 (11th Cir.)

Tyler Kaspers, a Georgia attorney, obtained cable and internet
service from Comcast for his residence in Sandy Springs. Comcast's
subscriber agreement, which Kaspers signed when he initially
obtained service, contains a binding arbitration provision.  Over
a seven-month period beginning in January 2009, Kaspers did not
receive full cable service except for a two-week period in August
2009. A technician from Comcast informed Kaspers that he would
receive full service only if a new wire were run from Kaspers's
house to the street. To do that, Comcast needed to dig a 180-foot-
long trench through Kaspers's front yard. Kaspers agreed but,
despite the trench, full service still was not restored.

Because he was not receiving full service, Kaspers on numerous
occasions attempted to obtain from Comcast a refund of or credit
for its monthly service charges. Kaspers also objected to
Comcast's charging him a $250 service fee to dig up his front
yard. Eventually, Kaspers canceled his Comcast subscription and
refused to pay the outstanding debt Comcast claimed he owed.

After attempting to resolve his dispute with Comcast informally,
Kaspers submitted a claim to the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) in November 2010, in accordance with the arbitration
provision. But the AAA refused to arbitrate the claim because
Comcast's arbitration provision had a material or substantial
deviation from AAA rules and protocol with respect to a clause
limiting Comcast's liability for certain damages, and because
Comcast did not remedy the deviation upon request. AAA also
requested that Comcast remove AAA's name from the list of
arbitrators in the arbitration clause, but Comcast did not do so.

Kaspers filed suit against Comcast in Georgia state court and
sought to recover for property damage and for payments he made for
service he did not receive, and he also sought declaratory and
injunctive relief either invalidating the arbitration provision in
Comcast's subscriber agreement or requiring Comcast to change it
in certain ways.

Comcast removed the action to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia under the Class Action Fairness
Act and moved to compel arbitration of Kaspers's individual claims
and stay the action pending arbitration. Kaspers opposed
arbitration for several reasons, including that Comcast previously
had refused to engage in arbitration and that the arbitration
provision was invalid and unenforceable. The district court
granted Comcast's motion and compelled arbitration.

In July 2014, the arbitrator issued an award finding in Kaspers's
favor on his claims for breach of contract and property damage.
After the award, which Comcast paid in full, Kaspers sought to
reopen the district court proceedings -- which were
administratively closed in the interim -- to proceed on his class
claims.

The district court denied the motion, concluding that the class-
action waiver barred him from litigating those claims and
Kaspers's individual claims had been resolved in arbitration, the
court dismissed the action with prejudice. Kaspers appealed.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order reasoning
that the district court did not err in enforcing the arbitration
provision and in dismissing Kaspers's claim.

A copy of the Eleventh Circuit' decision dated November 16, 2015,
is available at http://goo.gl/TbghtBfrom Leagle.com.

The Eleventh Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Beverly B.
Martin, Robin S. Rosenbaum and R. Lanier Anderson.


COMPASS BANK: Judge Narrows Plaintiff's Claim in "Corley" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley of the Northern District of
California ruled on plaintiff's motions in the case CHERYL DEAVER,
Plaintiff, v. COMPASS BANK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-
00222-JSC (N.D. Cal.)

Defendants Compass Bank, Inc. (Compass) and BBVA Compass Insurance
Agency, Inc. (BBVA), a Texas and Alabama corporations respectively
and collectively doing business as BBVA Compass operate a chain of
retail banking centers throughout California.

Plaintiff Cheryl Deaver a California citizen, worked for BBVA
Compass as a non-exempt financial sales advisor. Plaintiff alleges
that, among other things, Defendants maintained and enforced
unlawful practices and policies in violation of California wage
and hour laws.

Plaintiff's revised second amended complaint includes five causes
of action under California law: (1) failure to pay wages for hours
worked in violation of California Labor Code Section 1194; (2)
failure to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu thereof in
violation of California Labor Code Sections 226, 226.7, 1174(d),
and Section 11 of the IWC Wage Orders, and Cal. Code Regs., Title
8, section 11000 et seq.; (3) failure to timely pay wages due at
termination in violation of California Labor Code Sections 21,
202, 203; (4) failure to provide accurate wage statements in
violation of California Labor Code Section 226(a); and (5)
violation of Unfair Competition Law, California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.

On April 30, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement. Following a hearing on June
4, 2015, the parties filed an amended joint stipulation Re: Class
Action Settlement and supplemental declaration to address certain
concerns raised by the court. The court then granted the parties'
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on August 21,
2015.

Plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of a class action
settlement and a motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and for an
incentive award.

Magistrate Judge Corley granted plaintiff's motion for final
approval of the parties' settlement. The Judge granted in part
plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees, costs, and incentive
award. The court awards $166,655 in attorney's fees, $18,264.46 in
litigation costs, $20,000 to the settlement administrator and
$7,500 to plaintiff as class representative.

A copy of Judge Magistrate Judge Corley's order dated December 11,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/W35Yavfrom Leagle.com.

Cheryl Deaver, Plaintiff, represented by Marc Hannan Phelps --
marchannanphelps@gmail.com -- at The Phelps Law Group; Roger
Richard Carter -- rcarter@carterlawfirm.net -- at The Carter Law
Firm; Scott Bradley Cooper -- rcarter@carterlawfirm.net -- at The
Cooper Law Firm, P.C.

Defendants, represented by Beth Anne Gunn --
beth.gunn@ogletreedeakins.com -- Catherine Jean Coble --
catherine.coble@ogletreedeakins.com -- Cheryl L. Schreck --
cheryl.schreck@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C.


CONGREGATION B'NAI: Sued Over Employment Renewal Policies
---------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Loren, on behalf of herself and all other members of
Congregation B'nai Israel of New York City, also known as The
Village Temple, similarly situated v. Congregation B'nai Israel of
New York City, et al., Case No. 162631/2015 (N.Y., Super. Ct.,
December 10, 2015) alleges that the Defendants employed their own
methodology and criteria in reviewing Rabbi Koster's performance
in connection with the renewal of her term of employment.

Congregation B'nai Israel of New York City is a religious
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York and
maintains its principal office in New York County, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Henry L. Saurborn, Jr., Esq.
      KAISER SAURBORN & MAIR, P.C.
      111 Broadway, 181th floor
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 338-9100
      E-mail: saurborn@ksmlaw.com


COOK GROUP: Faces "Minter" Suit Over Defective IVC Filters
----------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Minter v. Cook Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00433
(E.D. Tex., October 30, 2015) is an action for damages as a
proximate result of the Defendants' design, manufacture, sale,
testing, marketing, labeling, advertising, promotion and
distribution of unsafe medical devices known as Cook IVC Filters.

Cook Group, Inc. develops, manufactures, sells and distributes
medical devices for use in various medical applications including
endovascular cardiology, and surgical products throughout the
United States and around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher T. Kirchmer, Esq.
      PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
      490 Park Street, P.O. Box 4905
      Beaumont, TX 77701
      Telephone: (409) 835-6000
      Facsimile: (409) 813-8614
      E-mail: Ckirchmer@pulf.com


COOK GROUP: Faces "Minter" 2nd Suit Over Defective IVC Filters
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Minter v. Cook Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06029-
RLY-TAB (E.D. Tex., October 30, 2015) alleges that the Defendants
intentionally, recklessly, and negligently failed to act as to the
known failures and injuries associated with its devices and failed
to warn about and concealed, suppressed, omitted, and
misrepresented the risks, dangers, defects and disadvantages of
its IVC Filters.

Cook Group, Inc. designs, researches, develops, manufacturers,
tests, markets, advertises, promotes, distributes, and sells
products that are sold to and marketed to prevent, among other
things, recurrent pulmonary embolism via placement in the vena
cava.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher T. Kirchmer, Esq.
      PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
      490 Park Street, P.O. Box 4905
      Beaumont, TX 77701
      Telephone: (409) 835-6000
      Facsimile: (409) 813-8614
      E-mail: Ckirchmer@pulf.com


CORINTHIAN INT'L: Judge Remands Suit to Calif. Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong of the Northern District of
California remanded the case ADRIAN TURNER; individually, and on
behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated;
Plaintiff, v. CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL PARKING SERVICES, INC., an
unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-03495-SBA (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Adrian Turner, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the public similarly situated, filed a wage and hour
class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of California, County
of Alameda against defendant Corinthian International Parking
Services, Inc. in which he sought to certify a class of all
current and former hourly-paid or nonexempt California-based
employees who were employed by defendant within the State of
California at any time during the period from June 11, 2011 to
final judgment.  On or about July 24, 2015 Plaintiff and Defendant
entered into a Stipulation to transfer action from Alameda County
to Santa Clara County Superior Court. The Stipulation and Proposed
Order was filed with the Alameda Superior Court on July 24, 2015.
The Order was signed by the Alameda Superior Court on July 29,
2015.

On July 29, 2015, defendant removed the action from the Alameda
County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California based on the assumption that the
proposed class included individuals that were not citizens of
California. On August 14, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to remand
and argued that the proposed class is limited to citizens of
California, and as a result, the minimal diversity requirement of
CAFA was not satisfied, which the court denied but granted
plaintiff leave to amend his complaint for the express purpose of
clarifying the putative class definition.

On December 15, 2015, plaintiff filed his first amended class
action complaint for damages, in which he defined the proposed
class as all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt
individuals who were employed by defendants within the State of
California at any time during the period from June 11, 2011 to
final judgment and who currently reside in California.

The parties, by and through their respective attorneys of record,
subject to an order of the court, stipulated that the action be
remanded to the Superior Court for the County of Alameda, then
immediately transferred to Superior Court for the County of Santa
Clara in accordance with the Order dated July 29, 2015.
Judge Armstrong ordered that the action be remanded to the
Superior Court for the County of Alameda, then the Superior Court
of Santa Clara.

A copy of Judge Armstrong's order dated January 6, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/SwLpQefrom Leagle.com.

Adrian Turner, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Han --
dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh --
statavos@justicelawcorp.com -- at Justice Law Corporation; Edwin
Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Jill Jessica Parker --
jill@lfjpc.com -- at Lawyers for Justice, PC

Corinthian International Parking Services, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Jennifer Yuen-Sea Leung --
jennifer.leung@berliner.com -- at Berliner Cohen LLP

Corinthian International Parking Services, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Susan E. Bishop -- susan.bishop@berliner.com -- at
Berliner Cohen LLP


DEEPWATER HORIZON: Judge Makes Allocations to New Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. of the Eastern District
of Louisiana made allocations in the case entitled IN RE: OIL
SPILL by the OIL RIG "DEEPWATER HORIZON" in the GULF OF MEXICO on
APRIL 20, 2010. This document relates to: Nos. 12-970, 15-4143,
15-4146 and 15-4654, MDL No. 2179 (E.D. La.)

The BP settlement resolved all claims of the old class against BP
Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company
(BP). The BP settlement included an assignment from BP to the old
class of certain claims possessed and/or asserted by BP against
Halliburton and Transocean (the Assigned Claims).

The Halliburton and Transocean Settlement Agreements both provide
that the court shall appoint an allocation neutral who will
allocate the aggregate payments between the new class and the old]
class with finality, subject to the terms of the Halliburton and
Transocean settlement agreements] and the court's determination
that the allocation neutral appropriately performed the assigned
function.

The Halliburton and Transocean settlement agreements provide for
aggregate payments to be made to claimants. The aggregate payments
are $211,750,000 from Transocean, and $1,028,000,000 from
Halliburton, for a total of $1,239,750,000.

By order dated September 29, 2015, Judge Barbier granted the
parties' request and appointed Magistrate Judge Wilkinson to serve
as allocation neutral.

Class counsel for plaintiffs, together with Halliburton Energy
Services, Inc., Triton Asset Leasing GmbH, Transocean Deepwater,
Inc., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. and Transocean
Holdings LLC, have submitted for the court's approval two
separate, but identical in numerous important respects, settlement
agreements.

Magistrate Judge Wilkinson finds that a reasonable allocation of
the aggregate payments provided in the Halliburton and Transocean
settlement agreements is as follows: $902,083,250, representing
72.8% of the total aggregate payments, should be apportioned to
the new class and $337,666,750, representing 27.2% of the total
aggregate payments, should be apportioned to the old class.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Wilkinson's neutral allocation and
reasons dated December 11, 2015, is available at
http://goo.gl/dpLAhdfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by James P. Roy, Domengeaux,
Wright, Roy & Edwards & Stephen J. Herman, Herman, Herman, Katz &
Cotlar, LLP

Marine Spill Response Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alan
Mark Weigel, Blank Rome LLP

Airborne Support, Inc., Defendant, represented by Francis Xavier
Neuner, Jr., NeunerPate, Ben Louis Mayeaux, NeunerPate & Jed M.
Mestayer, NeunerPate

Airborne Support International Inc, Defendant, represented by
Francis Xavier Neuner, Jr., NeunerPate, Ben Louis Mayeaux,
NeunerPate & Jed M. Mestayer, NeunerPate

Dynamic Aviation Group Inc, Defendant, represented by Leo Raymond
McAloon, III, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC & Michael D.
Cangelosi, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC

International Air Response Inc, Defendant, represented by Kevin
Richard Tully, Christovich & Kearney, LLP &Howard Carter Marshall,
Christovich & Kearney, LLP

Lane Aviation, Defendant, represented by George Edmond Crow, Law
Office of George E. Crow

National Response Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael
J. Lyle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Eric C. Lyttle,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Patrick Edward O'Keefe,
Montgomery Barnett, Philip S. Brooks, Jr., Montgomery Barnett &
Sylvia E. Simson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.
DRC Emergency Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Harold J.
Flanagan, Flanagan Partners, LLP, Andy Joseph Dupre, Flanagan
Partners, LLP, Sean Patrick Brady, Flanagan Partners, LLP &
Stephen M. Pesce, Chevron USA, Inc.

Lynden Inc., Defendant, represented by Howard Carter Marshall,
Christovich & Kearney, LLP & Kevin Richard Tully, Christovich &
Kearney, LLP

Tiger Rentals Ltd., Defendant, represented by John Emerson
Galloway, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith & Cherrell
Simms Taplin, City Attorney's Office

Modern Group GP-SUB Inc., Defendant, represented by John Emerson
Galloway, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith & Cherrell
Simms Taplin, City Attorney's Office

Modern Group Ltd., Defendant, represented by John Emerson
Galloway, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith & Cherrell
Simms Taplin, City Attorney's Office

Defendant, Defendant, represented by David J. Beck, Beck, Redden &
Secrest, LLP, Deborah DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner
& Richeson, LLC, Don Keller Haycraft, Liskow & Lewis, Donald E.
Godwin, Godwin Lewis PC, J. Andrew Langan, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP,
Kerry J. Miller, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, Ky
E. Kirby, Bingham McCutchen, LLP, Michael J. Lyle, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP & Phillip A. Wittmann, Stone, Pigman,
Walther, Wittmann, LLC.
O'Brien's Response Management L.L.C., Defendant, represented by
Michael J. Lyle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Eric C.
Lyttle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Patrick Edward
O'Keefe, Montgomery Barnett, Philip S. Brooks, Jr., Montgomery
Barnett & Sylvia E. Simson, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

Federal Government Interests, Interested Party, represented by R
Michael Underhill, U. S. Department of Justice

State Interests, Interested Party, represented by Luther J
Strange, III, Attorney General's Office

Lynn C Greer, represented by Lynn C Greer, BrownGreer PLC


DEGGELLER ATTRACTIONS: 8th Cir. Favors Carnival Workers on Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nineteen workers who were employed by Deggeller Attractions, Inc.,
a Florida corporation that operates a traveling carnival in
Arkansas and various other states, allege that Deggeller
recruited, hired, and employed them under the H-2B temporary
foreign worker program. The workers alleged that between 2009 and
2013, Deggeller applied for and received certifications to hire
foreign workers as ride operators, food servers, game attendants,
and ticket collectors at its carnivals. Deggeller promised the
Department of Labor that it would pay any foreign workers it hired
at least the prevailing wage applicable to these positions in each
location in which its carnival operated.  Deggeller paid the
workers a flat weekly rate regardless of the number of hours
worked.

During the vast majority of workweeks, the workers alleged, this
payment represented less than the amount due to the workers under
the Department of Labor's prevailing wage and less than the amount
mandated by the Arkansas minimum wage law. According to the
workers, Deggeller further eroded the workers' wage rate by
refusing to pay them overtime and by charging them more for
housing than Deggeller paid to provide the facilities.

The workers filed a lawsuit, raising these three claims against
Deggeller:

     (A) a breach of contract claim under Arkansas common law,
         alleging that Deggeller had violated the wage term of
         the workers' employment contracts by paying less than
         the hourly prevailing wage mandated by 20 C.F.R. Section
         655.20.

     (B) Deggeller had willfully filed W-2 forms containing
         fraudulent information regarding the workers' earnings,
         in violation of 26 U.S.C. Section 7434.

     (C) Deggeller had paid them less than the Arkansas minimum
         wage.

The district court dismissed the breach of contract and tax fraud
counts under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6), and the court declined to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Arkansas minimum-wage
claim. Finally, the court rejected the workers' request for leave
to file a second amended complaint. The workers appealed to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Circuit Judge Raymond W. Gruender, who penned the decision,
reversed the district court's dismissal of the breach of contract
and tax fraud claims; and vacated the district court's decision
not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Arkansas
minimum wage claim.

A copy of Judge Gruender's decision dated December 15, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/7VuI85from Leagle.com.

The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit panel consists
of Chief Judge William Jay Riley and Circuit Judges Raymond W.
Gruender and Kermit E. Bye.

The case is, Jesus Cuellar-Aguilar; Andres Andrade-Quijano;
Francisco Bernardo-Gonzalez; Andres Contreras-Hernandez; Jose
Daniel Cuellar-Aguilar; Frederik Hernandez-Luciano; Narciso
Hernandez-Zavaleta; Porfirio Hernandez-Zavaleta; Natanael Herrera-
Barreda; Javier Lopez-Celis; Angel Martinez-Damaso; Esau Morales-
Toledano; Crisanto Ortiz-Ortiz; Samuel Ronquillo-Juarez; John
Swart; Enrique Vasquez-Alejo; Juan Manuel Vasquez-Alvarez; Shanna
Powell; Shenene Swanepoel, each individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v.
Deggeller Attractions, Inc., Defendant-Appellee Advocates for
Human Rights, et al. Amicus on Behalf of Appellant(s), No. 15-1219
(8th Cir.)


DEMOCRAT NATIONAL: Plaintiff Cannot Proceed in Forma Pauperis
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Brian Morris of the District of Montana, Great
Falls Division denied plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma
pauperis in the case ERIC BROSTEN, Plaintiff, v. DEMOCRAT NATIONAL
COMMITTEE, CBS; KCCI, THE DES RECOMMENDATIONS MOINES REGISTER,
ABC; WMUR, NBC, CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS INSTITUTE, UNIVISION,
THE WASHINGTON POST, and WISCONSIN PBS, Defendants, No. CV 15-99-
BU-BMM (D. Mont.)

Eric Brosten filed a pleading, together with his application for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(a)(1). Brosten purports to prosecute his claims as a class
action on behalf of all Americans, and he requests that the court
take action on issues that affect national security and the very
future of the country. Brosten requests that the court require
defendants to allow him to participate in presidential debates.

United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch recommended that the
court dismiss the pleading as frivolous as it lacks any basis in
fact or in law. Judge Lynch also recommended that the court deny
as moot Brosten's motions that request that the court mitigate the
damage to our economy, provide protection from the United States
Secret Service, and require service by certified mail.

Brosten filed no objections to Judge Lynch's findings and
recommendations.

District Judge Morris denied plaintiff's request to proceed in
forma pauperis and dismissed the action. Brosten's motions
requesting that the court mitigate the damage to our
economyprotection from the United States Secret Service, and
service by certified mail are all denied as moot.

A copy of Judge Morris's order dated December 14, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/UoOavJfrom Leagle.com.

Eric Brosten, Plaintiff, Pro Se


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces "Cook" Suit Over Faulty Pinnacle System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Roy A. Cook and Donna Cook v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., DePuy
Products, Inc., DePuy International, Limited, and Johnson &
Johnson Services, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03771-K (N.D. Tex.,
November 22, 2015) arises from the Defendants' alleged scheme to
defraud consumers through their unconscionable failure to disclose
and active concealment of the defects in Pinnacle Acetabular Cup
System that may result in metallosis, biologic toxicity, and a
high failure rate.

The Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of medical
devices and solutions in orthopedics, spinal care and
neuroscience.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Diamond, Esq.
      D. Greg Sakall, Esq.
      GOLDBERG & OSBORNE
      698 E. Wetmore Road, Suite 200
      Tucson, AR 85705
      Telephone: (520) 620-3975
      E-mail: Ddiamond40@aol.com
              gsakall@aol.com


DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces "Hawkins" Suit Over Pinnacle System
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Hawkins v. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., DePuy Products, Inc.,
DePuy International, Limited, and Johnson & Johnson Services,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03772-K (N.D. Tex., November 22, 2015)
arises from the Defendants' alleged scheme to defraud consumers
through their unconscionable failure to disclose and active
concealment of the defects in Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System that
may result in metallosis, biologic toxicity, and a high failure
rate.

The Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of medical
devices and solutions in orthopedics, spinal care and
neuroscience.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Diamond, Esq.
      D. Greg Sakall, Esq.
      GOLDBERG & OSBORNE
      698 E. Wetmore Road, Suite 200
      Tucson, AR 85705
      Telephone: (520) 620-3975
      E-mail: Ddiamond40@aol.com
              gsakall@aol.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Dismisses Inmate's Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ellen Segak Huvelle of the District Court of
Columbia granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case Michael D.
Hurd, JR., Plaintiff, v. District Of Columbia, Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 15-666 (ESH)(D.D.C.)

In January 2006, Michael Hurd pled guilty in D.C. Superior Court
to five counts: (1) carrying a pistol without a license; (2)
possession of a prohibited weapon; (3)-(4) two counts of
possession of unregistered firearms; and (5) possession of
cocaine. He was sentenced to 42 months in prison with all but
forty-five days suspended, a $1,000 fine, and one year of
supervised probation. After violating the terms of his probation,
Hurd was required to serve the previously suspended portion of his
sentence, as well as a three-year term of supervised release.

On September 21, 2006, he began serving his 42-month sentence at
the Federal Correctional Institution in Beckley, West Virginia.
Less than a year later, however, Hurd was inexplicably released to
a halfway house in D.C., which in turn released him a month later
to begin serving his three-year term of supervised release.

On July 18, 2010, the U.S. Parole Commission determined that Hurd
had successfully completed his three-year term of supervised
release, and it no longer had jurisdiction over him. Almost a year
after his supervision had terminated, Hurd was arrested for
possession of marijuana, to which he eventually pled guilty, which
he was sentenced to nine days in prison, to be served over three
weekends. While serving his second weekend at D.C. Jail, Hurd was
informed that he had 27 months remaining on his 2006 sentence, so
he would not be released that evening as he had expected.

Hurd filed a motion for habeas corpus in his closed criminal case
in D.C. Superior Court. Hurd argued that his re-incarceration
without notice, a hearing, or any sort of warning, is so unfair
that it must be deemed inconsistent with fundamental notions of
fairness embodied in the Due Process Clause.

The court issued a one-sentence order committing Hurd back to
prison, but no written opinion. Hurd filed an appeal to the D.C.
Court of Appeals, which took no action for seventeen months. By
the time the Court of Appeals issued a ruling, Hurd had already
been released from prison on September 30, 2013, so his appeal was
denied as moot. In total, his habeas motion and appeal had been
pending before the local courts for more than 25 months.

Plaintiff brought a suit under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 to redress
alleged due process violations by the District of Columbia. He
claims the district suddenly and unjustly re-incarcerated him
without a hearing, four years after he was mistakenly released
from a federal prison. The district moved to dismiss, arguing that
plaintiff's substantive due process claim is barred by the
doctrine of res judicata and that the district did not violate
plaintiff's substantive or procedural due process rights.

A copy of Judge Huvelle's memorandum opinion dated November 19,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/tQcty5from Leagle.com.

Michael D. Hurd, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Eric C. Rowe --
erowe@wtplaw.com -- Charles Allen Foster -- afoster@wtplaw.com --
at Whiteford Taylor & Preston LLP

District of Columbia, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Saindon
-- Matthew Robert Blecher -- at Office of the Attorney General for
the District of Columbia


EQUILON ENTERPRISES: Judge Narrows Claims in "Kearney" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marco A. Hernandez of the District of Oregon ruled
plaintiffs' motions in the case JOHN MARTIN KEARNEY, an Oregon
resident; ROBIN A. BECK, a Colorado resident; CARLY LaFOREST, a
Michigan resident; SHANE ALLPORT, a Michigan resident; ALYSIA
ROWE, a Michigan resident; RICHARD SCHEMPP, a California resident;
and JEFFREY PAUL GILPIN, JR., a Washington resident; each on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. EQUILON ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Delaware corporation
dba SHELL OIL PRODUCTS US, Defendant, No. 3:14-cv-00254-HZ (D.
Ore.)

Plaintiffs brought a proposed class action with a nationwide
breach of contract claim, and similar subclass claims based on
state unlawful trade practice statutes, against defendant Equilon
Enterprises, LLC (Equilon). All claims arise out of an
advertisement allegedly displayed by defendant at Shellbrand
service stations and which promoted a "Ski Free" voucher for a
free lift ticket upon purchase of ten gallons of fuel.

The case was originally filed on February 14, 2014 where the court
issued an initial discovery and pretrial scheduling order
requiring that the parties file all pleadings under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15 within 120 days. Defendant received two
extensions of time to respond to the complaint and plaintiff
successfully sought an order extending the deadlines for the
completion of discovery, the filing of the joint alternative
dispute resolution report, and the filing of dispositive motions.

On June 30, 2014, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint,
adding new plaintiffs and subclasses for additional states.
Defendant moved to dismiss the first amended complaint and on
December 1, 2014, Judge Hernandez granted the motion in part and
denied it in part. Plaintiffs submitted a second amended
complaint.

On April 13, 2015, Judge Hernandez conducted a scheduling
conference with the parties and adopted a case schedule, mostly
following the parties' proposed dates. As a result, various
deadlines related to disclosing class certification experts,
filing and briefing the class certification motion, closing of
non-expert discovery, disclosure of experts, filing of dispositive
motions, closing of expert discovery, and trial, were set. The
deadline to disclose class certification experts, originally
November 6, 2015, was extended at counsels' request, to November
30, 2015 for plaintiffs and December 17, 2015 for defendant.

Plaintiffs move to dismiss one subclass claim and that claim's
subclass representative, and another subclass representative.
Plaintiffs also move to amend to add a new California subclass
claim and to add damages requests to the California subclass
claims.

Judge Hernandez granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs'
motion to dismiss and to amend. The motion to dismiss the Colorado
subclass claim, Beck as a plaintiff and as the Colorado subclass
representative, and Allport as a plaintiff and as one of the
Michigan subclass representatives is granted, and that claim and
those plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice. The motion to
amend is granted as to the proposed clarification of the Oregon
subclass claims and the motion to amend is otherwise denied.
Plaintiffs shall submit a third amended complaint within ten days
of the date of the opinion and order.

A copy of Judge Hernandez's opinion and order dated January 4,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/zoTFnWfrom Leagle.com.

Carly LaForest, Alysia Rowe and John Martin Kearney, Plaintiffs,
represented by:

     Rick Klingbeil, Esq.
     RICK KLINGBEIL, PC
     2300 SW 1st Ave #101
     Portland, OR 97201
     Telephone: 503-490-6763

          - and -

     Robert A. Curtis, Esq.
     FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
     575 Anton Blvd.
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: 714-556-1700

          - and -

     Brady H. Mertz, Esq.
     Brady Mertz, PC
     2285 Liberty St NE
     Salem, OR 97301
     Telephone: 503-385-0121

          - and -

     Brooks F. Cooper, Esq.
     DRANEAS & HUGLIN, P.C.
     4004 Kruse Way Pl #200
     Lake Oswego, OR 97035
     Telephone: 503-496-5509

Richard Schempp, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Brady H. Mertz, Esq.
     BRADY MERTZ, PC
     2285 Liberty St NE
     Salem, OR 97301
     Telephone: 503-385-0121

Jeffrey Paul Gilpin, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by:

     Brady H. Mertz, Esq.
     BRADY MERTZ, PC
     2285 Liberty St NE
     Salem, OR 97301
     Telephone: 503-385-0121

          - and -

     Rick Klingbeil, Esq.
     RICK KLINGBEIL, PC
     2300 SW 1st Ave #101
     Portland, OR 97201
     Telephone: 503-490-6763

Equilon Enterprises, LLC, Defendant, represented by Abby L. Risner
-- alr@greensfelder.com -- Daniel R. Garner --
drg@greensfelder.com -- Dawn A. Johnson -- dmj@greensfelder.com
-- at Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC; Brad S. Daniels --
brad.daniels@stoel.com -- at Stoel Rives LLP


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Levy" Suit Over FCRA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alan Levy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 8:15-
cv-01734-SVW-DFM (C.D. Cal., October 27, 2015) seeking to pursue
remedies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which
provides, among other things, credit check services to
corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Azar, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One California Plaza
      300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3900
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 617-1200
      Facsimile: (213) 617-1975
      E-mail: dazar@milberg.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Allen" Suit Over Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Allen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, et al. v. Experian Information Solutions Inc., et al.,
Case No. 8:15-cv-01803 (C.D. Cal., November 4, 2015) arises out of
the massive hack on Experian's servers that compromised the
sensitive data of T-Mobile's customers and individuals who applied
for credit with T-Mobile.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which
provides, among other things, credit check services to
corporations.

Stephen Allen is a pro se plaintiff.


FANDUEL INC: Faces "Cosper" Suit in Louisiana Over Sports Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Cosper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fanduel, Inc., and Draftkings, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-06720-SSV-DEK (E.D. La., December 11, 2015) seeks to
remedy the unfair, deceptive, and unlawful business practices of
the Defendants with respect to the marketing, promotion and
advertising of its daily fantasy sports website.

The Defendants offer daily fantasy sports product for sale through
its internet sites throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Dugan II, Esq.
      David B. Franco, Esq.
      Lanson Bordelon, Esq.
      THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
      One Canal Place
      365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 648-0180
      Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
      E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
              dfranco@dugan-lawfirm.com
              lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com

         - and -

      Jeremy Schafer, Esq.
      MILLER LEGAL, LLP
      1101 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 600
      Washington, DC 20004
      Telephone: (202) 769-0007

         - and -

      Russ M. Herman, Esq.
      Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
      HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
      820 O'Keefe Avenue
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 581-4892
      Facsimile: (504) 561-6024

         - and -

      Chris Seeger, Esq.
      SEEGER WEISS, LLP
      77 Water Street
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 584-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 584-0799
      E-mail: CSeeger@seegerweiss.com


FFP HOLDINGS: Judge Approves Class Settlements in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jack Zouhary of the Northern District of Ohio,
Western Division ruled on the parties' motions in the case
entitled In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation. This
document relates to: DIRECT PURCHASER CLASS, CASE NO. 1:10 MD 2196
(N.D. Ohio)

In April 2014, the court certified a nationwide class of direct
purchasers, firms that purchased flexible polyurethane foam from
defendants. The court selected the direct purchaser class as the
initial trial case. Soon thereafter, the carpenter defendants and
defendant Leggett & Platt, Inc. settled with the class.

Direct purchasers pursued settlement talks with the remaining
defendants, facilitated by Eric Green and U.S. District Judge
David Katz. FFP, Future Foam, Mohawk, and the Woodbridge
defendants settled one week before trial. The court preliminarily
certified the settlement classes and preliminarily approved the
six settlements, the settlement notices and claim form, and the
plan of allocation.

In May 2015, the court preliminarily certified the settlement
classes and preliminarily approved the six settlements, the
settlement notices and claim form, and the plan of allocation. In
July 2015, direct purchasers moved for final approval. Direct
purchasers report that class members who represent $16,062,282,281
in class period purchases timely filed claims, and that 96.4
percent of that purchase volume is tied to validated claims.

Class counsel moved for a fee award, asking for 30 percent of the
$275.5 million settlement fund, or $82.65 million. Class counsel
also asks for reimbursement of remaining expenses of $315,325.12.
In connection with two prior rounds of approved class settlements,
class counsel received two expense awards totaling $9,022,171.15.
Finally, and for the first time, class counsel request a $35,000
incentive award for each of the seven representative plaintiffs.

Direct action plaintiff Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. moved to
withdraw its exclusion from the direct purchaser class, so that it
may participate in four of the six settlements.

Judge Zouhary granted final approval of each settlement, granted
in part and denied in part class counsel's fee petition, and
denied Ashley's motion.

A copy of Judge Zouhary's memorandum opinion and order dated
November 19, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/leHLuIfrom
Leagle.com.

Direct Purchaser Class, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen R.
Neuwirth, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, William A.
Isaacson, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson
Simon & Warshaw, Adam B. Wolfson, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver
& Hedges, Brian R. Strange, Strange & Butler, Carmen A. Medici,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, David W. Wicklund, Shumaker, Loop &
Kendrick, Eric W. Wiechmann, McCarter & English, Hollis L.
Salzman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Kimberly A. Conklin,
Kerger & Hartman, Kurt M. Rupert, Hartzog Conger Cason & Neville,
Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, Meegan F. Hollywood, Robins,
Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Melissa Felder, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, Melissa B. Willett, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Mindee J.
Reuben, Lite DePalma Greenberg & Rivas, Robert G. Eisler, Grant &
Eisenhofer, Ronald J. Aranoff, Bernstein Liebhard, Sanford I.
Weisburst, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Sathya S. Gosselin,
Hausfeld, Seth R. Gassman, Hausfeld, Stephen A. Weiss, Seeger
Weiss, William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter & William Liston,
III, Liston Lancaster

Indirect Purchaser Class, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly A.
Conklin, Kerger & Hartman, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law, Marvin A.
Miller, Miller Law, Richard M. Kerger, Kerger & Hartman, Adam B.
Wolfson, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, Brian R.
Strange, Strange & Butler, David W. Wicklund, Shumaker, Loop &
Kendrick, Eric W. Wiechmann, McCarter & English, Hollis L.
Salzman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Kurt M. Rupert, Hartzog
Conger Cason & Neville,Meegan F. Hollywood, Robins, Kaplan, Miller
& Ciresi, Robert C. Schubert, Schubert & Reed,William J. Blechman,
Kenny Nachwalter & William Liston, III, Liston Lancaster

Indirect Purchasers, Plaintiff, represented by Adam B. Wolfson,
Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, David W. Wicklund,
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, Eric W. Wiechmann, McCarter & English,
Hollis L. Salzman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Kimberly A.
Conklin, Kerger & Hartman,Kurt M. Rupert, Hartzog Conger Cason &
Neville, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law, Marvin A. Miller, Miller
Law, Meegan F. Hollywood, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Richard
M. Kerger, Kerger & Hartman & William J. Blechman, Kenny
Nachwalter.

Direct Action Plaintiff(s), Plaintiff, represented by Adam B.
Wolfson, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, Chahira Solh,
Crowell & Moring, David W. Wicklund, Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick,
Douglas H. Patton, Kenny Nachwalter, Eric W. Wiechmann, McCarter &
English, Hollis L. Salzman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Kurt
M. Rupert, Hartzog Conger Cason & Neville,Meegan F. Hollywood,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Melissa B. Willett, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner,Stephen A. Brandon & William Liston, III,
Liston Lancaster

Defendants Liaison Counsel, Defendant, represented by James H.
Walsh, McGuire Woods,Bethany G. Lukitsch, McGuire Woods, Deborah
Pollack-Milgate, Barnes & Thornburg & Michael R. Hoernlein, Alston
& Bird

The Dow Chemical Company, Intervenor, represented by David M.
Bernick, Dechert & M. Neal Rains, Frantz Ward

David Rosenblum Cohen, Special Master, represented by David
Rosenblum Cohen, Law Office of David R. Cohen


FIDELITY MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Imprudent Investment Strategy
------------------------------------------------------------
James Ellis and William Perry v. Fidelity Management Trust
Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-14128 (D. Mass., December 11, 2015)
alleges that Fidelity engaged in an imprudent investment strategy
for the Fidelity Group Employee Benefit Plan Managed Income
Portfolio Commingled Pool (MIP) that caused substantial losses to
the fund and accordingly exposed itself and the MIP's "wrap
providers" to substantial losses.

Fidelity Management Trust Company provides institutional asset
management services to corporate and public retirement funds,
endowments, and foundations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul T. Sullivan, Esq.
      Jeffrey A. Gordon, Esq.
      ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
      600 Worcester Road, Suite 101
      Framingham, MA 07102
      Telephone: (781) 4660700
      Facsimile: (781) 466-0701
      E-mail: psullivan@zelle.com
              jgordon@zelle.com

         - and -

      Christopher Micheletti, Esq.
      Heather T. Rankie, Esq.
      ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 633-1912
      Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
      E-mail: cmicheletti@zelle.com
              hrankie@zelle.com

         - and -

      Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
      Michael McKay, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      8501 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 270
      Scottsdale, AR 85253
      Telephone: (480) 428-0145
      Facsimile: (866) 505-8036
      E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com
              mmckay@schneiderwallace.com

         - and -

      Todd Schneider, Esq.
      Mark Johnson, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      180 Montgomery Street, Ste. 2000
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
      E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
              mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com

         - and -

      Matthew Righetti, Esq.
      RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
      456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 983-0900
      Facsimile: (415) 397-9005


FIFTH GENERATION: "Cabrera" Mislabeling Suit Goes to Trial
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the Southern District of
California denied a motion for summary judgment filed by the
defendant in the case MARC CABRERA, Plaintiff, v. FIFTH
GENERATION, INC., a Texas corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 14CV2990 JM(JLB) RELATED CASE NO.
14CV2569 JM(JLB)(S.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Marc Cabrera alleges that on December 16, 2014, he
purchased Tito's at a CVS Pharmacy store in San Diego, California.
It displayed a label prominently claiming the vodka is "Handmade"
and "Crafted in an Old Fashioned Pot Still by America's Original
Microdistillery." He claims that he saw the label, relied on it,
and believed he was buying a superior quality product by virtue of
it being made by hand rather than by a machine.

He claims that the Tito's labeling is false and misleading
because, in reality, the vodka is mass-produced in large
quantities from commercially manufactured neutral grain spirits
that are trucked and pumped into the Tito's facility and distilled
in modern, technologically advanced stills. He alleges further
that when Fifth Generation represented to the public that Tito's
is "Handmade," it concealed the highly automated nature of the
manufacturing and bottling process, and it concealed the fact that
Tito's is no longer made in an old-fashioned pot still like the
one pictured in the Forbes article, which was cobbled from two Dr.
Pepper kegs and a turkey-frying rig.

Plaintiff claims, he and other consumers were fraudulently induced
to pay inflated prices for vodka they believed was genuinely
handmade, when it was not. On that basis, he asserts four causes
of action under California law: (1) violation of California's
False Advertising Law (FAL), Business & Professions Code Section
17500 et seq.; (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law (UCL), Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.; (3)
negligent misrepresentation; and (4) intentional
misrepresentation. Fifth Generation filed a motion for summary
judgment.

Judge Miller denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on the
safe harbor issue and the motion for summary judgment on the
negligent misrepresentation claim is stricken without prejudice.

A copy of Judge Miller's order dated November 20, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/YE1gWffrom Leagle.com.

Marc Cabrera, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- Mohammad Kazerouni -- mike@kazlg.com -- Mona Amini
-- mona@kazlg.com -- Kazerouni Law Group, APC; Joshua Swigart --
josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- at Hyde & Swigart; Todd M.
Friedman -- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- at Law Offices
of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.

Gary Hofmann, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by John H Donboli
-- jdonboli@delmarlawgroup.com -- at Del Mar Law Group, LLP

Fifth Generation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Marcy Hogan
Greer -- mgreer@adjtlaw.com -- at Alexander Dubose Jefferson &
Townsend, LLP; Matthew Ryan Gershman -- gershmanm@gtlaw.com --
Ricky Lynn Shackelford -- shackelfordr@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg
Traurig, LLP; Michelle C Doolin -- mdoolin@cooley.com -- Darcie
Tilly -- dtilly@cooley.com -- at Cooley Godward Kronish LLP


FIFTH GENERATION: "Hofmann" Mislabeling Suit Goes to Trial
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the Southern District of
California denied defendant's motion for summary judgment in the
case GARY HOFMANN, Plaintiff, v. FIFTH GENERATION, INC., a Texas
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE
NO. 14CV2569 JM(JLB), RELATED CASE NO. 14CV2990 JM(JLB)(S.D. Cal.)

Gary Hofmann alleges that in August 2014, he purchased Tito's
Handmade Vodka (Tito's) at a BevMo! store in San Diego,
California. It was prominently marked with the word "Handmade,"
and it was labeled as being "Crafted in an Old Fashioned Pot Still
by America's Original Microdistillery."

He claims that he saw the label, relied on it, and believed he was
buying a high-quality product made by human hands, not mass-
produced in large industrial vats. He claims that the Tito's
labeling is false and misleading because, in reality, the vodka is
mass-produced in large quantities from commercially manufactured
neutral grain spirits that are trucked and pumped into the Tito's
facility and distilled in modern, technologically advanced stills.
He alleges further that when Fifth Generation, Inc. (Fifth
Generation) represented to the public that Tito's is "Handmade,"
it concealed the highly automated nature of the manufacturing and
bottling process, and it concealed the fact that Tito's is no
longer made in an old-fashioned pot still like the one pictured in
the Forbes article, which was cobbled from two Dr. Pepper kegs and
a turkey-frying rig.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against Tito's and asserts four causes
of action under California law: (1) violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Business & Professions Code Section
17200 et seq.; (2) violation of California's False Advertising Law
(FAL), Business & Professions Code Section 17500 et seq.; (3)
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA),
Civil Code Section 1750 et seq.; and (4) negligent
misrepresentation. He seeks restitution of the money class members
paid to buy the offending vodka and an injunction prohibiting
continued violation of the UCL.

Fifth Generation removed the case to the present court pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2),
asserting that plaintiff is a California citizen, defendant is a
Texas citizen, and the class claims place in controversy more than
$5 million dollars. Fifth Generation filed a motion to dismiss
which the court denied the motion in part and granted in part, and
granted plaintiff leave to amend

Plaintiff amended its complaint in which defendant filed a motion
for summary judgment.

Judge Miller denied defendant's motion for summary judgment on the
safe harbor issue and the motion for summary judgment on the
negligent misrepresentation claim is stricken without prejudice.

A copy of Judge Miler's order dated November 20, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/4jSFn9from Leagle.com.

Gary Hofmann, Plaintiff, represented by John H Donboli --
jdonboli@delmarlawgroup.com -- Camille Joy DeCamp --
cdecamp@delmarlawgroup.com -- at Del Mar Law Group, LLP; Jonathan
W Cuneo -- jonc@cuneolaw.com -- Taylor Asen -- tasen@cuneolaw.com
-- at Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP

Marc Cabrera, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian --
ak@kazlg.com -- at Kazerounian Law Group, APC

Fifth Generation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Marcy Hogan
Greer -- mgreer@adjtlaw.com -- at Alexander Dubose Jefferson &
Townsend, LLP; Matthew Ryan Gershman -- gershmanm@gtlaw.com --
Ricky Lynn Shackelford -- shackelfordr@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg
Traurig, LLP; Michelle C Doolin -- mdoolin@cooley.com -- Darcie
Tilly -- dtilly@cooley.com -- at Cooley Godward Kronish LLP


FIVE STARS: "Daniel" TCPA Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of
California ruled on the defendant's motion in the case of Sunil
Daniel, Plaintiff, v. Five Stars Loyalty, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 15-cv-03546-WHO (N.D Cal.)

Defendant Five Stars Loyalty is a consumer rewards program that
works with merchants to give consumers rewards points that can
then be redeemed for free products or services. One of its
customers is Flame Broiler restaurant in North Hollywood.

On April 16, 2015, Sunil Daniel had lunch at a Flame Broiler
restaurant. Having noticed a Five Stars sign, upon purchase, he
asked the cashier about Five Stars. The cashier told him that,
through Five Stars, customers earn points for food purchases, and
that the points can then be redeemed for free food. The cashier
asked for Daniel's telephone number, which Daniel provided orally.
The cashier then swiped a plastic card over a scanning device and
handed the card to Daniel. Within minutes, Daniel received a text
message from Five Stars.

Approximately two months after his visit to Flame Broiler, Daniel
filed an action in the Superior Court of California for the County
of San Francisco. In his complaint, he only alleged a single
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) cause of action under 47
U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1) and identified a putative class defined
as "all persons throughout the United States who, since October
16, 2013, received one or more text messages transmitted by Five
Stars on their cellular telephones, and made for a marketing or
advertising purpose.

Five Stars removed the case to federal court on July 31, 2015,
claiming subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of federal
question jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Five Stars filed a motion to dismiss or,
in the alternative, to stay the case, to which, Daniel filed a
notice of intent to amend as a matter of course under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Daniel filed the first amended
complaint (FAC) on September 11, 2015.

The FAC brought the same single TCPA cause of action under 47
U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1) as the original complaint and identifies
the same putative class. The FAC seeks statutory damages in the
amount of $500 per text message received, treble damages for
willful and knowing violation of the TCPA, and injunctive relief.
Five Stars filed again a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
to stay the case on October 2, 2015.

Judge Orrick granted defendant's motion to dismiss but allows
plaintiff to file his second amended complaint, if any, within 25
days of the date of the order. Defendant's motion to is denied
without prejudice to resubmission upon the filing of plaintiff's
second amended complaint.

A copy of Judge Orrick's order dated November 24, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/JGVBfcfrom Leagle.com.

Sunil Daniel, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone --
mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Z. Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Marc Lawrence Godino --
mgodino@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP; Abigail
Ameri Zelenski -- abigail@jlglawyers.com -- David Zelenski --
david@jlglawyers.com -- Michael Joe Jaurigue --
michael@jlglawyers.com -- at Jaurigue Law Group

Five Stars Loyalty, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lee Scott
Brenner -- lbrenner@kelleydrye.com -- Catherine Dong Eun Lee --
clee@kelleydrye.com -- Edward James Mullins, III --
emullins@kelleydrye.com -- Lauri Anne Mazzuchetti --
lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com -- at Kelley Drye Warren LLP


GALARDI SOUTH: Judge Won't Grant Arbitration Bid in "Espinoza"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division, denied defendant's motion to compel
arbitration in the case JASZMANN ESPINOZA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
GALARDI SOUTH ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-
21244-CIV-Goodman (S.D. Fla.)

Plaintiffs are dancers who are suing defendants for, among other
things, minimum wage and overtime violations arising from their
work at Defendant Fly Low, Inc. d/b/a King of Diamonds, a strip
club. Plaintiffs allege claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and Florida law.

The court previously granted conditional certification of an FLSA
collective action against defendants. More than 20 claimants have
opted into the collective action.

Defendant Fly Low, Inc. moved to compel arbitration against opt-in
claimants Shavone Moore, Jordan Hargraves, Krystall Wright and
Ashley Delgado pursuant to the requirements of an arbitration
policy that each claimant signed.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that each of the opt-in claimants signed
the arbitration agreements. However, plaintiffs argue that the
court should not enforce the agreements in accordance with its
responsibility to police collective actions.

A copy of magistrate Judge Goodman's order dated December 31,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/Bu5tHZfrom Leagle.com.

Jaszmann Espinoza, Plaintiff, represented by Harlan S. Miller,
Parks, Chesin & Walbert, P.C. & Dana Mason Gallup, The Law Offices
of Dana M. Gallup, P.A.

Seleta Stanton, Plaintiff, represented by Harlan S. Miller, Parks,
Chesin & Walbert, P.C. & Dana Mason Gallup, The Law Offices of
Dana M. Gallup, P.A.

Tiffany Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Harlan S. Miller,
Parks, Chesin & Walbert, P.C. & Dana Mason Gallup, The Law Offices
of Dana M. Gallup, P.A.

Douganna Ballard, Plaintiff, represented by Harlan S. Miller,
Parks, Chesin & Walbert, P.C. & Dana Mason Gallup, The Law Offices
of Dana M. Gallup, P.A.

Janice Bailey, Plaintiff, represented by Harlan S. Miller, Parks,
Chesin & Walbert, P.C. & Dana Mason Gallup, The Law Offices of
Dana M. Gallup, P.A.

Galardi South Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dean R.
Fuchs, Schulten, Ward & Turner, LLP, Susan Kastan Murphey,
Schulten, Ward, & Turner, LLP, Wm. Scott Schulten, Schulten, Ward
& Turner, LLP, Daniel Wayne Matlow, Daniel W. Matlow, P.A. &
Stephen Whitfield Brown, Schulten Ward & Turner, LLP

Galardi South Enterprise Consulting, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Dean R. Fuchs, Schulten, Ward & Turner, LLP, Susan Kastan
Murphey, Schulten, Ward, & Turner, LLP, Wm. Scott Schulten,
Schulten, Ward & Turner, LLP, Daniel Wayne Matlow, Daniel W.
Matlow, P.A. & Stephen Whitfield Brown, Schulten Ward & Turner,
LLP

Fly Low Inc., Defendant, represented by Dean R. Fuchs, Schulten,
Ward & Turner, LLP, Susan Kastan Murphey, Schulten, Ward, &
Turner, LLP, Wm. Scott Schulten, Schulten, Ward & Turner, LLP,
Daniel Wayne Matlow, Daniel W. Matlow, P.A. & Stephen Whitfield
Brown, Schulten Ward & Turner, LLP

Teri Galardi, Defendant, represented by Dean R. Fuchs, Schulten,
Ward & Turner, LLP, Susan Kastan Murphey, Schulten, Ward, &
Turner, LLP, Wm. Scott Schulten, Schulten, Ward & Turner, LLP,
Daniel Wayne Matlow, Daniel W. Matlow, P.A. & Stephen Whitfield
Brown, Schulten Ward & Turner, LLP

Dennis Willliams, Defendant, represented by Dean R. Fuchs,
Schulten, Ward & Turner, LLP, Susan Kastan Murphey, Schulten,
Ward, & Turner, LLP, Wm. Scott Schulten, Schulten, Ward & Turner,
LLP, Daniel Wayne Matlow, Daniel W. Matlow, P.A. & Stephen
Whitfield Brown, Schulten Ward & Turner, LLP

LVA Management & Consulting, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Daniel Wayne Matlow, Daniel W. Matlow, P.A. & Stephen Whitfield
Brown, Schulten Ward & Turner, LLP

AQFC, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua R Kon, Stok Folk + Kon
& Stephen Whitfield Brown, Schulten Ward & Turner, LLP

Teri Galardi, Defendant, represented by Stephen Whitfield Brown,
Schulten Ward & Turner, LLP

Kodrenyc, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua R Kon, Stok Folk +
Kon & Stephen Whitfield Brown, Schulten Ward & Turner, LLP

AK 'N Eli, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua R Kon, Stok Folk
+ Kon & Stephen Whitfield Brown, Schulten Ward & Turner, LLP

Akinyele Adams, Defendant, represented by Stephen Whitfield Brown,
Schulten Ward & Turner, LLP

Nitty 'N AK Corp., Defendant, represented by Stephen Whitfield
Brown, Schulten Ward & Turner, LLP

Jack E. Galardi, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel Wayne
Matlow, Daniel W. Matlow, P.A. & Stephen Whitfield Brown, Schulten
Ward & Turner, LLP

MBJG Investment Corp., Defendant, represented byDaniel Wayne
Matlow, Daniel W. Matlow, P.A. &Stephen Whitfield Brown, Schulten
Ward & Turner, LLP

Rick Taylor, Defendant, represented by Stephen Whitfield Brown,
Schulten Ward & Turner, LLP

JEG Family Turst, Defendant, represented by Daniel Wayne Matlow,
Daniel W. Matlow, P.A. & Stephen Whitfield Brown, Schulten Ward &
Turner, LLP


GC SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wilbur Macy and Pamela J. Stowe, on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No.
3:15-cv-00819-DJH (W.D. Ky., November 5, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

GC Services Limited Partnership is privately-held outsourcing
provider of call center management and collection agency services
in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James L. Davidson, Esq.
      COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
      120 E. Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Facsimile: (561) 869-1919
      E-mail: jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com

        - and -

      Shireen Hormozdi, Esq.
      HORMOZDI LAW FIRM, LLC
      1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Rd., Suite 175
      Norcross, GA 30093
      Telephone: (678) 395-7795
      Facsimile: (323) 929-2434
      E-mail: shormozdi@consumerlawcenter.com


GEMM RESTAURANT: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynaldo Bonifacio Martinez-Moran, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Gemm Restaurant Corp., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-08801 (S.D.N.Y., November 9, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Gemm Restaurant Corp. owns and operates a restaurant located at 21
Greenwich Ave in New York.

Reynaldo Bonifacio Martinez-Moran is a pro se plaintiff.


GERBER PRODUCTS: Judge Certifies Class Suit Over Baby Formula
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that a
plaintiff who took issue with alleged misrepresentation by a
Nestle SA subsidiary over its Gerber Good Start Gentle line of
products has herself managed a good start to her proposed class-
action baby formula lawsuit after a judge gave tentative approval
to certification of the class.

While the defendant attempted to have the certification decision
(preliminary) deferred until mediation took its course, US
District Judge John Kronstadt nonetheless felt it prudent to go
ahead with preliminary approval without waiting for the outcome of
mediation stemming from a lawsuit brought against Gerber Products
Co. by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) over allegations that
Gerber had stepped out of bounds in the promotion and marketing of
its products.

To that end, the FTC took issue with Gerber's assertion that use
of its Good Start Gentle formula and, specifically, its hydrolyzed
whey protein could help shield infants from developing allergies -
a common concern of modern-day parents. In its Gerber Consumer
Fraud Lawsuit brought against the Nestle SA subsidiary in October
2014, the FTC accused Gerber of marketing Gerber Good Start Gentle
and its benefits as having been approved by the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), when, in reality, the FDA had turned thumbs
down against Gerber's claim the formula could reduce the risk of
eczema, in one of two FDA rejections with regard to benefits
surrounding allergies.

The plaintiff bringing the proposed Gerber Good Start class action
is Oula Zakaria, who filed her case shortly after the FTC brought
its action against Gerber. Zakaria asserts that she and other
class members paid a higher cost for a product they believed to be
superior to competing products that sold at a lower price point.
Her lawsuit also asserts that not only did the FDA reject Gerber's
claims that its Gerber Good Start Gentle formula could help
prevent allergies, but also a determination by scientists that
partially hydrolyzed whey protein carried no capacity for reducing
allergy risk.

In her baby formula lawsuit, Zakaria asserts that Gerber earned as
much as $515 million each year from sales of Baby Good Start
Gentle through various key retailers while misleading the public.

A mediation session stemming from the FTC action had been
scheduled for January 15. With that in mind, Gerber had asked the
judge to delay his ruling on the Zakaria class action until after
the mediation.

Judge Kronstadt, it has been reported, saw no value in waiting. He
granted preliminary approval of Zakaria's motion for class
certification. "My tentative view is the label which is presumed
to have been viewed by those that purchased it, that contained the
alleged misrepresentations, would be grounds to meet [Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)] requirements." the judge
said.

In her Gerber Consumer Fraud Lawsuit, Zakaria asserts that Gerber
spent years claiming that Baby Good Start Gentle remained the
first and only baby formula capable of reducing an infant's risk
for developing allergies through the use of partially hydrolyzed
whey protein. Gerber is also alleged to have widely misled mothers
to believe the product and the inherent claims had been endorsed
by the FDA, when, in fact, they had not.


GODFREY & KAHN: Judge Remands Suit, Denies Bid to Bifurcate
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William M. Conley of the Western District of
Wisconsin granted plaintiff's motion to remand in the case MERITER
HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. GODFREY & KAHN, S.C., THOMAS
HOFFNER, LAFOLLETTE SINYKIN, LLP, TOWERS WATSON DELAWARE, INC.,
TOWERS WATSON PENNYSLVANIA, INC.,TOWERS WATSON & CO., WATSON WYATT
WORLDWIDE, INC., TOWERS PERRIN FORSTER & CROSBY, INC., RICHARD
PEARSON, DAVID CONDER ENDERLE & SLOAN, INC., GORDON ENDERLE, MMIC
INSURANCE, INC., and FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, MMIC
INSURANCE, INC., Cross Claimant, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Cross Defendant, MMIC INSURANCE, INC., Counter Claimant, v.
MERITER HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Counter Defendant, and FEDERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross Claimant and Counter Claimant, v. MMIC
INSURANCE, INC. Cross Defendant and Counter Defendant, NO. 15-CV-
087-WMC (W.D. Wis.)

On January 5, 2015, the U.S. District Court Western District of
Wisconsin approved a class action settlement between Meriter
Health Services, Inc., and its retirement plan beneficiaries. The
following day, Meriter filed its complaint in state court
asserting various state law claims for negligence and breach of
fiduciary duties against its actuaries, pension consultants,
attorney, and their respective firms arising out of their
respective roles in the design, implementation and administration
of Meriter's Cash Balance Pension Plan. Meriter also asserts
claims against defendants MMIC and Federal insurance companies for
breach of contract in denying coverage.

Towers Watson Delaware, Inc., Towers Watson Pennsylvania, Inc.,
Towers Watson & Co., Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc., Richard
Pearson, and Gordon Enderle filed a notice of removal, claiming
that the U.S. District Court Western District of Wisconsin has
original jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1331, to which the other defendants added their required
consents. Defendants asserted that because the U.S. District Court
Western District of Wisconsin had original jurisdiction in the
Employee Retirement Income Services Act of 1974 (ERISA) action and
retained jurisdiction over Meriter as to any matter arising out of
or connected with the settlement, removal is proper under
principles of supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Section 1367,
and the All Writs Act Section 1651 and as defendants asserts, that
the case presents substantial questions of federal ERISA law that
must be decided during Meriter's case in chief.

Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to Dane County Circuit
Court. The defendants on the other hand filed a motion to
bifurcate statute of limitations issues and stay discovery.

Judge Conley granted plaintiff's motion to remand; and the case is
remanded to the Dane County Circuit Court. Defendants' motion is
denied as moot.

A copy of Judge Conley's opinion and order dated November 20,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/WeNYIofrom Leagle.com.

Meriter Health Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David J.
Turek, Gass Weber Mullins LLC, James Ric Gass, Gass Weber Mullins
LLC, John Patrick Buckley, Nixon Peabody LLP, Stephen Thomas
Trigg, Gass Weber Mullins LLC & William M. Kirby, Jr., Nixon
Peabody LLP

Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., Defendant, represented by Michael Patrick
Crooks, Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C., Wilbur H. Boies,
McDermott Will & Emery & Rebecca A. Finkel, McDermott Will & Emery

Thomas Hoffner, Defendant, represented by Michael Patrick Crooks,
Peterson, Johnson & Murray, S.C., Patrick Jon Lubenow,
SmithAmundsen LLC & Joseph P. Trevino, SmithAmundsen LLC

LaFollette Sinykin LLP, Defendant, represented by Michael P.
Malone, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Noah D. Fiedler, Hinshaw &
Culbertson

Towers Watson Delaware, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nathaniel
Cade, Jr., Cade Law LLC, John Lawrence Schweder, II, Pepper
Hamilton LLP, Robert L Hickok, Pepper Hamilton LLP & Robin Peduzzi
Sumner, Pepper Hamilton LLP

Towers Watson Pennsylvania, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Nathaniel Cade, Jr., Cade Law LLC, John Lawrence Schweder, II,
Pepper Hamilton LLP, Robert L Hickok, Pepper Hamilton LLP &Robin
Peduzzi Sumner, Pepper Hamilton LLP

Towers Watson & Co., Defendant, represented by Nathaniel Cade,
Jr., Cade Law LLC, John Lawrence Schweder, II, Pepper Hamilton
LLP, Robert L Hickok, Pepper Hamilton LLP & Robin Peduzzi Sumner,
Pepper Hamilton LLP

Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nathaniel
Cade, Jr., Cade Law LLC, John Lawrence Schweder, II, Pepper
Hamilton LLP, Robert L Hickok, Pepper Hamilton LLP &Robin Peduzzi
Sumner, Pepper Hamilton LLP

Richard Pearson, Defendant, represented by Nathaniel Cade, Jr.,
Cade Law LLC, John Lawrence Schweder, II, Pepper Hamilton LLP,
Robert L Hickok, Pepper Hamilton LLP & Robin Peduzzi Sumner,
Pepper Hamilton LLP

Gordon Enderle, Defendant, represented by Nathaniel Cade, Jr.,
Cade Law LLC, John Lawrence Schweder, II, Pepper Hamilton LLP,
Robert L Hickok, Pepper Hamilton LLP & Robin Peduzzi Sumner,
Pepper Hamilton LLP

MMIC Insurance, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert C. Johnson,
Dentons US LLP, Jeffrey Allen McIntyre, Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek,
John Grossbart, SNR Denton US LLP, Tiffany Lynn Amlot, Dentons US,
LLP & William T. Barker, Dentons US LLP

Federal Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kimberly
Michelle Melvin, Wiley Rein LLP, Paul William Schwarzenbart,
Stafford Rosenbaum LLP & Matthew W. Beato, Wiley Rein LLP

MMIC Insurance, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Robert C.
Johnson, Dentons US LLP, Jeffrey Allen McIntyre, Whyte Hirschboeck
Dudek, John Grossbart, SNR Denton US LLP & William T. Barker,
Dentons US LLP

Federal Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Kimberly Michelle Melvin, Wiley Rein LLP, Paul William
Schwarzenbart, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP & Matthew W. Beato, Wiley
Rein LLP

MMIC Insurance, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Robert C.
Johnson, Dentons US LLP, Jeffrey Allen McIntyre, Whyte Hirschboeck
Dudek, John Grossbart, SNR Denton US LLP & William T. Barker,
Dentons US LLP

Meriter Health Services, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by
David J. Turek, Gass Weber Mullins LLC, James Ric Gass, Gass Weber
Mullins LLC, John Patrick Buckley, Nixon Peabody LLP & William M.
Kirby, Jr., Nixon Peabody LLP

Federal Insurance Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Kimberly
Michelle Melvin, Wiley Rein LLP, Paul William Schwarzenbart,
Stafford Rosenbaum LLP & Matthew W. Beato, Wiley Rein LLP

MMIC Insurance, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Robert C.
Johnson, Dentons US LLP, Jeffrey Allen McIntyre, Whyte Hirschboeck
Dudek, John Grossbart, SNR Denton US LLP & William T. Barker,
Dentons US LLP

Federal Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by
Kimberly Michelle Melvin, Wiley Rein LLP, Paul William
Schwarzenbart, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP & Matthew W. Beato, Wiley
Rein LLP

MMIC Insurance, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Robert C.
Johnson, Dentons US LLP, Jeffrey Allen McIntyre, Whyte Hirschboeck
Dudek, John Grossbart, SNR Denton US LLP & William T. Barker,
Dentons US LLP

MMIC Insurance, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Robert C.
Johnson, Dentons US LLP, Jeffrey Allen McIntyre, Whyte Hirschboeck
Dudek, John Grossbart, SNR Denton US LLP, Tiffany Lynn Amlot,
Dentons US, LLP & William T. Barker, Dentons US LLP

Meriter Health Services, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by
David J. Turek, Gass Weber Mullins LLC, James Ric Gass, Gass Weber
Mullins LLC, John Patrick Buckley, Nixon Peabody LLP, Stephen
Thomas Trigg, Gass Weber Mullins LLC & William M. Kirby, Jr.,
Nixon Peabody LLP

Federal Insurance Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Kimberly
Michelle Melvin, Wiley Rein LLP, Paul William Schwarzenbart,
Stafford Rosenbaum LLP & Matthew W. Beato, Wiley Rein LLP

MMIC Insurance, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Robert C.
Johnson, Dentons US LLP,Jeffrey Allen McIntyre, Whyte Hirschboeck
Dudek, John Grossbart, SNR Denton US LLP, Tiffany Lynn Amlot,
Dentons US, LLP & William T. Barker, Dentons US LLP

Federal Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by
Kimberly Michelle Melvin, Wiley Rein LLP, Paul William
Schwarzenbart, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP & Matthew W. Beato, Wiley
Rein LLP

MMIC Insurance, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by Robert C.
Johnson, Dentons US LLP, Jeffrey Allen McIntyre, Whyte Hirschboeck
Dudek, John Grossbart, SNR Denton US LLP, Tiffany Lynn Amlot,
Dentons US, LLP & William T. Barker, Dentons US LLP

MMIC Insurance, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Robert C.
Johnson, Dentons US LLP, Jeffrey Allen McIntyre, Whyte Hirschboeck
Dudek, John Grossbart, SNR Denton US LLP, Tiffany Lynn Amlot,
Dentons US, LLP & William T. Barker, Dentons US LLP

Federal Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented by
Kimberly Michelle Melvin, Wiley Rein LLP, Paul William
Schwarzenbart, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP & Matthew W. Beato, Wiley
Rein LLP

MMIC Insurance, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Robert C.
Johnson, Dentons US LLP, Jeffrey Allen McIntyre, Whyte Hirschboeck
Dudek, John Grossbart, SNR Denton US LLP, Tiffany Lynn Amlot,
Dentons US, LLP & William T. Barker, Dentons US LLP

Meriter Health Services, Inc., Counter Defendant, represented by
David J. Turek, Gass Weber Mullins LLC, James Ric Gass, Gass Weber
Mullins LLC, John Patrick Buckley, Nixon Peabody LLP, Stephen
Thomas Trigg, Gass Weber Mullins LLC & William M. Kirby, Jr.,
Nixon Peabody LLP

Federal Insurance Company, Cross Claimant, represented by Kimberly
Michelle Melvin, Wiley Rein LLP, Paul William Schwarzenbart,
Stafford Rosenbaum LLP & Matthew W. Beato, Wiley Rein LLP

MMIC Insurance, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Robert C.
Johnson, Dentons US LLP, Jeffrey Allen McIntyre, Whyte Hirschboeck
Dudek, John Grossbart, SNR Denton US LLP, Tiffany Lynn Amlot,
Dentons US, LLP & William T. Barker, Dentons US LLP


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Norris" Suit in Ala. Over Zofran(R)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Laura Norris, individually and on behalf of J.T., her minor child
v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01888-JEO (N.D. Ala.,
October 27, 2015) arises from the injuries to J.T. as a result of
the Plaintiff's prenatal exposures to the generic bioequivalent
form of the prescription drug Zofran(R), also known as
ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug that is used to treat patients who
were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable -- that
suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC operates a pharmaceutical company located at 5
Crescent Dr., Philadelphia, PA 19112.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew E. Munson, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
      218 Commerce Street
      Post Office Box 4160
      Montgomery, AL 36104
      Telephone: (334) 269-2343
      Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
       E-mail: Matt.Munson@BeasleyAllen.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Rickman" Suit Over Zofran(R)
----------------------------------------------------
Clara Rickman and Jon Rickman, each individually and on Behalf of
N.R., their minor child v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
01897-JEO (N.D. Ala., October 27, 2015) arises from the injuries
to N.R. as a result of the Plaintiff's prenatal exposures to the
generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran(R),
also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug that is used to treat patients who
were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable -- that
suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC operates a pharmaceutical company located at 5
Crescent Dr., Philadelphia, PA 19112.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don McKenna, Esq.
      HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
      The Massey Bldg. Suite 800
      2025 Third Avenue North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 328-5330
      Facsimile: (205) 324-2165
      E-mail: don@hwnn.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Brown" Suit in Ala. Over Zofran(R)
----------------------------------------------------------
Angela Brown, individually and as parent and next friend of
Nicholas Brooks Brown, A minor v. Glaxosmithkline, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-13871-FDS (N.D. Ala., October 28, 2015) is an action for
compensatory damages, punitive damages and such other relief
deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to Nicholas
Brooks Brown as a result of Plaintiff Angela Brown's prenatal
exposures to the prescription drug ondansetron which is the
generic bioequivalent of GSK's Zofran(R).

Zofran is a prescription drug indicated for the prevention of
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, radiation therapy-
induced nausea and vomiting and post-operative nausea and
vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC is a pharmaceutical company headquartered at
5 Crescent Dr., Philadelphia, PA 19112.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Annesley H. De Garis, Esq.
      DEGARIS LAW GROUP, LLC
      420 20TH STREET North, Suite 2200
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 558-9000
      E-mail: adegaris@degarislaw.com
              asapone@degarislaw.com

         - and -

      Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq.
      LEIF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
      E-mail: wfleishman@lchb.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Mitchell" Suit Over Zofran(R)
-----------------------------------------------------
Julia Mitchell & Matthew Mitchell, each individually and on behalf
of E.J.M, their minor child v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-13914-FDS (N.D. Ala., October 29, 2015) is an action for
compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief, and such
other relief deemed just and proper arising from the injuries to
E.J.M. as a result of the Julia's prenatal exposures to the
generic bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran(R),
also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug indicated for the prevention of
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, radiation therapy-
induced nausea and vomiting and post-operative nausea and
vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC is a pharmaceutical company headquartered at
5 Crescent Dr., Philadelphia, PA 19112.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bobby J. Bell Jr., Esq.
      Tyler C. Vail, Esq.
      HOLLIS, WRIGHT, CLAY & VAIL, P.C. 2201 Morris Avenue
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 324-3600
      Facsimile: (205) 324-3636
      E-mail: tylerv@hollis-wright.com
              bob@hollis-wright.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Morga" Suit in Cal. Over Zofran(R)
----------------------------------------------------------
Dulce A. Morga and Raul Ramirez, individually, and as successors-
in-interest to deceased beloved minor Sarah Ramirez Morga v.
Glaxosmithkline LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-08871 (C.D. Cal., November
13, 2015) is an action for compensatory and punitive damages,
equitable relief, and such other relief deemed just and proper
arising from Baby Sarah's personal injuries and wrongful death as
a result of her prenatal exposure to the prescription drug
Zofran(R)(ondansetron hydrochloride), also marketed in its generic
form as ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug indicated for the prevention of
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, radiation therapy-
induced nausea and vomiting and post-operative nausea and
vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC is a pharmaceutical company headquartered at
5 Crescent Dr., Philadelphia, PA 19112.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Wendy R. Fleishman, Esq.
      Paulina do Amaral, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013-1413
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592
      E-mail: wfleishman@lchb.com
              pdoamaral@lchb.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Willis" Suit in Ala. Over Zofran(R)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Willis, individually and as parent and natural guardian of
S.W., a Minor v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-13918-FDS
(N.D. Ala., October 30, 2015) is an action for compensatory and
punitive damages, equitable relief, and such other relief deemed
just and proper arising from the injuries to S.W. as a result of
the Plaintiff's prenatal exposures to the generic bioequivalent
form of the prescription drug Zofran(R), also known as
ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug indicated for the prevention of
chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, radiation therapy-
induced nausea and vomiting and post-operative nausea and
vomiting.

Glaxosmithkline, LLC is a pharmaceutical company headquartered at
5 Crescent Dr., Philadelphia, PA 19112.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan W. Gathings, Esq.
      JONATHAN W. GATHINGS & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      3288 Morgan Drive, Suite 112
      Birmingham, AL 35216
      Telephone: (205) 324-4418
      Facsimile: (205) 324-5240
      E-mail: jonathan@jonathanwgathings.com


GLYNN COUNTY, GA: Judge Confirms Class Certification on Taxpayers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael P. Boggs of the Court of Appeals of Georgia, First
Division affirmed the trial court's order in the case of GLYNN
COUNTY, GEORGIA v. COLEMAN, et al., A15A1522, A15A1523, A15A1524
(Ga. Ct. App.)

Elizabeth and J. Matthew Coleman, IV filed three class action
lawsuits against Glynn County, Georgia, seeking a refund of ad
valorem taxes under OCGA Section 48-5-380, a declaratory judgment,
as well as equitable, injunctive, and mandamus relief.

In Case No. A15A1522, the trial court certified four classes: (1)
taxpayers for whom an exemption was miscalculated in any year
between 2001 and 2007; (2) taxpayers for whom an exemption was
miscalculated in 2008; (3) taxpayers for whom an exemption was
miscalculated in 2009; and (4) taxpayers for whom an exemption was
miscalculated in 2010.

In Case No. A15A1523, the trial court certified a class for tax
years 2011 and 2012, and in Case No. A15A1524, the trial court
certified a class for tax years 2013 and 2014.

The County appealed from the class certification orders. In Case
No. A15A1522, it also appealed from the trial court's denial of
its motion to dismiss the class allegations in the Colemans'
complaint. The County asserted that the trial court erred by
granting the class certification.

In Case No. A15A1522, the County asserted that the trial court
should have considered and granted its motion to dismiss the class
allegations in the Colemans' complaint.

Judge Boggs affirmed the trial court's orders certifying classes
in Case No. A15A1522, Case No. A15A1523, and Case No. A15A1524, as
well as the trial court's order denying the County's motion to
dismiss in Case No. A15A1522.

A copy of Judge Boggs's decision dated November 16, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/y0ltvffrom Leagle.com.

The Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division panel consists of
Chief Judge Sara L. Doyle, Presiding Judge Herbert E. Phipps and
Judge Michael P. Boggs.


HILL CORRECTIONAL: Judge Finds Merit Over Plaintiff's Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Harold A. Baker of the Central District of Illinois
finds merit over plaintiff's complaint in the case LARRY RODGERS,
Plaintiff, v. SALVADOR A. GODINEZ, et al., Defendant, No. 5-4148
(C.D. Ill.)

Plaintiff Larry Rogers, currently incarcerated at the Hill
Correctional Center, filed a lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 claiming that in 2012, Hill implemented a pilot program to
reduce the daily meals from 3 to 2, and they have now made that
pilot program permanent. He claims that inmates are fed at 4:00
p.m. and then not again until 9:00 the next morning. The plaintiff
alleges that the two meals do not contain enough calories, are not
well balanced, contain too much soy, and do not follow the master
Illinois Department of Corrections' menu.

Plaintiff alleges that he has lost over 32 pounds, involuntarily.
He also alleges that inmate servers scoop up the food with gloved
hands instead of serving utensils, which he believes is
unsanitary, as well as resulting in too small of portions. He
seeks to certify a class action and for an injunction to end the
brunch program. Plaintiff alleges that every named defendant was
personally involved in creating or continuing the brunch program.

The case is before the court for a merit review of the plaintiff's
claims.

Judge Baker finds that the plaintiff states an Eighth Amendment
claim for an alleged lack of adequate nutrition and calories in
the meals provided at the Hill Correctional Center. Plaintiff is
advised to wait until counsel has appeared for the defendants
before filing any motions, in order to give the defendants notice
and an opportunity to respond to those motions. The plaintiff need
not submit any evidence to the court at this time, unless
otherwise directed by the court.

The court will attempt service on the defendants by mailing each
defendant a waiver of service. The defendants have 60 days from
the date the waiver is sent to file an answer. If the defendants
have not filed answers or appeared through counsel within 90 days
of the entry of this order, the plaintiff may file a motion
requesting the status of service. The defendants shall file an
answer within 60 days of the date the waiver is sent by the clerk
Counsel for the defendants is hereby granted leave to depose the
plaintiff at his place of confinement. Counsel for the defendants
shall arrange the time for the deposition.

A copy of Judge Baker's merit review and case management dated
December 30, 2015 is available at http://goo.gl/h6Fltyfrom
Leagle.com.

Larry Rodgers, Plaintiff, Pro Se


HUNTINGTON HONDA: "De La Rosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aridio De La Rosa, Joe Schmitt, and Steve Millard, individually
and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Huntington
Honda, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07080-KAM-RLM (E.D.N.Y.,
December 11, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Huntington Honda, Inc. is engaged in the automotive sales and
service business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


IGNITE RESTAURANT: "Ekryss" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jhared Ekryss, Connie Juergens, Stephan Seigal, Darell Evans,
Georgia Luke, Deborah Dolan-Fox, Amanda Murphy, Aida Plancich, and
Latoya Hoyles, on behalf of themselves and all other employees
similarly situated v. Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc., et al., Case
No. 6:15-cv-06742 (W.D.N.Y., December 11, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc. owns and operates up to
approximately 170 Macaroni Grill restaurants in over 30 states in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
      Michael J. Lingle, Esq.
      Jared K. Cook, Esq.
      THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
      693 East Avenue
      Rochester, New York 14607
      Telephone: (585) 272-0540
      E-mail: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com
              mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com
              jcook@theemploymentattorneys.com


INFINITY INSURANCE: Judge Gives Plaintiff Another Day in Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Northern District
of California made an order in the case of ARRYANNE MOSS,
Plaintiff, v. INFINITY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 15-CV-03456-JSC (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Arryanne Moss, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed an
action against defendants Infinity Insurance Company (Infinity),
AWS Insurance Company (AWS), Lithia Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge of Santa
Rosa (Lithia), and a number of doe defendants.

The court previously granted plaintiff's application to proceed in
forma pauperis, but, upon the review required by 28 U.S.C. Section
1915(e)(2), dismissed plaintiff's two prior complaints with leave
to amend, finding that the complaints failed to establish a basis
for subject matter jurisdiction.

The second amended complaint (SAC) alleges that plaintiff is a
citizen and resident of Washington, though she resided in Sonoma
County, California during the collision. It also alleges that
Infinity is incorporated in and has its principal place of
business in Alabama. AWS is a citizen of Illinois, as it alleges
that Illinois is both the state of incorporation and location of
the principal place of business for AWS. Plaintiff alleges that
Lithia is a citizen of the State of California, and was and is, at
all times hereinafter mentioned, a corporation, and an automobile
dealer and retailer qualified to do business in the State of
California. The SAC alleges that Lithia is a corporation but
includes only a conclusory assertion that it is a citizen of
California without reference to a state of incorporation or
principal place of business.

The SAC includes 12 causes of action. The first four causes of
action allege breach of contract against Infinity, AWS, Lithia,
and Toth, respectively. The next three allege breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Infinity,
AWS, and, together, Lithia and Toth, respectively. The eighth,
ninth, and tenth causes of action allege negligence against
Infinity, AWS, and Lithia, respectively. The eleventh cause of
action brings a claim under California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200, the Unfair Competition Law, against Infinity, AWS,
and Lithia, collectively. The final cause of action brings a claim
under a claim under California Business & Professions Code Section
17500, false or misleading statements in advertising, against
Infinity, AWS, and Lithia, collectively.

Magistrate Judge Corley ordered that plaintiff may file a third
amended complaint (TAC) to cure the defects. If plaintiff files a
TAC, the court will review the amended claims under Section 1915.
If plaintiff opts not to file a TAC by the deadline, the court
will order the Marshal to proceed to service on the SAC as
written, though defendants will only be bound to answer the claims
that have passed Section 1915 review as identified.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Corley's order dated November 20, 2015,
is available at http://goo.gl/Oxn7Fqfrom Leagle.com.

Arryanne Moss, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Reuben Lagbao Nocos, Esq.
     Nocos Kudiya, LLP
     805 Veterans Blvd #301
     Redwood City, CA 94063
     Telephone: 650-366-0455


INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Final Approval Hearing Set for April 28
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
preliminary approved the settlement agreement in the case
captioned, NIEYSHIA PATRICK, on behalf of herself and all
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. INTERSTATE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:15-CV-1252-T-33AEP
(M.D. Fla.).

The parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement on January 8, 2016. They sought: (1) preliminary
approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement; (2) preliminary
certification of a class for settlement purposes; (3) approval of
the form and manner of notice to the class; and (4) the scheduling
of a fairness hearing for the final approval of the class action
settlement.

In her Order dated January 14, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/o6Ralefrom Leagle.com, Judge Covington found that
the Settlement Class appears to be sufficiently cohesive to
warrant settlement by representation. The Court appointed Luis A.
Cabassa and Brandon J. Hill of Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, P.A. as
class counsel and Plaintiff Nieyshia Patrick as class
representative.

The Court scheduled a final approval hearing is set for April 28,
2016, at 10:00 a.m.

Neyshia Patrick is represented by:

     Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
     Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
     1110 N Florida Ave #300,
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Tel: (813) 224-0431

Interstate Management Company is represented by Aaron Jarett Reed,
Esq. -- areed@littler.com -- Joseph P. Harkins, Esq. --
jharkins@littler.com -- Uzo N. Nwonwu, Esq. -- unwonwu@littler.com
-- LITTLER MENDELSON, PC


INTERSTATE REALTY: Faces Class Action for Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed class action lawsuit was filed on December 23, 2015 by
the San Francisco employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik. The complaint alleges that Interstate Realty Management
Company failed to compensate their California hourly employees the
proper overtime wages and also allegedly failed to provide the
proper meal and rest periods. The Interstate Realty Management
Company class action, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2015-0011942 is
currently pending in the San Joaquin County Superior Court for the
State of California.

The class action lawsuit alleges that the property management
company failed to provide their California employees paid on an
hourly basis the correct overtime wages. The California Labor Code
makes it mandatory for employers to pay their employees overtime
wages at 1.5 times the employees' regular rate of pay when an
employee works more than eight hours in a workday and/or in excess
of forty hours in a workweek.

Furthermore, the complaint alleges that Interstate Realty
Management Company did not provide their employees with thirty
minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth hour of work
due to the company allegedly failing to have a proper meal break
policy in accordance with the California Labor Code.


KAHALA HOLDINGS: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Anayeli Guzman, Hector Reyes, and all others similarly situated v.
Kahala Holdings, LLC, New Age Food Concepts, Inc. dba Ranch 1,
Vinod Kumar Chand, Case No. 1:15-cv-09625 (S.D.N.Y., December 9,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a fast food restaurant in New York
under the name "Ranch 1".

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


KARL STORZ: Sued Over Injuries Caused by Storz Morcellator
----------------------------------------------------------
Percy Thomas, Lenora Thomas, Robert Thomas, and michael
Thomas v. Karl Storz Endoscopyamerica, Inc., et al., Case No.
603513 (Cal. Super. Ct., December 8, 2015) is an action for
damages resulting from the spread of the Plaintiff's cancer and
more specifically the upstaging, disseminating and seeding of
malignant cells as a result of the use of the Defendants' Storz
Morcellator.

Karl Storz Endoscopyamerica, Inc. is a provider of reusable
products for endoscopy and related medical technologies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Andrews, Esq.
      John C. Thornton, Esq.
      Lila Razmara, Esq.
      ANDREWS & THORNTON
      2 Corporate Park, Suite 110
      Irvine, CA 92606
      Telephone: (949) 748-1000
      Facsimile: (949) 315-3540
      E-mail: aaf@andrewsthornton.com
              jct@andrewsthornton.com
              lr@andrewsthornton.com

         - and -

      Avram J. Blair, Esq.
      AVRAM BLAIR& ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      2020 Southwest Freeway, Suite222
      Houston, TX 77098
      Telephone: 713-936-2609
      Facsimile: 832-203-8286
      E-mail: ablair@ablairlaw.com


KINGSTON, NY: Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bid in Autism Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby of the Northern District of New
York ruled on the parties' motions in the case of J.M.,
individually and as parent and next friend to R.M., a child with a
disability, Plaintiff, v. KINGSTON CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant, NO. 114-CV-0542 (GTS/DJS) (N.D.N.Y.)

R.M. was born in March 1994 and, at the time the action was
commenced, was classified by the District's Committee on Special
Education (CSE) as a student with autism. She attended District
schools until her parents removed her and placed her in a day
placement at the Ridge School in Hyde Park, New York, where she
completed seventh through tenth grade through the 2010-2011 school
year. According to J.M., R.M. was removed from public school in or
around seventh grade because she was suffering increased anxiety
going to school due to severe bullying issues.

J.M. asserts a claim that defendant Kingston City School District
(District) deprived R.M. of a free appropriate public education
(FAPE) for the 2013-2014 school year, in violation of the
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Article 89
of the New York Education Law. In support of the claim, J.M.
challenges the decision of a State Review Officer (SRO), which
reversed the decision of an Independent Hearing Officer (IHO)
presiding over a due process hearing in which J.M. challenged
defendant's individual education program (IEP) promulgated for
R.M.. J.M. alleges that the SRO incorrectly concluded that the
District offered a FAPE without addressing the IHO's findings that
Chapel Haven-a private school in Connecticut that J.M.  wanted
R.M. to attend-was an appropriate placement and that the equities
weighed in favor of the parent.

On the basis of these allegations, J.M. seeks, the following
relief: (1) a declaratory judgment declaring the SRO's decision
invalid; (2) an order directing defendant to provide the relief
originally awarded by the IHO; and (3) an award of costs,
expenses, and attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the
administrative proceeding and the present action pursuant to 20
U.S.C. Section 1415.

Defendant's Answer asserts four counterclaims against J.M., each
asserted in the event that the court does not uphold the SRO's
determination:

     (1) a counterclaim requesting that the court dismiss J.M.'s
amended complaint because she has not met her burden of
establishing the following things: (a) that Chapel Haven provided
appropriate individualized instruction to meet R.M.'s special
education needs; and (b) that Chapel Haven was not the least
restrictive environment for the placement of R.M. for either the
2013-2014 or 2014-2015 school years;

     (2) a counterclaim requesting that the court dismiss J.M.'s
amended complaint because the equities do not weigh in favor of
granting prospective residential private school tuition payments;

     (3) a counterclaim requesting that the court dismiss J.M.'s
amended complaint because she has not met her burden of
establishing that there was no appropriate State-approved program
available to R.M. for the 2013-2014 school year and that J.M. was
financially incapable of fronting the tuition costs of placement
at Chapel Haven; and

     (4) a counterclaim requesting that the court find that the
IHO exceeded his authority by granting prospective relief as to
the 2014-2015 school year, because an IEP had not yet been
developed for that school year.

The parties each filed their respective motion for summary
judgment.

Judge Suddaby granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and
denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and dismisses her
amended complaint. Defendant's counter claims are dismissed.

A copy of Judge Suddaby's decision and order dated November 23,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/K3HZpkfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Jason H. Sterne, Esq.
     CUDDY LAW FIRM, P.C.
     5693 South Street Road
     Auburn, NY 13021
     Telephone: 315-370-4020
     Facsimile: 718-569-6466

Counsel for Defendant:

     Mark C. Rushfield, Esq.
     SHAW, PERELSON, MAY & LAMBERT, LLP
     21 Van Wagner Road
     Poughkeepsie, NY 12603
     Telephone: 845-486-4200
     Facsimile: 845 -- 486-4268


LA FITNESS: Faces Class Action for Membership Agreements
--------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Kufahl, writing for Club Industry, reports that a man has
filed a class action lawsuit against LA Fitness and its parent
company Fitness International LLC for allegedly misrepresenting
one-month membership purchases.

Beau Briones and his lawyers filed the lawsuit in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California. Briones alleges that
representatives of LA Fitness pressure people to sign agreements
for yearlong memberships by "misleading consumers into believing
that they were only obtaining and obligated to pay for one month
membership."

Briones alleges that when his yearlong membership expired in
November 2014, a sales representative with LA Fitness persuaded
him to buy one more month of membership at the same monthly price
of $140. That membership was paid under Briones prior, expired
membership, according to the lawsuit. Briones signed an agreement
on an electronic device, allegedly only being shown the signature
line, not the whole document he was signing. Briones states in the
lawsuit that he never saw a written copy of what he was signing.

The suit states that Briones never authorized withdrawal of the
$140 from his bank account and instead came in the next day to pay
for the extra month in cash. LA Fitness proceeded to automatically
deduct from Briones' bank account $110 every other week from
November 2014 to March 2015, according to the suit. When Briones
protested the withdrawal with LA Fitness, he was told that he had
signed a 52-week agreement for $2,860 that authorized the club
company to withdraw $110 from his account every two weeks, the
suit alleges.

According to the lawsuit, "When Defendants advertised the
availability of the extra month membership, Defendants had no
intent to sell Plaintiff such a membership, but always intended to
sell Plaintiff a 52 week membership at a higher price than was
quoted to Plaintiff."

The lawsuit also names Fitness & Sports Clubs LLC and LAF Canada
Co., both of which are affiliated with Fitness International LLC.

The seven complaints in the lawsuit are:

   -- Violation of California False Advertising Act
   -- Violation of Unfair Business Practices Act
   -- Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act
   -- Violation of Electronic Funds Transfer Act
   -- Violation of Health Studio Services Contract Act
   -- The Tort of Conversion of Personal Property
   -- Violation of Financial Elder Abuse Act

The lawsuit is requesting a jury trial.


LENDER PROCESSING: Settlement in "Lebrun" Case Wins Okay
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Andrew J. Guilford of the Central District of
California approved a settlement agreement reached in the case,
MELODIE LEBRUN and LIZA GUNAWAN, Plaintiffs, v. LENDER PROCESSING
SERVICES, INC., FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES, INC., LPS
DEFAULT SOLUTIONS, INC., LPS MANAGEMENT, LLC, BLACK KNIGHT
FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, and BKFS I SERVICES, LLC, Defendants,
CASE NO. SACV14-00571 AG (ANX)(C.D. Cal.)

On November 16, 2015, District Judge Andrew J. Guilford heard
plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement
and plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs.

The court finds that the settlement agreement was the product of
protracted, arm's-length negotiations between experienced counsel.
The court finds, for settlement purposes only, that the class
satisfied the applicable standards for certification under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedures 23.  The court grants final approval, for
purposes of settlement only, of the class as defined in the
settlement agreement.

Class counsel's request for attorneys' fees and litigation costs
and expenses is approved and accordingly, class counsel is awarded
$621,837.50 for attorneys' fees, and $9,936.55 for reimbursement
of litigation costs and expenses, which the court finds reasonably
incurred in prosecution of the case. The enhancement awards for
the class representatives in the amount of $10,000 each is
approved to reimburse them for their unique services in initiating
and maintaining this litigation. The $30,000 payment for class
administration services to Kurson Carson Consultants is approved
for its work in handling the administration of the settlement in
this case.

The case is dismissed on the merits with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Guilford's judgment dated November 16, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/02Z4Jgfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Brett D Szmanda -- bszmanda@gmail.com -
- at Law Offices of Brett Szmanda; James K Kawahito --
jkawahito@kswlawyers.com -- Shawn C Westrick --
shawn@kswlawyers.com -- at Kawahito Westrick LLP

Lender Processing Services Inc., Fidelity National Information
Services Inc., LPS Default Solutions Inc., LPS Management LLC,
Defendants, represented by Daniel H Rylaarsdam --
DRylaarsdam@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Emil W Herich --
EHerich@kilpatricktownsend.com -- James H Coil, III --
Jcoil@kilpatricktownsend.com -- John Winthrop Alden --
Jalden@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Kathleen Brooke Dodd Barton --
KBarton@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Yendelela N Anderson --
YAnderson@kilpatricktownsend.com -- at Kilpatrick Townsend and
Stockton LLP

BKFS I Services LLC and Black Knight Financial Services LLC
Defendants, represented by John Winthrop Alden --
Jalden@kilpatricktownsend.com -- at Kilpatrick Townsend and
Stockton LLP


LOS ANGELES MTA: Ruling in "Flowers" Labor Suit Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------
Justice Victoria M. Chavez of the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Two, ruled on the appealed case, NATHAN
FLOWERS Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY
METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant and Respondent,
NO. B256744 (Cal. Ct. App.)

The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is a
public entity created pursuant to the County Transportation
Commissions Act. MTA operates a public transportation system,
including bus and rail transit systems.

Plaintiff Nathan Flowers (Flowers) is a former MTA employee who
worked as a bus driver. His employment with the MTA was governed
by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

After plaintiff's employment with the MTA ended, he filed a class
action complaint against the MTA on behalf of a putative class of
current and former bus and train operators employed by the MTA
since July 15, 2010. The operative amended complaint alleges four
causes of action: (1) failure to pay minimum wage and overtime
compensation in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
(29 U.S.C. Section 201) (FLSA); (2) failure to pay minimum wage in
violation of Labor Code section 1194 and wage order 9; (3) civil
penalties pursuant to the California Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act (PAGA); and (4) failure to provide rest periods or to
pay premiums for missed rest periods under Labor Code section
226.7 and wage order 9.

The MTA demurred to all causes of action and filed a petition to
compel arbitration of certain of the claims. The trial court
sustained the demurrer, without leave to amend, as to the second
cause of action for violation of state minimum wage requirements,
the third cause of action for violation of PAGA, and the fourth
cause of action for violation of rest period requirements. The
court overruled the demurrer with respect to the FLSA claim and
denied the petition to compel arbitration.

Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the FLSA claim without prejudice,
and a judgment of dismissal was entered in favor of the MTA.
Plaintiff appealed that judgment.

Justice Chavez held that the order sustaining the demurrer to the
second cause of action for violation of the minimum wage
requirements under Labor Code section 1194 and wage order 9; and
to the third cause of action for civil penalties under PAGA for
violation of the minimum wage requirements is reversed. The
judgment is otherwise affirmed.

A copy of Justice Chavez unpublished opinion dated November 25,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/TjdGlffrom Leagle.com.

Steven G. Tidrick -- sgt@tidricklaw.com -- Joel B. Young --
jby@tidricklaw.com -- at The Tidrick Law Firm, for Plaintiff and
Appellant

Erica L. Reilley -- elreilley@jonesday.com -- Cindi Ritchey --
critchey@jonesday.com -- Charlotte Wasserstein --
cswasserstein@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day; Mark J. Saladino --
County Counsel; Charles M. Safer -- Assistant County Counsel;
Ronald W. Stamm -- Deputy County Counsel, for Defendant and
Respondent

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Two
panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice Judith Ashmann-Gerst
and Justices Victoria M. Chavez and Brian M. Hoffstadt.


MANNKIND CORP: Rosen Law Firm Sues Over Misleading Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it
has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
MannKind Corp. (NASDAQ:MNKD) securities from August 10, 2015
through January 5, 2016, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for MannKind investors under
the federal securities laws.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period Defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) contrary to Defendants' assurances, the
mandated pulmonary testing or spirometry was still a significant
issue impeding sales of Afrezza; and (2) as a result, Defendants'
statements about MannKind's business, operations, and prospects,
were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Foster" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Foster v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 4:15-
cv-02562 (N.D. Ohio, December 11, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which,
through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home
personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions
by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health
aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheri Hettmansperger v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02568-CAB (N.D. Ohio, December 11, 2015) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which,
through hundreds of office locations nationwide, provides in-home
personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions
by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health
aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com


MAXIMUS INC: Partial Settlement in Trainers' Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of
California granted plaintiffs' motion for approve of a partial
settlement in the case YVETTE NORTON, JEANNETTE RODRIGUEZ-GUZMAN,
KELLY BARKER, JOSEPH BELL, BRAD EPPERLY, STEPHANIE JONES,
KATHERINE KELLEY KNOWLES, NANCY RICHARDS, and MARK ZUMWALT,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MAXIMUS INC., Defendant, CIV. NO. 1:14-00030 WBS
(E.D. Cal.)

Maximux, Inc. operates calls centers in Boise, Idaho and
Brownsville, Texas to provide support for implementation of the
Affordable Care Act. The Trainers in both facilities worked
overtime hours but were not compensated for that overtime when
they were classified as exempt employees.

Plaintiffs initiated a class action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, that involves
claims by plaintiffs who work as trainers and supervisors for
defendant Maximus Inc.  Shortly thereafter, defendant voluntarily
reclassified the trainers as non-exempt hourly employees. Upon
reclassification, all trainers received the same hourly pay and
were compensated for their overtime.

The court granted preliminary approval of plaintiffs' partial
class action settlement on September 24, 2015. Plaintiffs seek
final approval of the class-wide partial settlement pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). Defendant supports
plaintiffs' motion for final approval.

In his ruling, Judge Shubb certified the following class:

          "All Trainers employed by Maximus's Affordable Care Act
call centers in Boise, Idaho or Brownsville, Texas between May 20,
2013 and January 31, 2014 who opted into this lawsuit by filing
either a Consent to Join or a Consent to Sue form during the
course of this litigation. Specifically, the court finds that:(a)
the settlement class members are so numerous that joinder of all
settlement class members would be impracticable;(b) there are
questions of law and fact common to the settlement class which
predominate over any individual questions;(c) claims of the named
Trainer plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the settlement
class;(d) the named Trainer plaintiffs and plaintiffs' counsel
have fairly and adequately represented and protected the interests
of the settlement class; and(e) a class action is superior to
other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of
the controversy.

Judge Shubb appointed the named Trainer plaintiffs, Jeannette
Rodriguez-Guzman, Kelly Barker, Joseph Bell, Brad Epperly,
Stephanie Jones, Katherine Kelley Knowles, Nancy Richards, and
Mark Zumwalt, as representatives of the class; and found that they
meet the requirements of Rule 23.

Judge Shubb appointed:

     Howard A. Belodoff, Esq.
     BELODOFF LAW OFFICE, PLLC
     1004 West Fort Street
     Boise, ID 83702

          - and -

     Jeremiah M. Hudson, Esq.
     FISHER RAINEY HUDSON
     950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 630
     Boise, ID 83702

as counsel to the settlement class and finds that counsel meets
the requirements of Rule 23.

All payments pursuant to the settlement shall be made to each
trainer no later than ten court days after the date of the order.

A copy of Judge Shubb's memorandum and order dated November 19,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/zcJDA5from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Allison M Blackman, Esq.
     Jeremiah Matthew Hudson, Esq.
     FISHER RAINEY HUDSON
     950 West Bannock St, Ste 630
     Boise, ID 83702
     Telephone: 208-345-7000
     Facsimile: 208-514-1900

          - and -

     Howard A Belodoff, Esq.
     IDAHO LEGAL AID SERVICES, INC.
     1447 S Tyrell Laine
     Boise, ID 83706
     Telephone: 208-345-0106
     Facsimile: 208-342-2561

Maximus Inc., Defendant, represented by B Newal Squyres --
nsquyres@hollandhart.com -- Douglas L Abbott --
dabbott@hollandhart.com -- Pamela Simmons Howland --
phowland@hollandhart.com -- Ted C. Murdock --
tmurdock@hollandhart.com -- at Holland & Hart LLP


MERCK & CO: Faces "Orlando" Suit in N.Y. Over Januvia Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Orlando and Frank Orlando v. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Case
No. 607877/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct., December 7, 2015) is an action
for injuries and damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and
proximate result of the Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and sale
of the Januvia drug.

Merck & Co., Inc. operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business located at One Merck Drive, Whitehouse
Station, New Jersey, 08889-0100.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shayna E. Sacks, Esq.
      NAPOLI SHKOLNIK & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      1301 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 397-1000


MERIDIAN CAPITAL: 2nd Cir. Affirms District Court's Order
---------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit upheld a
district court judgment in the appealed case THE R.W. GRAND LODGE
OF FREE & ACCEPTED MASONS OF PENNSYLVANIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
MERIDIAN CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC., MERIDIAN DIVERSIFIED FUND, LTD,
MERIDIAN DIVERSIFIED FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC, WILLIAM H. LAWRENCE,
Defendants-Appellees. ERNST & YOUNG LLP, Defendant, No. 15-1064-cv
(2nd Cir.)

The R.W. Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of Pennsylvania
(Grand Lodge) appeals from a March 17, 2015 final judgment entered
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York that dismissed its claims under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 for failing to state a claim under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b) and precluding,
pursuant to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act
(SLUSA).

Grand Lodge also appeals the district court's order of
consolidation entered on October 22, 2009 that consolidated its
claims with three other actions that were subject to an August 12,
2009 Multi-District Litigation Transfer order. Grand Lodge argues
that the district court abused its discretion by consolidating its
claims with those of other plaintiffs and that the district court
erred by dismissing its federal securities claims under Rules
12(b)(6) and 9(b) and by precluding its state law claims.

A copy of the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit's
summary order dated December 15, 2015, is available at
http://goo.gl/yvixYmfrom Leagle.com.

Sidney S. Liebesman -- sliebesman@mmwr.com -- Craig E. Ziegler --
cziegler@mmwr.com -- at Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP,
for Plaintiff-Appellant

Marshall H. Fishman -- marshall.fishman@freshfields.com -- Aaron
C. Lang -- aaron.lang@freshfields.com -- Samuel J. Rubin --
samuel.rubin@freshfields.com -- at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
US LLP, for Defendants-Appellees

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit panel consists
of Judges Peter W. Hall, Denny Chin and Susan L. Carney.


MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court Revives Suit Over XBox 360
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher , writing for Forbes, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court has agreed to hear the appeal of a case in which plaintiff
lawyers resuscitated a class action over XBox 360 game consoles by
the unusual tactic of agreeing to dismiss their claims.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed lawyers to use that
tactic to press an appeal of a lower court's rejection of a class
composed of millions of XBox buyers, a tiny number of whom may
have suffered scratched disks from an alleged design defect.
Normally such interlocutory appeals are denied and several other
circuits have refused to allow lawyers to challenge a judge's
order on class certification in this way, but the Ninth, as is its
fashion, decided differently.

Microsoft says the case, Microsoft v. Baker, "is immensely
important to the proper administration of the class device." If
plaintiff lawyers can appeal every ruling by a lower court
rejecting class certification, they will greatly increase the
pressure on defendant companies to settle and pay them a fee to go
away.

The Ninth Circuit's ruling is a backdoor attempt to revive the
"death knell" doctrine the Supreme Court killed with Coopers &
Lybrand v. Livesay in 1977, Microsoft said. In that case, the
court rejected an emerging idea that plaintiff lawyers could
appeal lower-court rulings that made their cases unsustainable for
the simple reason that individual claimants wouldn't sue over
small amounts.

In this case, lawyers have made a twist on the tactic by
voluntarily dismissing their cases to create a final judgment
which they then seek to appeal. It was actually the second time
the class action came back from the dead, since lawyers at Keller
Rohrback in Seattle had lost a previous class certification motion
in 2008 after 16 months of pretrial action. The judge in that case
held that less than one percent of XBox customers actually
experienced disk scratching, which Microsoft says is caused by
moving the unit while a disk is spinning, and it was inappropriate
to group those plaintiffs together with the rest who had no
specific damage claim. The Ninth Circuit refused to intervene.

The lawyers revived the case in 2011 and a different judge
rejected class cert for the same reasons, and again the Ninth
refused to accept an appeal. Then the lawyers dismissed the cases
of the representative plaintiffs and the Ninth, relying on a 2014
ruling of its own, agreed to hear an appeal.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristine Orlob-Radford and all others similarly situated v.
Midland Funding LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00307-JLQ (E.D.
Wash., November 5, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Midland Funding LLC is in the business of purchasing accounts with
an unpaid balance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kirk D. Miller, Esq.
      KIRK D MILLER PS
      421 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 704
      Spokane, WA 99201
      Telephone: (509) 413-1494
      Facsimile: (509) 413-1724
      E-mail: kmiller@millerlawspokane.com


MISSOURI: Judge Nixes "Mercer" Appeal for Lack of Final Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey W. Bates of the Court of Appeals of Missouri,
Southern District, dismissed an appeal in the case RICHARD SCOTT
MERCER, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-
Respondent, No. SD33779 (Mo. Ct. App.)

Richard Scott Mercer was convicted of second-degree statutory rape
and incest for events that occurred in February 2007.  In October
2013, he filed a motion seeking forensic DNA testing pursuant to
Section 547.035. No evidentiary hearing was held on the motion. An
April 21, 2014 docket entry stated: "Cause called, Movant's Post
Conviction Motions Seeking Forensic DNA Testing overruled and
denied." The docket entry was neither signed by the judge nor
denominated as a judgment, and the court issued no findings of
fact or conclusions of law.

He filed an appeal from the motion court's docket entry.

Judge Baytes dismissed that appeal for lack of a final judgment
because the motion court's docket entry was neither signed by the
judge nor denominated as a judgment or decree as required by Rule
74.01(a), the docket entry is not a final judgment that is
appealable pursuant to Section 512.020(5).

A copy of Judge Bates's opinion dated December 29, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/RwkzMffrom Leagle.com.

The Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District panel consists
of Chief Judge Mary W. Sheffield and Judges Jeffrey W. Bates,
William W. Francis, Jr.


MITAD DEL MUNDO: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vilma Hernandez a/k/a Carolina, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Mitad del Mundo Bar Restaurant
Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06571 (E.D.N.Y., November 16,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Mitad del Mundo Bar Restaurant Corp. owns and operates a
restaurant located at 10410 Roosevelt Ave, Corona, NY 11368.

Vilma Hernandez is a pro se plaintiff.


MOHAMED LIVE: Faces "Yakim" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abdool Z. Yakim, et al. v. Mohamed Live Poultry Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-08804 (S.D.N.Y., November 9, 2015) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Mohamed Live Poultry Inc. owns and operates a poultry farm located
at 20712 Jamaica Ave, Jamaica, NY 11428.

Abdool Z. Yakim is a pro se plaintiff.


MRC SMART: Sued Over Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Bender and Matthew Hyman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MRC Smart Technology Solutions, Inc.,
Case No. 30-2015-00824068-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., December 9,
2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to fully
reimburse business expenses incurred by Account Executives and
Sales Representatives in the course of their work.

MRC Smart Technology Solutions, Inc. operates a software company
located at 5657 Copley Dr., San Diego, CA 92111.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julian Hammond, Esq.
      Polina Pecherskaya, Esq.
      Ari Cherniak, Esq.
      HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
      1829 Reisterstown Rd. Suite 410
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      Telephone: (310) 601-6766
      Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
      E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
              ppecherskaya@hammondlawpc.com
              acherniak@hammondlawpc.com

         - and -

      Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
      ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
      1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310) 277-0614
      Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
      E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com


MY TRADE: "Romero" Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------
Monserrat Romero, and all others similarly situated v. My Trade
LLC dba No dba Jaavan dba M Patio Furniture, Mohamed Hadj-Merabet
and Sebbah Y. Hadjmerabet aka Yamina Sebbah, Case No. 1:15-cv-
24521 (S.D. Fla., December 9, 2015), seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants operate as an organization which sells and/or
markets its services and/or goods to customers from throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hall" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Hall and Maria Hall, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage Holdings, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-06007-GEKP (E.D. Pa., November 5, 2015) seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Nationstar Mortgage Holdings, Inc. operates a mortgage service
company in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Noah I. Axler, Esq.
      DONOVAN AXLER, LLC
      1055 Westlakes Dr., Suite 155
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (610) 647-6067
      Facsimile: (610) 647-7215
      E-mail: naxler@donovanaxler.com


NEVADA POWER: Sued Over Net Metering Rate
-----------------------------------------
Sean Whaley, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports that
two Las Vegas residents with rooftop-solar systems have filed a
class action lawsuit in Clark County District Court over the new
net metering rate approved by the Public Utilities Commission that
took effect Jan. 1.

John Bamforth and Stanley Schone filed the lawsuit against Nevada
Power, part of NV Energy, alleging the utility provided false
and/or incomplete information to the PUC on the net metering
issue.

The lawsuit says net metering customers in Southern Nevada are
seeing an increase of 40 percent in their monthly service charge
from $12.75 to $17.90, increasing to $38.51 by Jan. 1, 2020. The
new rate schedule also reduces the credit metering customers
receive for the excess energy their systems generate.

The lawsuit seeks restitution for anti-competitive actions,
deceptive and unfair trade practices, monopolization over the
electric utility in Nevada, price discrimination and artificial
price inflation.

Schone said he invested about $42,000 in his rooftop solar system,
which he would not have done if he had known the utility would act
in an anti-competitive manner and charge him more just because he
is a solar customer.

The new rate covers all rooftop-solar customers no matter when
they installed their systems.

Both The Alliance for Solar Choice, a group of rooftop-solar
firms, and the state Bureau for Consumer Protection, filed motions
for reconsideration of the new rate.

The PUC rejected a request to stay the new rate pending a review
of the requests for reconsideration.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Settlement in "Lewis" Case Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard F. Boulware, II of the District of Nevada
granted final approval of class action settlement in the case
DARLENE LEWIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NEVADA PROPERTY 1, LLC, d/b/a The
Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:12-cv-01564-RFB-GWF (D. Nev.)

The court finds the settlement was entered into in good faith, to
which the court approves the settlement. The court finds the
parties have conducted extensive and costly investigation and
research, and counsel for the parties are able to reasonably
evaluate their respective positions.

The court finds the settlement payments provided for under the
settlement to be fair and reasonable in light of all the
circumstances. The court, therefore, orders the calculations and
the payments to be made and administered in accordance with the
terms of the Settlement.

The court confirms Thierman Buck, LLP as class counsel and the
court awards class counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of
$2,868,000 and attorney costs in the amount of $230,000 to be
deducted and paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount, as final
payment for and complete satisfaction of any and all attorneys'
fees and costs incurred by and/or owed to class counsel and any
other person or entity related to the action. The court further
orders that the award of attorneys' fees and costs set forth shall
be administered pursuant to the terms of the stipulation of
settlement, and transferred and/or made payable to class counsel.

The court also approves and orders enhancement awards to class
representative Darlene Lewis in the amount of $50,000 and each of
the class deponents in the amount of $2,000 to be deducted and
paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount. The court also approves
and orders payment from the class settlement for actual claims
administration expenses incurred by the claims administrator, CPT
Group in the amount of $57,000, to be paid from the Maximum
Settlement Amount.

A copy of Judge Boulware's order dated December 14, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/sLXA1tfrom Leagle.com.

Darlene Lewis, Plaintiff, represented by Jason J Kuller --
jason@kullerlaw.com -- at Kuller Law PC; Joshua D Buck --
josh@thiermanlaw.com -- Mark R. Thierman --
laborlawyer@pacbell.net -- at Thierman Buck, LLP

Nevada Property 1, LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul DeCamp --
DeCampP@jacksonlewis.com -- William Robert Donovan, Jr. -- Elayna
J Youchah -- YouchahE@jacksonlewis.com -- Peter D. Navarro --
Peter.Navarro@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis LLP


NEW JERSEY: 3rd Cir. Ruled on Former Inmate's Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Morton I. Greenberg of the United States Court of
Appeals, Third Circuit, ruled on an appeal in the case ALEXANDRA
CHAVARRIAGA, Appellant, v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY GENERAL NEW JERSEY; NEW JERSEY COMMISSIONER
OF CORRECTIONS; CORRECTIONS SERGEANT BROWN; JOHN DOE #1; JOHN DOE
#2; JANE DOE; MARCUS WAIR; PHILIP SHEPPARD; JOHN DOE #3; JOHN DOE
#4; VARIOUS UNKNOWN CORRECTIONS EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO THE SPECIAL
INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, (3rd
Cir.)

Alexandra Chavarriaga filed a complaint seeking class action
status in the Superior Court of New Jersey against the New Jersey
Department of Corrections (NJDOC), New Jersey Attorney General
Jeffery S. Chiesa, New Jersey Commissioner of Corrections Gary M.
Lanigan, and Correctional Sergeant Janice Brown, Greg Bartkowski,
an administrator at the NJSP, Brown, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, and
Jane Doe.

On July 12, 2012, Chiesa, Lanigan, and Brown, removed the action
to the district court.

Chavarriaga filed her final amended complaint on August 15, 2013,
adding Marcus Wair and Philip Sheppard, employees in the NJDOC's
SID, and John Doe #3 and John Doe #4 as defendants.

Chavarriaga alleged that defendants subjected her to cruel and
unusual punishment and denied her equal protection and due process
of law in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983, 1985, and 1986,
the United States Constitution, and parallel New Jersey state law.
In addition, Chavarriaga claimed that defendants did not follow
mandated state-law procedures in making the body cavity search of
her.

Chavarriaga alleged in her complaint that she was subjected to
constitutional violations on three separate occasions in 2010 and
2011, during the times that she was being transferred to the EMCF
from the Garrett House and, while en route, the custodial
personnel temporarily housed her in a cell at the New Jersey State
Prison (NJSP). Indeed, she alleged that certain of the transfers
in themselves denied her due process and equal protection of the
law. She contends that she was not permitted to shower until the
last day she was at NJSP, on June 2, 2011. Although there was a
shower in the South-1-GG unit, appellant alleged that she was
forced to walk down a spiral staircase to another unit and then
down a hallway, naked and shackled, in plain view of male
prisoners and staff, to reach a shower. She also alleged that the
officers denied her sanitary napkins and medications for migraine
headaches and menstrual cramps.

Chiesa, Lanigan, and Brown moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) and, alternatively, moved for summary judgment
under Rule 56. The district court on March 27, 2014, granted three
defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed appellant's
remaining claims against the other defendants, as it held that she
did not demonstrate that there were issues of material fact
requiring the court to deny the summary judgment motion and
appellant's complaint did not allege facts constituting a cause of
action.

Chavarriaga appealed.

Judge Greenberg affirmed the district court's order for summary
judgment in favor of Chiesa, Lanigan, and Brown.

The appellate court, however, reversed the order of dismissal of
appellant's cruel and unusual punishment Eighth Amendment and
Fourteenth Amendment and parallel state-law claims against the
unnamed defendants with respect to the alleged denial of potable
water and sanitary napkins and related medications to appellant,
and with respect to appellant being required to go to the shower
or otherwise be exposed while naked in the presence of male prison
personnel and inmates. The appellate court also reversed the order
of dismissal of appellant's cruel and unusual punishment body
cavity search claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
and parallel state-law constitutional claims as to Jane Doe.

The appellate court reversed the order of dismissal of appellant's
Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims and parallel state-
law denial of potable water and sanitary napkins and medications
and being forced to walk or otherwise be exposed while naked in
the presence of male prison personnel and inmates and body cavity
search claims.  The appeals court also reversed the dismissal of
the body cavity search claim in violation of New Jersey
regulations against unknown defendants.

The court affirmed the order denying appellant's motion for class
action certification without prejudice to its renewal on remand.
The court affirmed the order denying appellant's cross-motions for
partial summary judgment against Lanigan, Brown, and the DOC and
for sanctions against participating defendants' counsel.

The appellate court remanded the case to the district court for
further proceedings.

A copy of Judge Greenberg's opinion dated November 16, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/DbEJZsfrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Appellant:

     Fredric J. Gross, Esq.
     7 East Kings Highway
     Mt. Ephraim, NJ 08059

          - and -

     Noel C. Crowley, Esq.
     CROWLEY & CROWLEY
     20 Park Place, Suite 206
     Morristown, NJ 07960

Dianne M. Moratti, Esq., Daniel M. Vannella, Esq., Lisa A.
Puglisi, Esq., Office of Attorney General of New Jersey,
Department of Law & Public Safety, Division of Law, Richard J.
Hughes Justice Complex, 25 Market Street, P.O. Box 112, Trenton,
NJ 08625, Attorneys for Appellees

The Third Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Thomas L.
Ambro, Julio M. Fuentes and Morton I. Greenberg.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Judge Narrows Claims in "Giotta" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Labson Freeman of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, ruled on the defendants' motions to
dismiss in the case VICTOR P GIOTTA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-00620-
BLF (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Victor and Loralee Giotta allege that Defendants Ocwen
Financial Corporation (Ocwen Financial), Ocwen Loan Servicing
(Ocwen Servicing), and Altisource Solutionsm Inc. (Altisource),
along with their key executive, defendant William C. Erbey
(Erbey), engaged in a conspiracy to defraud homeowners in default
on their mortgage loans by charging them excessive and duplicative
fees relating to the servicing of the loans.

Plaintiffs allege that under Erbey's direction, Ocwen Financial
spun off its mortgage servicing software division, which became an
independent company known as Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A.
(Altisource Parent). Ocwen Financial then leased back from
Altisource Parent the mortgage servicing software that Ocwen
Financial previously had owned. Ocwen Financial also hired
Altisource Parent's subsidiary, defendant Altisource, to provide
distressed mortgage services which were charged through to
defaulting homeowners. Plaintiffs allege that by hiring Altisource
Parent and Altisource to provide services that previously had been
provided in-house, Ocwen Servicing was able to charge borrowers
artificially and unfairly high prices for the Distressed Mortgage
Services. Plaintiffs also allege that Ocwen Servicing charged
borrowers for duplicate services.

Plaintiffs' loan is secured by their residence in San Jose,
California of more than fifty years. Ocwen Servicing charged
plaintiffs for eight separate property inspections, procured
through Altisource or through Altisource Parent's software, each
inspection costing either $10.50 or $15.00. Plaintiffs allege that
the fees were unnecessarily and unreasonably inflated due to
Ocwen's use of Altisource Servicing or the Altisource Parent's
software to procure property inspection services. Also, on more
than one occasion Ocwen Servicing charged plaintiffs for both a
property inspection and a broker price opinion (BPO). Plaintiffs
assert that obtaining both a property inspection and a BPO was
duplicative because a BPO includes a determination of the
condition of the home, which is what Ocwen Servicing defines a
property inspection to be.

Plaintiffs filed an action on February 9, 2015. Defendants Erbey,
Ocwen Financial, Ocwen Servicing, and Altisource filed motions to
dismiss.

Plaintiffs responded by amending their complaint and asserts
claims for: (1) violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Section 1961 et seq.; (2)
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15
U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq.; (3) violation of the California
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA), Cal. Civ.
Code Sections 1788 et seq.; (4) violation of the unlawful prong of
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Section 17200 et seq.; (5) violation of the unfair prong of
California's UCL; (6) violation of the fraudulent prong of
California's UCL; and (7) fraud.

Defendants Erbey, Ocwen Financial, Ocwen Servicing, and Altisource
again move to dismiss. Erbey seeks dismissal for lack of personal
jurisdiction or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim,
while Ocwen Financial, Ocwen Servicing, and Altisource seek
dismissal solely for failure to state a claim.

Judge Freeman denied Erbey's motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction. Erbey's alternative motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim is denied with respect to his argument
that plaintiffs have not alleged his personal participation in the
alleged misconduct and granted to the extent that the Ocwen and
Altisource motions, in which Erbey joins, are granted.

The Ocwen defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant
Altisource's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is
granted.

Leave to amend is granted as to all dismissed claims. Any amended
pleading was due to be filed on or before January 15, 2016.  Leave
to amend is granted only to cure the deficiencies.

A copy of Judge Freeman's order dated December 11, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/JaUQN8from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Dean Noburu Kawamoto --
dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com -- Gretchen Freeman Cappio --
gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Gretchen Suzanne Obrist --
gobrist@kellerrohrback.com -- at Keller Rohrback LLP; Joseph N.
Kravec, Jr. -- jkravec@fdpklaw.com -- McKean James Evans --
mevans@fdpklaw.com -- Wyatt A. Lison -- wlison@fdpklaw.com -- at
Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC; James Pietz -- at Pietz Law
Office; Stephen Francis Yunker -- sfy@yslaw.com -- at Yunker &
Schneider

Ocwen Financial Corporation, William C Erbey and Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, Defendants, represented by Thomas J. Cunningham
-- tcunningham@lockelord.com -- James Christopher Magid --
james.magid@lockelord.com -- Jonathan Lieberman -- Phillip Russell
Perdew -- rperdew@lockelord.com -- at Locke Lord, LLP

Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A., Defendant, represented by
Andrew S. Azarmi -- Andrew.Azarmi@dentons.com -- at Dentons US LLP

Altisource Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew S.
Azarmi -- Andrew.Azarmi@dentons.com -- Nathan Lewis Garroway --
nathan.garroway@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP


OHIO: BOE Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------
Dayton Building & Construction Trades Council, Richard Matheson,
Thomas E. Orendorf, Jr., and all others similarly situated v.
Board of Education of the School District of the City of Dayton,
Ohio, Case No. 3:15-cv-00437 (S.D. Ohio, December 9, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for breach of contract and for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio's Prompt Pay
Act.

The School District is a city school district located within the
City of Dayton, Montgomery County, Ohio, and it is governed by a
board of education.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

       Ryan K. Hymore, Esq.
       MANGANO LAW OFFICES CO., L.P.A.
       3805 Edwards Road, Suite 550
       Cincinnati, OH 45209
       Tel: (513) 255-5888
       Fax: (216) 397-5845
       E-mail: rkhymore@bmanganolaw.com


OSIRIS THERAPEUTICS: Sued by Shareholders Over False Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Osiris
Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: OSIR) ("Osiris" or the "Company") on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between May 12,
2014 and November 16, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Osiris researches and develops biosurgery solutions, focusing on
products for wound care, cartilage repair and orthopedics, to
harness the ability of cells and novel constructs to promote the
body's natural healing.

The shareholder class action complaint alleges that Osiris and
certain of its executive officers made a series of materially
false and misleading statements to investors during the Class
Period about the Company's business, operational and financial
information.  Specifically, the defendants are alleged to have
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (i) the Company overstated revenues from several contracts
and failed to follow GAAP standards, fixing its financial
statements only a year and half later and causing millions in
losses to the Company and Investors; and (ii) as a result of the
foregoing, Osiris's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

As further detailed in the complaint, on November 16, 2015, Osiris
disclosed that it had "determined to correct the revenue
recognition for three contracts which will result in a decrease in
product revenues of $1.8 million in the first quarter of 2015, a
decrease in product revenue of $1.0 million in the second quarter,
an increase in product revenues of $0.8 million in the third
quarter of 2015 and a decrease in product revenues of $1.1 million
in 2014." In sum, three restatements were made regarding
distributor relationships, which completely removed about $3.1
million of sales and shifted about $3.9 million of sales between
quarters.  As a result of these errors, Osiris missed its revenue
targets in three of the last four financial quarters.

On this news, shares of Osiris' common stock fell $3.01 per share,
or over 21.5%, to close on November 17, 2015 at $10.97 per share,
on unusually heavy trading volume.


PACIFIC BROADBAND: "Vazquez" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Vazquez, and all others similarly situated v. Pacific
Broadband Technical Services, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, Case No.
BC603246 (Cal. Super., December 7, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare
Commission and the California Business and Professions Code.

Defendant Pacific is a cable installation and service
subcontractor to Time Warner Cable.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barry M. Appell, Esq.
      APPELL SHAPIRO, LLP
      15233 Ventura Blvd., Ste 420
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Tel: (800) 625-7710
      Fax: (818) 305-6295
      E-mail: barry@asattorney.com

         - and -

      Stephen M. Benardo, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. BENARDO, APLC
      15233 Ventura Blvd., Ste 420
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Tel: (818) 788-2300
      Fax: (818) 788-2464
      E-mail: steve@benardolaw.com


PAYPAL: Settles Class Action Suit on Improper Account Holds
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Oldshue, writing for LowCards, reports that the five-year-
long class action suit against PayPal is finally coming to a
close.

In the class action case of Zepeda vs. PayPal, both parties have
agreed to a settlement with regards to allegedly improper account
holds PayPal placed on some of its customers. PayPal released a
notice of the settlement, directing users to
AccountHoldSettlement.com to file a claim and learn more about the
case itself.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2010, with the plaintiffs
alleging that PayPal and its partner at the time, eBay, had placed
inappropriate holds or reserves on sellers' funds. The
organizations were also accused of failing to provide annual
error-resolution notices and monthly account statements, as per
the terms of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. PayPal has denied
all allegations but has agreed to the terms of the settlement to
"avoid the costs and uncertainty of a trial."

Active PayPal account holders between April 19, 2006 and November
5, 2015 who had a reserve or hold placed on their accounts during
that time, or who had their accounts terminated or suspended, may
be eligible for reimbursements of up to $440. Only one claim can
be paid per account. Qualified users may submit a claim online. At
this time, neither PayPal nor the courts have determined the claim
filing deadline or final approval hearing.


PELLA CORPORATION: Judge Narrows Claims in "Sadler" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David C. Norton of the District of South Carolina,
Charleston Division, granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to dismiss in the case JOHN SADLER and GERIANN
GATZIOLIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PELLA CORPORATION, Defendant, NOS. 2:14-
MN-00001-DCN, 2:14-CV-03051-DCN (D.S.C.)

Plaintiffs John Sadler and Geriann Gatziolis bought and installed
Pella windows that are manufactured by the defendant Pella
Corporation (Pella) in their respective homes. They contend that
their windows suffer from various design deficiencies, including a
defect in the design of the sill extrusion and sill nailing fin
attachment, as well as a defect in the design of allowing a gap
between the jamb gasket and the sill gasket. Plaintiffs allege
that due to these design defects, water is permitted to be trapped
between the aluminum and the operable wood frame, permitting leaks
and causing damage to the windows and other property within the
home. Plaintiffs further allege that Pella knew, or but for its
negligence should have been aware, of the defects.

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against Pella in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, alleging jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
Plaintiffs made amendments to their complaint, and alleges
negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach
of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of
express warranty, violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), fraudulent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment,
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) and declaratory
relief.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred plaintiffs' case to the present court as part of the
consolidated multidistrict litigation. Pella filed a motion to
dismiss.

Judge Norton granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
to dismiss. The judge dismisses without prejudice the plaintiffs'
claim for (i) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, to
the extent it relates to plaintiff Gatziolis; (ii) breach of
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; (iii)
negligence; (iv) fraudulent misrepresentation, to the extent it
relies on affirmative misrepresentations; (v) fraudulent
concealment, to the extent it relies on affirmative
misrepresentations; (vi) violation of the MMWA, to the extent it
relates to plaintiff Gatziolis; (vii) unjust enrichment, to the
extent it relates to plaintiff Gatziolis; and (viii) declaratory
judgment.

A copy of Judge Norton's order dated November 23, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/aiO78pfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Jonathan Shub, Sr. -- Daniel K Bryson -
- dan@wbmllp.com -- Matthew E Lee -- matt@wbmllp.com -- at
Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP; Frank Michael Petosa -- at Morgan
and Morgan; Marc H Edelson -- at Hoffman and Edelson Law Offices;
Scott A George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- at Seeger Weiss;
Jeffrey A Leon -- at Quantum Legal

Pella Corporation, Defendant, represented by G Mark Phillips --
mark.phillips@nelsonmullins.com -- Michael Tucker Cole --
mike.cole@nelsonmullins.com -- at Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough; John P. Mandler -- john.mandler@FaegreBD.com -- Kevin
L Morrow -- kevin.morrow@FaegreBD.com -- Mark J Winebrenner --
joe.winebrenner@FaegreBD.com -- Shane A Anderson --
shane.anderson@FaegreBD.com -- at Faegre Baker Daniels


PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Second Letter Only Extends the 30-Day Period
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge C. Ashley Royal of the Middle District of Georgia,
Macon Division, granted defendant's motion on the pleadings in the
case STERLING BRIDGES, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated Plaintiff, v. PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC.
Defendant, Civil Action No. 5:15-CV-38 (CAR) (M.D. Ga.)

Performant Recovery, Inc., a collection agency, sent Sterling
Bridges two letters regarding the collection of a debt incurred
for personal purposes. The initial written communication from
defendant was dated, February 7, 2014 and the second communication
was dated March 4, 2014 or approximately one month after the first
communication.

Plaintiff sent three letters to defendant on March 5, March 19,
and May 7, 2014. Each letter informed defendant that plaintiff
could not pay the debt due to unemployment and asked defendant to
cease all communication with plaintiff and his family members
pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on February 6, 2015, as a proposed class
action, claiming defendant violated 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e and
1692g(b) of the FDCPA by sending the second letter within the
original 30-day time frame set out in the first letter. Plaintiff
claims the second letter is a statement that overshadows or is
inconsistent with plaintiff's right to dispute the debt during the
original the 30-day period stated in the first letter.
Additionally, plaintiff argues the second letter misrepresented
that plaintiff had an additional 30 days to dispute the debt.

Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Judge Royal granted defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings and plaintiff's action is dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Ashley's order dated December 14, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/SxuTYyfrom Leagle.com.

STERLING BRIDGES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID N MCDEVITT & MARQUES
JAMIL CARTER

PERFORMANT RECOVERY INC, Defendant, represented by JOHN HENRY
BEDARD, JR & MICHAEL KEVIN CHAPMAN


PREMIUM PACKING: Judge Nixes Arbitration; Jan. 28 Conference Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, ruled on the parties' motions in
the case MARIO IVAN ESPINOZA DIAZ, et al., individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PREMIUM PACKING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-01258-EJD (N.D.
Cal.)

Premium Packing, Inc. is a farm labor contractor which employs
workers to render services in the growing, production of
harvesting of farm products and agricultural commodities of its
clients.

Plaintiffs Mario Ivan Espinoza worked for Premium from 2003
through March, 2014, and Guillermo Cruz worked for Premium from
2008 through late 2013. Plaintiffs were employed by Premium as
piece rate agricultural workers in Salinas, California. Plaintiffs
allege that Premium violated several sections of the California
Labor Code with respect to the payment of wages. Plaintiffs were
employed by Premium as "piece rate" agricultural workers in
Salinas, California. Plaintiffs allege that Premium required them
to spend time performing mandatory morning exercises, attending
mandatory meetings, traveling between fields in a workday, and
taking rest periods, but did not compensate them for the time
spent on these activities. They filed the action on behalf of
themselves and four classes of other Premium workers: a Piece-
Workers Class, a Restitution Class, a Wage Statement Class, and a
Terminated Employees Class.

Premium moves for an order compelling plaintiffs to arbitrate
their claims according to documents Premium asserts governed
plaintiffs' employment. Premium also requests an order imposing
sanctions against plaintiffs and their attorneys for presenting
pleadings which Premium believes violate Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11.

Plaintiffs oppose the motion and deny the existence of an
arbitration agreement between themselves and Premium. They also
oppose Premium's motion for sanctions and affirmatively request
sanctions against Premium for fabricating evidence.

Judge Davila denied Premium's motion to compel arbitration without
prejudice. The requests for sanctions from both parties are also
denied without prejudice. The court scheduled a case management
conference for 10:00 a.m. on January 28, 2016. On or before
January 21, 2016, the parties were to file a joint case management
conference statement which provides, a suggested date for the
hearing, an estimate of the hearing's length, a list of witnesses
each side intends to call recognizing the limited nature hearing's
scope, a list of the documents or exhibits the parties intend to
offer again recognizing the limited scope, and a brief discussion
of any legal or evidentiary issues the parties anticipate may
arise.

A copy of Judge Davila's order dated January 6, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/8pjESDfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Gregory N. Karasik --
greg@karasiklawfirm.com -- at Karasik Law Firm; Santos Gomez --
santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com -- at Law Offices of Santos
Gomez

Premium Packing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
Christopher Saqui -- mcs@laborcounselors.com -- Kimberley Ann
Worley -- kworley@laborcounselors.com -- at The Saqui Law Group


PROTECH SECURITY: "Hudson" Suit Alleges IMWL Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
William Hudson, and all others similarly situated v. Protech
Security Group, Inc. and Keith Benson, Case No. 1:15-cv-11046
(N.D. Ill., December 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay all earned wages and earned overtime in
violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, Illinois Wage Payment
and Collection Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a security firm headquartered in
Cook County, Illinois. Protech Security contracts with various
construction sites, commercial locations and private individuals
to provide security services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth R. Halpern, Esq.
      MALKINSON & HALPERN, P.C.
      208 S. LaSalle St., Ste. 1750
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel: (312) 427-9600


PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank M. Gonzalez III, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Prime Communications of California,
LLC and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC603828 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
December 10, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Prime Communications of California, LLC is a retailer of cell
phones, wireless, U-verse, digital TV, high speed internet, DSL,
home phone services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald Potter, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DONALD POTTER
      776 East Green Street, Suite 210
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (626) 744-1555
      Facsimile: (626) 389-0592
      E-mail: dp@donpotterlaw.com


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: N.D. Cal. Judge Tosses "Washburn" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District of
California granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case GINA
WASHBURN, Plaintiff, v. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Defendant, case No. 15-cv-04009-SI (N.D. Cal.)

Gina Washburn submitted a signed application for life insurance to
Prudential Life Insurance Company.  Washburn alleges that the
application did not authorize Prudential to charge compound
interest on the balances due on policy and/or premium loans, nor
did it even disclose that Prudential might do so.

On November 13, 1989, defendant issued a life insurance policy to
plaintiff, to which the latter did not sign. Sometime after the
issuance of the policy, Prudential provided Washburn a loan
secured by the cash value and death benefit value of the policy.
Prudential charged compound interest on the loan. Washburn alleges
that she never signed any agreement authorizing Prudential to
charge her compound interest.

Plaintiff originally filed the lawsuit in state court as a
putative class action. Defendant removed the action pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d),
1453(d). The first amended complaint (FAC) alleges four claims
based on the charging of compound interest: (1) declaratory
relief; (2) Unfair Competition Law; (3) Initiative Measure, Stats.
1919, p. lxxxiii, Sections 2-3; and (4) unjust enrichment and
money had and received. The FAC alleges that all causes of action
arise from defendant's pattern and practice of charging compound
interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without a
written agreement signed by the borrower providing for such
compounding. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's first
amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

Judge Illston granted defendant's motion to dismiss but gives
plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by December 11, 2015.
The case management conference scheduled for December 4, 2015 is
rescheduled for January 15, 2015 at 2:30 p.m..

A copy of Judge Illston's order dated November 24, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/XDpZ9Jfrom Leagle.com.

Gina Washburn, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Susan Rosenberg
-- JRosenberg@bramsonplutzik.com -- Robert M. Bramson --
RBramson@bramsonplutzik.com -- at Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler &
Birkhaeuser LLP; Joseph Stephen Genshlea -- joe@genshlealaw.com
-- at Genshlea Law and Mediation

Prudential Insurance Company of America, Defendant, represented by
Laura Leigh Geist -- laura.geist@dentons.com -- Andrew S. Azarmi
-- Andrew.Azarmi@dentons.com -- Kelly Denise Fair --
kelly.fair@dentons.com -- at Dentons US LLP


PVH CORPORATION: Judge Grants Certification on Eight Subclasses
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the Eastern District of
California granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in
the case JODI SCOTT-GEORGE, individually and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PVH CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendant, NO. 2:13-CV-00441-TLN-DAD (ED Cal.)

Plaintiffs Jodi George Scott and Melissa Wiggs and the proposed
class members are retail store nonexempt employees of PVH
Corporation, an international clothing retailer.  They sought to
certify these classes:

     (1) Overtime I Subclass (non-payment of regular overtime):

         All nonexempt employees who worked in excess of 8 hours
         (but less than 12 hours) in a workday or in excess of
         40 hours in a workweek without receiving the appropriate
         overtime wage that is one and a half times the regular
         rate pay, while working for Defendant in California from
         March 20, 2009 to the present.

     (2) Overtime II Subclass (non-payment of double overtime):

         All nonexempt employees who worked in excess of 12 hours
         in a workday without receiving the appropriate overtime
         wage that is twice the regular rate pay, while working
         for Defendant in California from March 20, 2009 to the
         present.

     (3) Security Bag Check Subclass:

         All nonexempt employees who were subjected to a security
         bag check while working for Defendant in California from
         March 20, 2009 to the present.

     (4) Paycard Subclass

         All nonexempt employees who received their earned wages
         via the Money Network paycard system while working for
         Defendant in California from March 20, 2009 to the
         present.

     (5) Meal Period Subclass

         All nonexempt employees who did not receive a compliant
         meal period, while working for Defendant in California
         from March 20, 2009 to the present.

     (6) Rest Period Subclass

         All nonexempt employees who did not receive a compliant
         rest period, while working for Defendant in California
         from March 20, 2009 to the present.

     (7) Late Pay Subclass

         All nonexempt employees who worked for Defendant in
         California whose employment ended between March 20, 2010
         and the date of certification, who did not receive all
         wages due at the time they were terminated or otherwise
         stopped working for Defendant.

     (8) Wage Statement Subclass

         All nonexempt employees who received non-compliant wage
         statements while working for Defendant in California
         from March 20, 2009 to the present.

Plaintiff Jodi Scott-George is the class representative for
subclass (1), (2), (5), (6) and (7). Plaintiff Melissa Wiggs is
the class representative for the subclass (3), (4), (6), (7) and
(8).

The proposed class would encompass not only all nonexempt
employees of PVH Corporation, which owns Van Heusen; and owned but
sold G. H. Bass but also nonexempt employees of PVH Retail, LLC,
which owns Calvin Klein, Izod, and Tommy Hilfiger, because the PVH
Corporation as the parent company imposes identical wage and hour
policies for PVH Retail, LLC.

A copy of Judge Nunley's order dated November 19, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/oMG2fBfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Ronald H. Bae --
rbae@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- Olivia D. Scharrer --
oscharrer@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- at Aequitas Legal Group

PVH Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dean Hansell --
dean.hansell@hoganlovells.com -- Michelle L. Roberts -- at Hogan
Lovells US LLP


RAWLINGS COMPANY: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss in "Daily" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted motion
to dismiss and denied motions to amend and to stay in the case
captioned, JOHN KEITH DAILY, on behalf of the class of persons
described herein, Plaintiffs, v. THE RAWLINGS COMPANY, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-1138-VEH (N.D. Ala.).

On the evening of September 16, 2014, Daily was traveling on
Greensport Road at the intersection of Peaceful Valley Road in St.
Clair County, Alabama, when Samantha Kelley pulled out in front of
him, causing a collision in which the plaintiff was injured and
incurred medical expenses. At the time, Daily had a health
insurance policy through his employer, Total Safety U.S., Inc's,
benefits plan. Aetna administered those health benefits, and paid
Mr. Daily's medical bills.

The civil action was commenced on July 7, 2015, by the filing of a
Class Action Complaint by the named plaintiff, John Keith Daily,
against The Rawlings Company, LLC and Aetna Life Insurance
Company. Against both Rawlings and Aetna, the complaint alleges
the Alabama state law claim for Interference with
Business/Contractual Relations (Count One). Against Rawlings
alone, the complaint alleges a violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) (Count Two), and an Alabama state
law claim for the Unauthorized Practice of Law (Count Three). All
counts arise out of the settlement of Daily's personal injury
claim against a third party, and the attempts by Rawlings and
Aetna to enforce Aetna's subrogation interest.

In the motion, Rawlings and Aetna moved to dismiss and for a
discovery stay pending their motion to dismiss and Daily moved to
amend complaint.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated January 15, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/MYSbF5from Leagle.com, Judge Hopkins concluded that
the only damages alleged in the case, the failure of settlement
funds to be paid, flow from the interference claim, not from the
fact that Rawlings representatives, who allegedly were not
lawyers, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Count Four,
which alleges only relief, is also dismissed as having no
substantive basis in the absence of the other three counts.

John Keith Daily is represented by Brian M. Clark, Esq. --
bclark@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER
GOLDFARB

          - and -

     Charles E. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
     THE ROBINSON LAW FIRM PC
     Bradford Place
     9175 S. Yale, Suite 30
     Tulsa, OK 74137
     Tel: (918)960-0091

          - and --

     Richard P. Rouco, Esq.
     QUINN CONNOR WEAVER DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
     Two North Twentieth
     2 - 20th Street North, Suite 930
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Tel: (205)870-9989

Defendants are represented by Joshua S. Thompson, Esq. --
jthompson@scottsdukeslaw.com -- Carter H. Dukes, Esq. --
cdukes@scottdukeslaw.com -- SCOTT DUKES & GEISLER PC, Kalpana
Srinivasan, Esq. -- ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com -- Neal S.
Manne, Esq. -- nmanne@susmangodfrey.com -- Patrick C. Bageant,
Esq. -- pbageant@susmangodfrey.com -- Shawn J. Rabin, Esq. --
srabin@susmangodfrey.com -- SUSMAN GODFREY LLP


REAL TIME: Judge Stays "Hurrle" Case for Second Time
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma granted defendant's motion to stay in the case
RICHARD HURRLE, Plaintiff, v. REAL TIME RESOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. C13-5765 BHS (W.D. Wash.)

Richard Hurrle (Hurrle) filed a class action complaint against
Real Time Resolutions, Inc. (Real Time) and alleges that Real Time
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by using an
automatic telephone dialing system to call his cell phone without
his consent.

On December 12, 2013, Real Time moved to stay the case pending the
outcome of petitions to the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), which the court granted the motion on February 20, 2014.

During the stay of the case, another plaintiff, Michelle Tannlund
(Tannlund), filed a class action complaint against Real Time in
the Northern District of Illinois and like Hurrle, Tannlund
alleges Real Time violated the TCPA by using an automatic
telephone dialing system to call her cell phone without her
consent. Tannlund also seeks to represent a class almost identical
to the class proposed by Hurrle.

On July 10, 2015, the FCC ruled on the relevant petitions. Hurrle
subsequently moved to reopen the case on August 14, 2015. The
court requested additional briefing on the status of Tannlund v.
Real Time Resolutions. Real Time informed the court it had entered
into a settlement agreement with Tannlund, but a motion to approve
the class settlement was not yet before the Tannlund court.

On October 21, 2015, the court granted Hurrle's motion and lifted
the stay. After the stay was lifted, the parties filed several
motions in the present case and several motions were also filed in
Tannlund. On December 14, 2015, Real Time moved to stay the case
again.

Judge Settle granted defendant's motion to stay.

A copy of Judge Settle's order dated January 6, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/sxtSOvfrom Leagle.com.

Richard Hurrle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Beth E Terrell --
bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- at TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC

Richard Hurrle, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Rust Murray --
jmurray@terrellmarshall.com -- Mary B Reiten --
mreiten@terrellmarshall.com -- at TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC;
Justin M Baxter -- at BAXTER & BAXTER, LLP; Alexander H Burke --
ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- at BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC

Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jaime Drozd
Allen -- jaimeallen@dwt.com -- Kenneth E Payson --
kenpayson@dwt.com -- Brooke Howlett -- brookehowlett@dwt.com
-- at DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE


ROKA AKOR: Class Cert. Bid Okayed; Feb. 26 Status Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division granted plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the case MANUEL SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and
all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown,
Plaintiff, v. ROKA AKOR CHICAGO LLC, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-
4645 (N.D. Ill.)

Roka Akor Chicago LLC (Roka Akor) is a Japanese sushi and steak
restaurant in Chicago, Illinois. Roka Akor treats many of its
employees, including servers, as tipped employees under the tip-
credit provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL). Additionally, Roka Akor operates
and facilitates a tip pool on behalf of its tipped employees.

Plaintiff Manuel Sanchez and Opt-in Plaintiffs Bradley Smith,
Douglass Pfundstein, and Bulmaro Damaso worked as servers at Roka
Akor. Sanchez, for himself and on behalf of the class he seeks to
represent, brought a lawsuit against Roka Akor, alleging that Roka
Akor violated the minimum wage provisions of the FLSA and the IMWL
by illegally taking a tip credit against its servers' minimum
wages. Sanchez argues that Roka Akor forfeited its right to take a
tip credit for two reasons: (1) it required its employees to
distribute a portion of their tips to the Executive Chef and Head
Chef, both of whom qualify as employers under the FLSA and IMWL;
and/or (2) it required its employees to distribute a portion of
their tips to certain kitchen staff and the polisher, both of whom
are non-tipped employees.

Roka Akor argues that the Executive and Head Chef are not
employers and that the tipped kitchen staff and polisher qualify
as tipped employees. Roka Akor also argues that assuming arguendo
that the Executive and Head Chef are employers and/or the tipped
kitchen staff and polisher do not qualify as tipped employees, the
tip pool is still lawful because it was a voluntary tip pool.

Plaintiffs moved to certify a class as to their IMWL claim and for
conditional certification for their FLSA claim.

Judge Gottschall granted plaintiffs' motion. Plaintiffs' IMWL
claims are certified as a class action. Plaintiffs' FLSA claims
may proceed as a collective action. The parties are ordered to
meet and confer regarding the names, dates of employment, and
other pertinent information for all persons in the class defined
by plaintiffs. The parties are also ordered to meet and confer
regarding a mutually agreeable notice that is to be submitted to
the court on or before February 19, 2016. The matter is set for
status on February 26, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of Judge Gottschall's memorandum opinion and order dated
January 7, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/8s2H7bfrom
Leagle.com.

Manuel Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated known and unknown, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
     Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
     Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS P.C.
     77 west Washington Street, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: 312-419-1008
     Facsimile: 312-419-1025

Roka Akor Chicago, LLC, Defendant, represented by Linda Marie
Doyle -- ldoyle@mwe.com -- Kaitlin Patricia Sheehan --
ksheehan@mwe.com -- Michael S Yellin -- at McDermott, Will & Emery
LLP


SALINE RETAIL: Sued for Alleged FCRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for Employment Screening Resources, reports
that a Missouri man has filed a class action lawsuit against a
business that he claims refused to hire him based on the results
of a background check report performed on him by a consumer
reporting agency (CRA) and in doing so allegedly violated the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that regulates the
collection, dissemination, and use of consumer information,
according to a report on LegalNewsline.com.

Legal Newsline reports that Rod Casteel filed the FCRA class
action lawsuit against Saline Retail 26 LLC individually and for
all others similarly situated in Cole County Circuit Court on
December 4, 2015. The class action lawsuit states that Saline
Retail obtained information about Casteel from the CRA and used
that information as basis for adverse employment action in
refusing to hire him.

The class action lawsuit claims Saline Retail told Casteel on
December 5, 2014 that he would not be hired as an assistant
manager because of the results of his consumer report, and that
Saline Retail did not provide Casteel with a copy of the report as
required by the FCRA so he was not allowed to address any possible
inaccuracies in the report, LegalNewsline.com reports.

Casteel and others in the class seek equitable relief, statutory
and punitive damages, and attorney fees and costs. The case is
Casteel v. Saline Retail 26, LLC, Cole County Circuit Court, Case
number 2:16-CV-04003-MJW.

Originally passed by the U.S. Congress in 1970, the FCRA promotes
the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information
contained in the files of consumer reporting agencies and protects
consumers from the willful and/or negligent inclusion of
inaccurate information in their reports. The FCRA helps to form
the foundation of consumer rights law in the United States.


SAXON MORTGAGE: "Gaudin" Class Settlement Wins Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California
granted final approval on plaintiff's motions in the case MARIE
GAUDIN, Plaintiff, v. SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 11-cv-01663-JST (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Marie Gaudin owns a condominium subject to a mortgage
loan that has been serviced by defendant Saxon Mortgage Services,
Inc. (Saxon) since December 2006. Saxon entered into an agreement
with the U.S. Treasury Department to participate in Home
Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) in April 2009.

Plaintiff provided income and other information to defendant's
representatives in order to apply for a HAMP modification.
Defendant sent plaintiff a trial period plan (TPP) as part of a
standard HAMP application package. Plaintiff signed and submitted
the TPP, and defendant countersigned it and returned it to
plaintiff.  Plaintiff made the three monthly payments pursuant to
the TPP, and continued making the monthly payments thereafter,
altogether making 13 such payments. Plaintiff alleged that she
complied with the terms of the TPP, but defendant denied her
permanent loan modification.

Plaintiff filed a proposed class action complaint in April 2011,
bringing causes of action for breach of contract and breach of the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, rescission and
restitution pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1688-89, violation
of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ.
Code Section 1788 et seq., and violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.

On March 13, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of settlement of the
action. On April 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, which motion the court granted. On
September 15, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for class counsel
attorney fees and expenses and service award to class
representatives. On October 29, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for
final approval of the class action settlement.

Judge Tigar granted final approval of the proposed settlement and
the plan of allocation, granted plaintiff's counsel $1,125,000 in
attorneys' fees, granted plaintiff's counsel $38,518 in litigation
expenses, granted class representative Marie Gaudin a service
award of $15,000.

A copy of Judge Tigar's order dated November 23, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/WphxCAfrom Leagle.com

Marie Gaudin, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Joseph Mulligan --
dan@jmglawoffices.com -- at Jenkins Mulligan & Gabriel LLP; Peter
B. Fredman -- peter@peterfredmanlaw.com -- at Law Office of Peter
Fredman

Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Erik
Wayne Kemp -- ek@severson.com -- at Severson & Werson; Regina Jill
McClendon -- rmcclendon@lockelord.com -- Jeanette Viggiano Torti -
- at Bingham McCutchen, LLP

Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., represented by Stephen Scotch-Marmo
-- stephen.scotch-marmo@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP


SCOTTRADE INC: "Kuhns" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Kuhns, and all others similarly situated v. Scottrade,
Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01812 (E.D. Mo., December 9, 2015), seeks
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary damages, statutory
damages for Defendant's breach of express contract, breach of
implied contract, violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, bailment, and unjust enrichment.

The Defendant is a privately owned American discount retail
brokerage firm headquartered in Town and Country, Missouri with
over 500 branch offices throughout the United States. It promotes
itself as "a leading online investing firm offering a full line of
investment products, online trading services and market research
tools to help investors take control of their financial future."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony G. Simon, Esq.
      THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C.
      800 Market Street, Ste 1700
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Tel: (314) 241-2929
      Fax: (314) 241-2029
      E-mail: asimon@simonlawpc.com


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: "McLendon" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney McLendon, and all others similarly situated v. Schlumberger
Technology Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-00752 (E.D. Ark.,
December 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a supplier of technology, integrated project
management and information solutions to customers working in the
oil and gas industry worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve Rauls, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford Road, Ste 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: steve@sandfordlawfirm.com


SEA BREEZE: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Trinidad Flores, on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated v. Sea Breeze Fish Market Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
08452 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2015) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Sea Breeze Fish Market Inc. owns and operates a seafood market
located at 541 9th Ave, New York, NY 10018.

Andres Trinidad Flores is a pro se plaintiff.


SELIP & STYLIANOU: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Annie Hofstatter, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Selip & Stylianou, LLP, Case No. 1:15-cv-
06301 (E.D.N.Y., November 3, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Selip & Stylianou, LLP operates a law firm located at 199
Crossways Park Dr., Woodbury, NY 11797.

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


SENSAY INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Jahovica" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Antra Jahovica, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Sensay, Inc. and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, and
each of them, Case No. 2:15-cv-08676 (C.D. Cal., November 5, 2015)
is brought for damages and injunctive, resulting from the
Defendant's alleged illegal actions in negligently and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading her
privacy.

Sensay, Inc. operates a mobile and text application.

Antra Jahovica is a pro se plaintiff.


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Judge Denies Leave to Amend and Dismisses Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the Southern District of
California ruled on the parties' motions in the case PRIME
HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff, v. SERVICES EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-2553-GPC
(RBB) (S.D. Cal.)

Prime Healthcare is a hospital management company which, along
with an affiliated foundation, operates thirty-four acute care
hospitals in eleven states, including fifteen hospitals in
California. It describes itself as largely non-union.

Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is an unincorporated
labor association that represents units of workers and negotiates
terms and conditions of employment for the workers it represents.
Defendant Service Employees International Union - United
Healthcare Workers West (UHW) is a local union affiliate of SEIU
located in California. UHW represents individuals working in
California's hospitals and clinics, including nurses, aids, case
managers, clerks, maintenance workers, and housekeeping staff, and
negotiates terms and conditions of employment for the healthcare
workers it represents.

Defendant Change to Win (CtW) is a union federation made up of
three member unions: SEIU, the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, and the United Farm Workers of America. Defendant CtW
Investment Group is the investment arm of CtW. Defendant Mary Kay
Henry is the President of SEIU and Secretary-Treasurer of CtW.
Defendant Dave Regan is President of UHW, Vice President of SEIU,
and Vice President of the SEIU Leadership Council. Defendant Tom
Woodruff is the Executive Director of CtW's Strategic Organizing
Center, and also previously served as an SEIU International
Executive Vice President for more than a decade.

Prime Healthcare alleges that these various union-related entities
and individuals are engaged in strong-armed, extortionate tactics
and other illegal conduct to enrich themselves through the
acquisition of Prime Healthcare's property.

On August 25, 2014, Prime Healthcare filed the action in the
Northern District of California. On October 24, 2014, the Northern
District of California court ordered the case transferred to the
Southern District of California. On November 14, 2014, the case
was reassigned to the undersigned judge.

On November 17, 2014, Prime Healthcare filed its First Amended
Complaint (FAC), which superseded its original complaint. On
December 16, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the FAC,
which the court granted in part and denied in part, granting Prime
Healthcare leave to amend to correct the deficiencies. On May 1,
2015, Prime Healthcare filed the operative second amended
complaint (SAC), which superseded its FAC. Prime Healthcare
alleges eight RICO claims, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961 et seq. (counts
I-VIII), and three LMRA claims, 29 U.S.C. Sections 186 et seq.
(counts IX-XI).

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On September 14,
2015, while the motion to dismiss was still pending, plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (TAC).

Judge Curiel granted defendants' motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint and denied plaintiff's motion for leave to file
third amended complaint.

A copy of Judge Curiel's order dated November 23, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/5lvLmhfrom Leagle.com.

Prime Healthcare Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Amanda
Catherine Fitzsimmons -- amanda.fitzsimmons@dlapiper.com -- David
S Durham -- david.durham@dlapiper.com -- Edward Smith Scheideman,
III -- edward.scheideman@dlapiper.com -- Kathleen Sue Kizer --
Victoria Ann Bruno -- victoria.bruno@dlapiper.com -- at DLA Piper

Service Employees International Union and Mary Kay Henry,
Defendants represented by Glenn Rothner -- grothner@rsglabor.com -
- Hannah Selma Weinstein -- hweinstein@rsglabor.com -- at Rothner
Segall and Greenstone

Change to Win, CtW Investment Group and Tom Woodruff Defendants,
represented by:

     Andrew Dean Roth, Esq.
     Leon O. Dayan, Esq.
     BREDHOFF & KAISER PLLC
     805 Fifteenth Street N.W.
     Washington, DC 20005-2207
     Telephone: 202-842-2600

          - and -

     Fern M Steiner, Esq.
     SMITH, STEINER, VANDERPOOL & WAX, APC
     401 West A Street, Suite 320
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: 619-239-7200
     Facsimile: 619-239-6314
     Email: fsteiner@ssvwlaw.com

Service Employees International Union - United Healthcare Workers
West and Dave Regan, Defendant, represented by Theodore Franklin
-- tfranklin@unioncounsel.net -- Bruce A. Harland --
bharland@unioncounsel.net -- Jannah Manansala --
jmanansala@unioncounsel.net -- at Weinberg Roger and Rosenfeld


SKREENED LTD: Judge Recommends Granting Final Approval of Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Terrence P. Kemp of the Southern District of
Ohio, Southern Division, recommends that final settlement approval
be granted in the case Melissa Mees on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Skreened,
Ltd., Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-142

Plaintiff Melissa Mees filed a class action complaint against
defendant Skreened, Ltd., alleging a claim under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act of 1988, 29
U.S.C. Sections 2101-2109. Specifically, Ms. Mees alleged that
Skreened employed more than 100 employees who, collectively,
worked a minimum of 4,000 hours per week and that defendant
effected a mass layoff as defined in the statute which resulted in
the termination of employment of at least 50 employees and at
least 33% of the employees at its facility, excluding part-time
employees. She further alleged that the affected employees did not
receive 60 days advance written notice or pay for 60 days wages
and fringe benefits as required by the WARN Act.

Skreened denied any liability under the WARN Act and claiming that
the claims were barred and/or limited by the unforeseeable
business circumstances exception to the WARN Act. It also asserted
that the claims were barred and/or limited by the good faith
compliance provisions of the WARN Act.

On October 5, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion for order (1)
preliminarily approving settlement agreement; (2) approving form
and manner of notice to the proposed settlement class; (3)
appointing class counsel; (4) appointing class representative; (5)
scheduling a final fairness hearing for the final consideration
and approval of the settlement; and (6) finally approving the
settlement. In an order issued on October 7, 2015, the court
granted the joint motion, preliminarily approving the settlement
agreement.

The court held the fairness hearing on December 16, 2015. Counsel
for both parties were present at the hearing and had an
opportunity to be heard. The court now considers whether final
settlement approval should be granted, including whether the
attorneys' fees as set forth in the settlement agreement are
reasonable.

Magistrate Judge Kemp Court recommends that final settlement
approval be granted. If any party objects to the report and
recommendation that party may, within fourteen days of the date of
the report, file and serve on all parties written objections to
those specific proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made, together with supporting authority for the
objections.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Kemp's report and recommendation dated
January 6, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/IkjP6Rfrom
Leagle.com.

Melissa Mees, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth Ray Cookson --
kcookson@keglerbrown.com -- at Kegler Brown Hill & Ritter Co LPA;
David C Tufts -- dtufts@thegardnerfirm.com -- M Vance McCrary --
vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com -- at Gardner Firm, PC; Mary E Olsen -
- Stuart J Miller -- at Lankenau & Miller, LLP

Skreened, LTD., Defendant, represented by Willis Irl Reasoner, III
-- irl.reasoner@baileycavalieri.com -- at Bailey Cavalieri LLC;
Tracy L Turner -- at Law Office of Tracy L. Turner


SPRINGFIELD, MA: Judge Trims Claims in ADA Suit
-----------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni of the District of
Massachusetts granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss in the case S.S., a minor, by his mother, S.Y.,
on behalf of himself and other similarly situated students; the
PARENT/PROFESSIONAL ADVOCACY LEAGUE; and the DISABILITY LAW
CENTER, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS; DOMENIC
SARNO, in his official capacity as Mayor of City of Springfield;
SPRINGFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS; DANIEL J. WARWICK, in his official
capacity as Superintendent of Springfield Public Schools,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-30116-MGM (D. Mass.)

Springfield Public Schools (SPS) operates both neighborhood
schools and the Springfield Public Day School (SPDS).
Approximately 230 students in grade K through 12, all of whom have
mental health disabilities, attend the SPDS. In addition sometimes
students attending the SPDS are enrolled in a separate, even more
restrictive program within the SPDS known as the Learning Center
(LC). SPS Students attending neighborhood schools have access to a
range of extracurricular activities. By contrast, the SPDS offers
few extracurricular opportunities and students attending the SPDS
are not permitted to participate in most extracurricular
activities offered in the neighborhood schools.

S.S. has a mental health disability within the meaning of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He was transferred by SPS
from a neighborhood school to the SPDS when he was in the fourth
grade. While attending the SPDS, S.S. was segregated from his non-
disabled peers and subjected to dangerous physical restraints,
inappropriate forced isolation, suspensions, threatened arrests,
and arrests for minor offenses such as swearing, talking out of
turn, and getting out of his seat.

A request for hearing with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals
(BSEA) was filed on behalf of S.S. and a class of similarly
situated students on June 18, 2013, and an amended request was
filed on July 22, 2013. The request sought injunctive and
declaratory relief for alleged violations of the ADA due to SPS's
failure to reasonably modify its programs and services to ensure
that S.S. and members of the class are afforded equal educational
opportunity. Specifically, S.S. asserted he and other members of
the proposed class should be provided with an education that is
equal to and as effective as that provided other students and
should be educated in the most integrated setting appropriate to
their needs. S.S. also asserted claims pursuant to the IDEA.

In a decision dated March 27, 2014, the independent hearing
officer (IHO) dismissed the ADA claims asserted by S.S., citing an
absence of jurisdiction. As to S.S.'s IDEA claims, the IHO ruled
the individualized educational program (IEP) SPS had provided to
S.S. was reasonably calculated to provide S.S. with free
appropriate public education (FAPE).

Plaintiffs, the Parent/Professional Advocacy League, the
Disability Law Center and parent S.Y., have brought an action
against the City of Springfield, its Mayor, Domenic Sarno, the
SPS, and its superintendent, Daniel J. Warwick on behalf of S.Y.'s
child S.S. and other school-age children with mental health
disabilities who are, or have been enrolled at the SPDS, and do
not currently attend SPS neighborhood schools. Plaintiffs allege
that students placed at the SPDS because of their disabilities are
denied their rights to participate equally in the educational
programs offered by SPS, in violation of Title II of the ADA.

Defendants have moved to dismiss plaintiffs' claim, arguing that
plaintiffs' acquiescence to earlier administrative decision
forecloses any separate claim under the ADA related to the
appropriateness of the educational placement at SPDS. Separately,
defendants also argue (1) plaintiffs failed to exhaust
administrative remedies; (2) plaintiffs' claim is not subject to
the ADA's private right of action; and (3) the ADA does not permit
claims against individuals, even when sued in their official
capacity.

Judge Mastroianni denied defendants' motion to dismiss as to the
claims against defendants City of Springfield and SPS; and allowed
the motion as to the claims against defendants Domenic Sarno and
Daniel J. Warwick.

A copy of Judge Mastroianni's memorandum and order dated November
19, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/7svqyMfrom Leagle.com.

S. S., Plaintiff, represented by Carol E. Head, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Elizabeth M. Sartori, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Robert D. Fleischner, Center for Public Representation, Robert E.
McDonnell, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Sandra J. Staub, Center
for Public Representation,Deborah A Dorfman, The Center for Public
Representation, Ira A. Burnim, Judge Bazelon Center for Mental
Health Law, Jacqueline S. Delbasty, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Jennifer Mathis, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law & Samuel R.
Miller, The Center for Public Representation

Parent/Professional Advocacy League, Plaintiff, represented by
Carol E. Head, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Elizabeth M. Sartori,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Robert D. Fleischner, Center for
Public Representation, Robert E. McDonnell, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Sandra J. Staub, Center for Public Representation,
Deborah A Dorfman, The Center for Public Representation, Ira A.
Burnim, Judge Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Jacqueline S.
Delbasty, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Jennifer Mathis, Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law & Samuel R. Miller, The Center for
Public Representation.

Disability Law Center, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Carol E.
Head, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP &Sandra J. Staub, Center for
Public Representation

City of Springfield, Defendant, represented by Edward M. Pikula,
Attorney Edward M. Pikula & Anthony I. Wilson, City of Springfield

Springfield Public Schools, Defendant, represented by Edward M.
Pikula, Attorney Edward M. Pikula

United States of America, Interested Party, represented by Anne
Langford, U.S. Department of Justice, Karen L. Goodwin, United
States Attorney's Office & Michelle L. Leung, US Attorney's Office
- MA


SUN MAID: Bid to Stay Discovery in "Talavera" Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the Eastern District of
California granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
to stay discovery in the case JONATHON TALAVERA, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v. SUN MAID GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant,  CASE NO. 1:15-CV-
00842-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal.)

Jonathon Talavera was employed by a temporary agency and was
placed at Sun-Maid Growers of California (Sun-Maid) to perform
temporary work for eighteen days in August and September of 2014.
Talavera filed an action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals alleging that Sun-Maid violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by failing to pay
employees for all pre-shift work activities and failing to provide
legally compliant meal and rest breaks.

In a joint scheduling report, defendant requested that any
certification discovery be stayed until after the court rules on
plaintiff's motion for conditional certification as a collective
action. Defendant contends that the ruling on the conditional
certification motion will be useful in shaping the scope of the
class action and seeks a stay of discovery to avoid the burden and
expense of pre-certification discovery.

Magistrate Judge Boone granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion for a stay of discovery. The court directed the
defendant to produce the written policies, procedures and training
for donning and doffing sanitary gear, including defendant's Good
Manufacturing Practices, and Sanitation Standard Operating
Procedures, meal periods, clocking in and out at the beginning and
end of shifts and the beginning and end of meal periods, and for
calculating and paying wages thereof which were in place during
plaintiff's employment.  Defendant shall produce the electronic
pay records for the year 2014 for all employees who were subject
to donning and doffing of protective gear at the facility where
plaintiff was employed and all other discovery will be stayed
pending resolution of the motion for conditional certification of
the FLSA collective action.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Boone's order dated November 16, 2015,
is available at http://goo.gl/9iz6OUfrom Leagle.com.

Jonathon Talavera, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Cory Lee, Esq.
     THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
     433 N. Camden Drive, 6th Floor
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Telephone: 610-324-2848
     Facsimile: 610-813-4579

Sun Maid Growers of California, Defendant, represented by Emily
Hartig Fulmer -- efulmer@hansonbridgett.com -- Sandra Lynn
Rappaport -- srappaport@hansonbridgett.com -- at Hanson Bridgett
LLP


SUN WORLD: Denial of Class Certification Upheld in "Cruz"
---------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Justice Brad R. Hill of the Court of Appeals of
California, Fifth District, affirmed the trial court's denial on
plaintiffs/appellants' motion for class certification in the case
JUAN CRUZ et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SUN WORLD
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendant and Respondent, NO. F069719 (Cal.
Ct. App.)

Plaintiffs filed an action on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated. They alleged defendant owned, controlled, or
operated agricultural operations in California. The original
complaint was alleged on behalf of the named plaintiffs and "all
other persons employed by defendants" as nonexempt agricultural
employees. After being granted leave to amend, plaintiffs filed a
first amended complaint, which was alleged on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and "all other persons employed directly and/or
indirectly through the use of a farm labor contractor by
Defendants" as nonexempt agricultural employees. Plaintiffs
alleged they and the other members of the proposed class were
jointly employed by defendant.

Approximately three years after the original complaint was filed,
plaintiffs moved for class certification. Plaintiffs asserted that
all their claims stemmed from one common practice, which allegedly
violated the law and presented common issues suitable for class
determination. Plaintiffs contended the rest and meal breaks of
both direct employees and workers supplied by farm labor
contractors (FLCs) were shortened by the time it took them to
leave the fields and walk to the designated eating area, and to
wash their hands and return to the fields before beginning work
again. Direct employees and FLC workers were not paid an
additional hour of pay for each meal or rest period they were
denied, as required by Labor Code section 226.7.

As a result of these practices, plaintiffs asserted, workers were
not fully compensated for their work time, were not given their
full meal and rest breaks or compensated for breaks they were
denied, their wage statements were therefore inaccurate, and they
were not paid in full on termination. Plaintiffs sought to certify
a class of those employed by defendant as nonexempt agricultural
employees, either directly or through the use of FLCs.

The trial court denied the motion for class certification.
Plaintiffs appeal from the denial of the motion for class
certification. They contend the trial court's ruling abused its
discretion because it rested on improper criteria or erroneous
legal assumptions.

Cesar H. Nava -- chnava@navalaw.com -- Stanley J. Hodson --
sjhodson@navalaw.com -- at Nava Law Firm; Santos Gomez --
santos@lawofficesofsantosgomez.com -- Law Offices of Santos Gomez;
Louis M. Marlin -- Stephen P. O'Dell -- sodell@marlinsaltzman.com
-- Adrian R. Bacon -- at Marlin & Saltzman, for Plaintiffs and
Appellants,

Robert K. Carrol -- rcarrol@nixonpeabody.com -- Paul R. Lynd --
Aldo E. Ibarra -- aibarra@nixonpeabody.com -- at Nixon Peabody,
for Defendant and Respondent

A copy of Presiding Justice Hill's opinion dated November 23,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/AzFTFcfrom Leagle.com.

The Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District panel consists
of Presiding Justice Brad R. Hill and Justices Charles S.
Poochigan and M. Bruce Smith.


SUNTRUST BANK: Georgia Court of Appeals Asked to Save Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that the
Georgia Supreme Court is considering whether to save a class
action lawsuit challenging the right of a bank to charge its
customers $36 if they overdraft their accounts by even one dollar.

Michael Terry, Esq. -- terry@bmelaw.com -- of Bondurant, Mixson &
Elmore, representing the plaintiff, told the justices in oral
arguments that if they block this case, they will shut down all
future class actions in Georgia.

William Withrow Jr., Esq. -- william.withrow@troutmansanders.com -
- of Troutman Sanders, representing SunTrust Bank, framed the case
in similarly stark terms. He told the justices if they allow the
class action to go forward, they will signify that customer
contracts in Georgia are worthless.

Based on how half of the people in the packed courtroom left as
soon as the Jan. 4 argument concluded, with several cases still to
be heard, the case is being watched closely by business and legal
interests. Law professors and consumer groups have filed amicus
briefs siding with the plaintiff. Bankers and big businesses have
spoken in favor of SunTrust.

At issue is Jeff Bickerstaff Jr., who filed his lawsuit in July
2010, alleging that SunTrust's $36 overdraft fees for small
amounts of money loaned to cover overdraft amounts on debit cards
amounted to an annual percentage rate exceeding 1,000 percent and
violated Georgia's usury laws. Bickerstaff alleged that
approximately 400,000 Georgians had been overcharged in the same
way and are "well suited for class treatment."

Bickerstaff's bid for class status was rejected at the trial court
and Court of Appeals, and he took the case to the state high
court.

In November, Bickerstaff died. SunTrust asked the Supreme Court to
dismiss his appeal, arguing that a deceased person cannot pursue a
lawsuit. But the high court rejected that motion and allowed
Bickerstaff's lawyers to substitute his mother as the plaintiff.

According to briefs from both sides, when he opened his personal
checking account in 2009, Bickerstaff signed the same agreement
presented to all the bank's customers, saying that any dispute
would be resolved by arbitration and not a lawsuit. In June 2010,
SunTrust amended the agreement after a federal court ruled in
another case that the mandatory arbitration provision was
"unconscionable" under Georgia law. SunTrust gave customers the
right to reject arbitration if they provided written notice by
Oct. 1, 2010.

SunTrust has argued that Bickerstaff failed to opt out of
arbitration by the deadline, but Bickerstaff's lawyers say his
filing the lawsuit before the deadline constitutes opting out.
Regardless, SunTrust maintains that Bickerstaff had no right to
opt out of arbitration on behalf of other customers who did not
meet the deadline.

Bickerstaff's lawyers say that SunTrust set the deadline secretly,
only sending customers notice that they could read new rules
online or at the bank, and that legal precedent demands that the
deadline be tolled to allow the matter to be resolved by the
courts.

A Fulton County judge declined to certify the class for
Bickerstaff's lawsuit. The Georgia Court of Appeals upheld that
decision in March 2015, affirming the trial court's denial of
class certification. Court of Appeals Judge Billy Ray wrote the
opinion, with a full concurrence by Judge Christopher McFadden,
but Presiding Judge Gary Andrews concurred in judgment only.

Ray's ruling became the focus of Bickerstaff's appeal to the
higher court. "If left to stand, the opinion not only will
eliminate the claims of 400,000 Georgians who have been wronged by
SunTrust, but also will severely impair Georgia's class action
law," Terry's brief asking for the high court's review said.
"Georgians will thus be without any ability to assert many
legitimate claims that may only be realistically brought on a
classwide basis."

Nine law professors from Georgia and other states signed an amicus
brief in support of Bickerstaff. "We believe the lower courts made
a mistake that, if taken to its logical conclusion, could make
Georgia the first jurisdiction in the United States to turn its
back altogether on the class action tolling rule," the legal
scholars' brief said. They said the practice of postponing of
deadlines to allow courts to make rulings on whether a class can
be certified has been followed for more than 40 years without
controversy across the country, and "for good reason: to save
litigants and courts from wasteful filings and to save class
actions from disabling obstacles. Georgia should not abandon it."

The legal scholars said that the lower court's denial of the class
certification misinterprets the due process clause of the U.S.
Constitution. "The U.S. Supreme Court may feel compelled to
correct the error itself if this court does not," wrote the
scholars.

In an amicus brief by former Gov. Roy Barnes and John Salter of
the Barnes Law Group, Georgia Watch and the National Consumer Law
Center took no position on the merits of the Bickerstaff case but
urged the high court to review the opinion of the Court of
Appeals, which Barnes said "led itself astray."

Barnes wrote that both consumer groups are "deeply concerned about
the damage to the state of class-action and consumer-protection
law that will result from the appellate court's aberrational
decision." The Barnes brief called Ray's decision a "misguided
ruling" that will cause severe harm to class-action law.

That point seemed of particular concern to Justice Robert Benham
at oral arguments. "If we affirm the lower court, are we doing
away with class actions?" Benham asked Terry.  "Yes," Terry
replied.

On the bank's behalf, Withrow argued that the class in Bickerstaff
would be a class of one because the deadline had passed for any
other customers to opt out of arbitration. "It doesn't fit as Mr.
Terry tries to make it fit," Withrow said. "The problem is, Mr.
Terry does not have a case."
Withrow argued for SunTrust that the Ray opinion was correct that
reversing it would damage future contracts.

"Georgia's substantive contract law requires that the plain
language of a contract be enforced and prohibits a stranger to a
contract from exercising others' contractual rights," Withrow said
in SunTrust's brief.
Bankers and businesses have agreed on this concern. The Georgia
Bankers Association, the Community Bankers Association and the
Georgia Chamber of Commerce together filed an amicus brief in
support of SunTrust.

"If this court were to find that one bank customer could reject
arbitration on behalf of thousands of other bank customers, and
thereby exercise contractual rights of persons with whom the
customer is not in privity, the sanctity of deposit agreements and
other contracts that GBA member banks have with their customers
would be severely threatened," the Georgia Bankers Association's
brief said.

The chamber echoed similar concerns. "Any legal environment that
creates the possibility of an outcome where the terms of contracts
may be altered by third parties with no interest in the contract
is harmful to the interests of both businesses and citizens," the
chamber said.
In rebuttal, Terry argued that certifying the class does not alter
a contract for third parties but simply gives customers a fair
chance to decide whether to participate.


TONAWANDA COKE: NY Supreme Court Won't Dismiss "Deluca" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth
Department affirmed the Supreme Court, Erie County's order that
denied a request to dismiss a lawsuit against Tonawanda Coke
Corporation.

Mary DeLuca commenced an action, individually and on behalf of
purported classes of personal injury plaintiffs seeking damages
caused by defendants' negligent release of chemicals into the
atmosphere.

Defendants Tonawanda Coke Corporation, the Estate of J.D. Crane,
deceased, and Mark Kamholz filed a motion to dismiss the class.
The Supreme Court of Erie County denied defendants' motion to
dismiss.

Defendants appealed before the court on the denial of their motion
to dismiss the class allegation and the grant to plaintiff cross
motion for an extension of time in which to seek a class
certification. Defendants also appealed the order in which the
court granted in part plaintiff's motion for class certification
and certified two classes of plaintiffs, one seeking damages for
alleged loss in property values, and the other seeking damages for
alleged loss of quality of life.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth
Department affirmed the Supreme Court, Erie County's order.

The appellate case is, MARY DELUCA, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS CLASS
REPRESENTATIVE, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. TONAWANDA COKE
CORPORATION, ESTATE OF J.D. CRANE, DECEASED, MARK KAMHOLZ,
Defendants-Appellants, ET AL., Defendants, 1340 CA 15-00297 (N.Y.)

A copy of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York,
Fourth Department's decision dated December 31, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/MLcLwQfrom Leagle.com.

HUGH M. RUSS, III -- hruss@hodgsonruss.com -- at HODGSON RUSS LLP,
FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

ALFRED M. ANTHONY -- aanthony@wilentz.com -- at WILENTZ, GOLDMAN &
SPITZER, P.A.; COLLINS & COLLINS ATTORNEYS, LLC; GORDON & GORDON;
HOBBIE, CORRIGAN & BERTUCIO, P.C., FOR PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth
Department panel consists of Presiding Justice Nancy E. Smith and
Justices Gerald J. Whalen, Brian DeJoseph and Jospeh D. Valentino


TOYOTA MOTOR: "Outside Reverse Piercing" Inapplicable
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of
California granted defendants' motions to dismiss the case HE NAM
YOU and KYUNG SOON KIM, for themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JAPAN; HIROHITO; AKIHITO;
NOBUSKE KISHI; SHINZO ABE; NYK LINE (NORTH AMERICA); NIPPON YUSEN
KABUSHIKI KAISHA; NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD.; NISSAN NORTH AMERICA,
INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.;
HITACHI, LTD.; HITACHI AMERICA, LTD.; NIPPON STEEL & SUMITOMO
METAL U.S.A., INC.; NIPPON STEEL & SUMITOMO METAL CORPORATION;
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION (AMERICA); MITSUBISHI GROUP; MITSUI & CO.
(U.S.A.), INC.; MITSUI & CO. LTD.; OKAMOTO INDUSTRIES, INC.;
SANKEI SHIMBUN, CO., LTD.; and DOES 1-1000, inclusive, Defendants,
No. C 15-03257 WHA (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs He Nam You and Kyung Soon Kim are residents and
citizens of the Republic of Korea. Plaintiffs allege that they
were abducted by the Japanese government during the Second World
War, forced into servitude, and exploited as sex slaves for the
benefit of Japanese soldiers at comfort stations in Japan.
Plaintiffs brought claims against five overlapping categories of
defendants, which they refer to as "wartime defendants,"
"corporation defendants," "headquarter defendants," "subsidiary
defendants," and "individual defendants."

Defendants Mitsubishi Corporation (Americas), Toyota Motor Sales,
U.S.A., Inc., Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal U.S.A., Inc., Nissan
North America, Inc., and NYK Line (North America), Inc., and
Hitachi America, Inc. -- the moving defendants -- are each
identified as members of the wartime, corporation, and subsidiary
categories. Each of these six defendants is the United States
subsidiary of a parent company based in Japan.

Plaintiffs allege that each of the moving defendants provided war
materiel to Japan during the Second World War and that each
realized huge profit from such conduct. Specifically, plaintiffs
allege that Nissan and Toyota each provided motor vehicles and
trucks, Nippon sold steel, NYK Line provided maritime shipping
services, Mitsubishi provided financial support, vessels, trucks,
ammunition, and arms, and Hitachi provided locomotives and
engines. Such conduct, plaintiffs allege, aided and abetted the
Japanese military in committing the atrocities that form the basis
of their claims, both by facilitating plaintiffs' transportation
throughout the campaign and by providing general support to the
war effort.

Mitsubishi, Nissan, Nippon, NYK, Toyota, and Hitachi all moved to
dismiss all claims against them. Nissan also moved for summary
judgment, arguing that because it did not exist at the time of the
Second World War, it cannot be liable for its parent company's
conduct during the War.

Plaintiffs seek leave to file a second amended complaint,
following a prior order granting another defendant's motion to
dismiss.

Judge Alsup granted defendants' motions to dismiss. Nissan's
further motion for summary judgment is granted in part.

Among others, Judge Alsup held that:

     (A) Plaintiffs argue that the limitations periods on their
claims are tolled by the 1968 Convention for the Non-Applicability
of a Statute of Limitations for War Crimes and Crimes Against
Humanity, Nov. 26, 1968, 754 U.N.T.S. 73. Plaintiffs acknowledge
that neither the United States nor Japan is a party to that
treaty, but they contend "it has gained the status of customary
international law".  Plaintiffs offer no authority to support that
position.  The treaty is not the law of the United States and does
not apply to plaintiffs' claims here.
Plaintiffs have failed to overcome the time bar on their claims,
and accordingly, their claims against the moving defendants must
be dismissed.

     (B) Plaintiffs seek to hold the moving defendants liable for
their parents' conduct during the war based on an variant of alter
ego theories of liability that has become known as "outside
reverse piercing" of the corporate veil.  The California Court of
Appeal explicitly rejected the use of outside reverse piercing as
a basis for liability in Postal Instant Press, Inc. v. Kaswa, 162
Cal.App.4th 1510, 1523 (2008). The court in Postal Instant noted
that outside reverse piercing did not address the issue met by
traditional veil piercing, namely, a shareholder's misuse of the
corporate form to avoid personal liability. Rather, outside
reverse piercing addressed a shareholder's use of a corporate form
to shield assets from collection by a creditor. Postal Instant
held that the remedies of conversion and fraudulent conveyance,
inter alia, provided adequate and less-invasive remedies for
judgment creditors seeking to reach a shareholder's assets.
Notwithstanding the potential for abuse that California's
prohibition on outside reverse piercing presents, the court of
appeals has applied that prohibition faithfully in the context of
corporate relationships, although it has not endorsed the
reasoning behind it. See United States v. Kim, 797 F.3d 696 (9th
Cir. 2015), amended by 2015 WL 7739871 (Nov. 30, 2015); FG
Hemisphere Associates, LLC v. Unocal Corp., 560 Fed. Appx. 672,
673 (9th Cir. 2014); United States v. One Hundred Thirty-Three
(133) U.S. Postal Service Money Orders, 496 Fed. Appx. 723, 725
(9th Cir. 2012). To be sure, it declined to expand the prohibition
on outside reverse piercing to the context of trusts. See In re
Schwarzkopf, 626 F.3d 1032, 1038 (9th Cir. 2010). Nevertheless,
this order must apply California's prohibition on outside reverse
piercing and conclude that plaintiffs' theory of liability for the
moving defendants has been explicitly rejected as a matter of law.

Judge Alsup gave the plaintiffs a further opportunity to seek
leave to file an amended complaint to take account of the rulings
in this order.  "If they so choose, plaintiffs may file an updated
motion for leave to amend their complaint by DECEMBER 28, 2015.
Plaintiffs should plead their best case for all arguments raised
in defendants' respective motions, not only those addressed
herein. All defendants should respond to plaintiffs' motion to
amend by JANUARY 6, 2016. The hearing will remain on JANUARY 14,
2016," the ruling says.

A copy of Judge Alsup's order dated December 14, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/FUCafJfrom Leagle.com.

Hee Nam You, Plaintiff, represented by Hume Joseph Jung, Joseph
Jung & Associates & Hyungjin Kim

Kyung Soon Kim, Plaintiff, represented by Hume Joseph Jung, Joseph
Jung & Associates & Hyungjin Kim

NYK Line (North America) Inc., Defendant, represented by Thaddeus
John Stauber, Nixon Peabody LLP, Jessica Nicole Walker, Nixon
Peabody LLP & Sarah Erickson Andre, Nixon Peabody LLP

Nissan North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Krista M.
Enns, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kimball R. Anderson, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Kimball Richard Anderson, Winston and Strawn LLP, Samuel
Mendenhall, Winston & Strawn LLP & Sarah A. Krajewski, Winston &
Strawn LLP

Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by
Perlette Michele Jura, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP,Theodore J.
Boutrous, Jr. & Ryan Stephen Appleby, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP

Hitachi America Limited, Defendant, represented byJoseph Anthony
Meckes, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP & Nathan Lane, III, Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal U.S.A. Inc., Defendant, represented
by Brendan P. Cullen, Sullivan & Cromwell & Nathaniel Lyon Green,
Sullivan Cromwell

Mitsubishi Corporation (America), Defendant, represented by Robert
Allan Mittelstaedt, Jones Day, Caroline Nason Mitchell, Jones Day
& David L. Wallach, Jones Day

Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.), Inc., Defendant, represented by Colin C.
West, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, David M. Balabanian, Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius & Katie Rose Glynn, Morgan, Lewis and Bockius LLP


THERMOS LLC: Judge Narrows Claims in Dispute with Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sara L. Ellis of the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the case
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. THERMOS L.L.C.,
JENNY MILMAN, and ELLEN THOMAS, Defendants. THERMOS L.L.C., Third-
Party Plaintiff, v. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA and
NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, Third-Party
Defendants, NO. 14 C 6080 (N.D. Ill.)

On August 16, 2013, Jenny Milman and Ellen Thomas filed a suit
against Thermos L.L.C. (Thermos) in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey. The case was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice on September 26, 2013.

On October 29, 2013, the Milman lawsuit was filed in the present
court as a putative class action. The plaintiffs in the Milman
lawsuit alleged that Thermos manufactured two types of allegedly
leak-proof bottles intended for use by young children. Although
Thermos advertised the bottles as leak-proof, inducing the
plaintiffs and putative class members to buy the bottles, the
bottles had a tendency to leak and thus Thermos' development,
marketing and sale of the bottles violated consumer protection
laws, breached its express warranties to plaintiffs and the class,
and constituted unjust enrichment.

The parties then participated in a successful settlement
conference on August 14, 2014, with the plaintiffs filing for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement on December
17, 2014. The court granted preliminary approval on December 23,
2014, with final approval following on May 27, 2015.

Thermos had commercial general liability coverage with three
different insurers, Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Hartford),
The Travelers Indemnity Company (Travelers), and National Fire
Insurance Company of Hartford (National Fire). Hartford issued
liability policies to Thermos for the policy periods August 31,
2006 to August 31, 2007 and August 31, 2007 to August 31, 2008.
Travelers issued Thermos four commercial general liability
policies between August 31, 2008 and August 31, 2012. Finally,
National Fire issued a commercial general liability policy to
Thermos for the period covering August 31, 2012 to August 31,
2013.

Thermos seeks to recover defense and indemnity costs from three of
its insurers arising from the putative consumer class action
lawsuit filed against it in the Milman lawsuit. The parties have
filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings or summary
judgment regarding the duty to defend, Thermos' claim that the
insurers are estopped from denying coverage for the Milman
settlement, and Thermos' request for section 155 damages.

Judge Ellis denied National Fire's motion for judgment on the
pleadings. Travelers' motion for judgment on the pleadings is
granted in part and denied in part. Hartford's motion for summary
judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Thermos' motions
for judgment on the pleadings are denied without prejudice.
Judgment is entered for Hartford, National Fire, and Travelers on
Thermos' request for section 155 damages in Thermos' counterclaim
against Hartford and third party complaint against National Fire
and Travelers.

A copy of Judge Ellis's opinion and order dated November 18, 2015,
is available at http://goo.gl/oghkhQfrom Leagle.com.

Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Plaintiff/Counter Defendant,
represented by Michael John Duffy -- mduffy@tresslerllp.com --
Ashley L. Conaghan -- aconaghan@tresslerllp.com -- at Tressler LLP

Thermos, LLC, Defendant/Counter Claimant/ Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Seth David Lamden -- slamden@ngelaw.com -- Eric Y.
Choi -- echoi@ngelaw.com -- at Neal Gerber & Eisenberg LLP

The Travelers Indemnity Company of America, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Jamie Lynn Hull -- jhull@cassiday.com -- Jean Mary
Golden -- jgolden@cassiday.com -- Margaret Ann Shipitalo --
mshipitalo@cassiday.com -- at Cassiday Schade LLP

National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, Third Party
Defendant, represented by Katherine Streicher Arnold -- Theodore
Joseph May -- at Colliau Carluccio Keener Morrow Peterson &
Parsons


UNITED STATES: BIA Sued Over Indian Tribe Land Trust Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Capay Valley Coalition, an unincorporated association v. Bureau of
Indian Affairs, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02574-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.,
December 11, 2011) is brought against the Defendants for failure
to apply the statutory standards for taking land into trust for
the benefit of a federally recognized Indian Tribe as
well as the failure to articulate the legal basis for issuing the
Notice of Decision.

Bureau of Indian Affairs is an agency of the federal government
acting as trustee of the welfare of the federally recognized
tribes of Native Americans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald B. Mooney, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DONALD B. MOONEY
      129 C Street, Suite 2
      Davis, CA 95616
      Telephone: (530) 758-2377
      Facsimile: (530) 758-7169


UNITED STATES: Judge Narrows Counsel's Bid for Attorneys' Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul L. Friedman of the District of Columbia
granted in part and denied in part counsel's motion for fees,
costs and expenses in the case of TIMOTHY PIGFORD et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. TOM VILSACK, Secretary, United States Department of
Agriculture, Defendant. CECIL BREWINGTON et al., Plaintiffs, v.
TOM VILSACK, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NOS. 97-1978 (PLF), 98-1693 (PLF) (D.D.C.)

Ms. Rose M. Sanders is a former partner in the law firm Chestnut,
Sanders, Sanders & Pettaway, LLC and one of several class counsel
for the plaintiffs in the class action. Ms. Sanders collaborated
between September 1, 2014 and December 30, 2014 with other class
counsel and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the
negotiation and drafting of a wind-down stipulation and order that
resolved outstanding issues in the case.

Ms. Sanders moved for $17,212 in attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses for her work implementing the Consent Decree, for the
period from September 1, 2014 through December 30, 2014.

The USDA does not dispute that Ms. Sanders is entitled to an
appropriate fee for her work on the wind-down stipulation and
order, but it challenges all of Ms. Sanders's time entries as
block billing and some as non-payable, too vague, or not
reflecting proper billing judgment. USDA argues that Ms. Sanders
is entitled to no more than $2,360.60 in fees for her work during
the period.

Judge Friedman granted in part and denied in part Ms. Sander's
motion for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses. The judge reduces
Ms. Sander's requested total award of $17,212 in attorneys' fees,
costs, and expenses by $7,155.20 to $10,056.80. The USDA shall pay
Faya Rose Toure f/k/a Rose M. Sanders $10,056.80 in attorneys'
fees, costs, and expenses on or before January 15, 2016. If the
said amounts are not paid on or before January 15, 2016, they will
bear interest at the rate established by 28 U.S.C. Section 1961.

A copy of Judge Friedman's order and opinion dated November 23,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/B5jmcGfrom Leagle.com.

Cecil Brewington, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Charles Jerome Ware, Esq.
     CHARLES JEROME WARE, P.A.
     10630 Little Patuxent Parkway, Suite 113
     Columbia, MD 21044
     Telephone: 410-720-619
     Facsimile: 410-730-7603

          - and -

     Phillip L. Fraas, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP L. FRAAS
     818 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 12th Floor
     Washington, DC 20006
     Telephone: 202-223-1499
     Facsimile: 202-223-1699

Jerry Cooper, Arthur Griffin, Charlie H Harris, William Lampley,
Henry Simmons, Willie Frank Wheeler, Paul Wingard, Roy G. Wood,
Arthur Amos, Ransom Arnold, Clarence Polk, Hubert Brown, Carol
Jean Brown, Willie Head, Jr., Andrew Jackson, Clem Jones, Aaron
Mobley, Theodore F.B. Bates, Wilbert Walker, John M. Decoudreaux,
Roy H. Adams Larry Alexander, Herbert C. Allen, Jr., James C.
Bacon, Stanley Bacon, W. E. Brandon, Joseph Brown, Leon E. Brown,
Willie J. Burnes, Jospeh Carthan, Michael V. Chatman, Ronald
Clarke, Albert J. Cooper, Andrew L. Cooper, Elijah Cole, Jr.,
Houston Coleman, Robert Coleman, Jimmy L. Curry, Alfort Davis,
Adell Davis, Sr., Harold L. Davis, Onzie Glen, Marquis Grant,
William Hamklin, Thetis Hardy, George Henderson, Cary Holmes, Mark
A. Houston, Lee Andrew Howard, Ollie Hudson, Tobias Jenkins,
Garrett Johnson, Sammy Johnson, Willie Johnson Colonel Freddie
Jones, Willie E. Lane, James Madlock, Andre Mathews, Kenzie
Mcginnis, Curtis Miller, Ted Miller, Jessie Moore, Rogers B.
Morris, Carl Perry, James W. Piggs, Eddie Reed, James Sander,
Mattie Sanders, Willie E. Sias, Oliver Short, Edward Smith, Vernon
Smith, W. C. Spencer, Jr., Mcarthur Straughter, Johnnie Thomas,
Harry P. Thurmond, William Watkins, Bobby Wells, Michael A. White,
Carl Whittington, Cleotha Williams, Herbert Williams, John A.
Williams, Jr., Robert Williams, Susie L. Croft, Raphael L.
Williams, Sanders Williams, Freddie L. Winters, Perry Woods,
Willie Richardson, Grethel Richardson, Eric Richardson, Dionysia
Richardson-Smith, Garon Trawick, Phillip R. Barker, Chenay Coston,
Percy Davis, Sheila W. Harvey, Edison Lamont Smith, Jr., Larry R.
Whitt, Lawrence L. Breckenridge, George C. Roberts, Jr., Enoch
Edwards, Jr., Hezekiah Gibson, Walter Gore, Theodore Hough, Andrew
B. Johnson, Charlie C/O Sandra Mack Kelly, Walter C/O Lucy
Ibemere, David E. Boyd, Tom Gary Ewell, Robert H. Taylor, Jack
Tyus, James Jenkins, Kirk A. Benoit, Aberra Bulbulla, Carl
Christopher, Dennis Connell, Benjamin Jacobs-El, Vannico Hanney,
Alphonso L. James, Samuel Moore, Joan Nelson, Delroy A. Peterson,
Martin Reynolds, Wayne M. Smith, Leona Watson, Curneall Watson,
Gail Chiang, James B. Beverly, Jr., Macio Hill, Mashelia
Grandison-Kizzie, West Bones, Jr., Alice Davis, Clinton F.
Johnson, Jr., Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Phillip L. Fraas, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP L. FRAAS
     818 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 12th Floor
     Washington, DC 20006
     Telephone: 202-223-1499
     Facsimile: 202-223-1699

All Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Phillip L. Fraas, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PHILLIP L. FRAAS
     818 Connecticut Avenue, NW, 12th Floor
     Washington, DC 20006
     Telephone: 202-223-1499
     Facsimile: 202-223-1699

          - and -

     Rose M. Sanders, Esq.
     Jesse L. Kearney, Esq.
     Othello C. Cross, Esq.
     CROSS, KEARNEY & MCKISSIC
     1022 West 6th Avenue
     Pine Bluff, AR 71601
     Telephone: 870-536-4056

Cross & Kearney PLLC, Plaintiff, represented by David U. Fierst
-- dfierst@steinmitchell.com  -- at Stein, Mitchell, Muse &
Cipollone LLP

Thomas J. Vilsack, Defendant, represented by Tamra Tyree Moore,
U.S. Department Of Justice, Andrea Iris Newmark, U.S. Department
of Justice, Andrew Marshall Bernie, U.S. Department of Justice,
Megan Anne Crowley, U.S. Department of Justice & Stephen McCoy
Elliott, U.S. Department of Justice

Leon Mathews, Claimant, represented by Joshua A Doan, U.S.
Department of Justice

Estate of Charlie Knott, Claimant, represented by David N. Fagan
-- dfagan@cov.com -- at Covington & Burling

Maurice McGinnis, Claimant, represented by John M. Shoreman at
McFadden & Shoreman, LLC


UNUM LIFE: Class Settlement in "Kemp", Counsel Fees Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nannette Jolivette Brown of the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted plaintiff and class counsel's motion in the case
MARY J. KEMP v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Civil
Action Case No. 14-0944 (E.D. La.)

Mary Kemp worked as a sales associate for Humana, Inc. from 2006
until June 2012, when she was forced to stop working due to a
disability. She applied for short and long term disability
benefits under a group plan offered by Humana for its employees.
Humana purchased a group insurance policy, issued on May 1, 2012,
from Unum Life Insurance Company of America (Unum) to fund the
long term disability plan. Unum retained discretionary authority
to make benefit determinations, including determining the amount
of benefits under the policy. After receiving short-term
disability benefits for the maximum benefit period, Kemp applied
for long-term disability benefits. In January 2013, Unum approved
her claim and paid her benefits for several months.  Unum
terminated her benefits on May 6, 2013.

Kemp filed a lawsuit on April 25, 2014 and a motion for class
certification on July 21, 2014.  The parties participated in a 10-
hour mediation wherein they agreed on the material terms of a
settlement, subject to confirmation of data provided by Unum
regarding Unum's method of calculating disability benefits.  On
February 10, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to withdraw
document class certification motion, which the court granted. The
parties also filed a joint motion to preliminarily approve the
class settlement, conditionally certify the settlement class,
direct notice to the class, and schedule a final approval hearing,
which the Court granted on July 6, 2015. In that Order, the Court
conditionally certified a settlement class, preliminarily approved
the proposed settlement, and directed notice to the class.

On October 19, 2015, Kemp and class counsel filed an unopposed
motion for final approval of class settlement, application for
service award, and application for attorneys' fees and expenses.
Class counsel requests attorneys' fees of one third of the
$3,738,402 Settlement Fund, as well as the reimbursement of out-
of-pocket expenses totaling $17,878.65.

Judge Brown granted plaintiff and class counsel's unopposed motion
for final approval of class settlement, application for service
award, and application for attorneys' fees and expenses. The court
awarded class counsel a total of $17,878.65 in litigation expenses
in addition to the percentage fee.

A copy of Judge Brown's order dated December 11, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/FfLVkwfrom Leagle.com.

Mary J Kemp, Plaintiff, represented by:

     James Frederick Willeford, Esq.
     Reagan Levert Toledano, Esq.
     Shane Dee Pendley, Esq.
     WILLEFORD & TOLEDANO
     201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 4208
     New Orleans, LA 70170
     Telephone: 504-322-1488
     Facsimile: 313-692-5927

UNUM Life Insurance Company of America, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer M. Lawrence -- jlawrence@elkinsplc.com -- Virginia N.
Roddy -- vroddy@elkinsplc.com -- at Elkins, PLC; Byrne J. Decker
-- bdecker@pierceatwood.com -- Gavin G. McCarthy --
gmccarthy@pierceatwood.com -- at Pierce Atwood, LLP


VAALCO ENERGY: "Shapiro" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Shapiro, and all others similarly situated Stockholders of
VAALCO Energy, Inc. v. Steven P. Guidry, Frederick W. Brazleton,
O. Donaldson Chapoton, James B. Jennings, John J. Myers, Jr.,
Andrew L. Fawthrop, Steven J. Pully, and VAALCO Energy, Inc., Case
No. 11776 (Del. Ch., December 7, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties.

Plaintiff is challenging the incumbent Board's (1) perpetuation of
and reliance on unlawful provisions in the Company's certificate
of incorporation and bylaws in order to entrench itself, and (2)
misleading statements to stockholders in an effort to thwart a
consent solicitation to remove the incumbent Board.

Defendant VAALCO is a Delaware corporation incorporated in 1985.
It is a Houston-based independent energy company principally
engaged in the acquisition, exploration, development and
production of crude oil and natural gas. VAALCO has its corporate
headquarters at 9800 Richmond Avenue, Suite 700, Houston, Texas
77042. VAALCO's common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange
under the ticker symbol "EGY."

The Individual Defendants are members of the Board of VAALCO.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Ned Weinberger, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      300 Delaware Ave., Suite 1340
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 573-2540

         - and -

      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 504-4957

         - and -

      Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
      240 East 79th Street, Suite A
      New York, NY 10075
      Tel: (888) 529-1108


VIM RECYCLING: Non-Appearing Defendants Get Default Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Philip P. Simon of the Northern District of
Indiana, South Bend Division granted plaintiffs' motion for
default judgment in the case CARMINE GREENE, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. KENNETH R. WILL, et al., Defendants, Cause No. 3:09CV510-PPS
(N.D. Ind.)

A lawsuit was filed by 140 people who live in close proximity to a
waste dump and processing facility that was built, owned,
controlled, and operated by VIM Recycling, Inc. and K.C.
Industries, LLC and Kenneth R. Will (VIM defendants) beginning in
early 2000 through July 25, 2011, when the VIM defendants sold the
facility and operations to Soil Solutions Co. and its subsidiary
Soil Solutions of Elkhart, LLC (Soils). Plaintiffs subsequently
amended their complaint to name the Soils defendants and pled
allegations in support of class certification.

Following class certification proceedings, plaintiffs and the
Soils reached a settlement whereby Soils agreed, among other
things, to wind down and cease operations at the facility within
five years, clean up all wastes from the site, and file a deed
restriction preventing such operations at the site in the future.

The VIM defendants failed to plead or otherwise defend, and an
entry of default was made against them. Plaintiffs seek a default
judgment and an award of attorney's fees and expenses against the
VIM defendants.

There are seven counts in the amended complaint of the plaintiffs.
Counts I Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) claim
against VIM defendants, Count II RCRA claim against Soils
defendants, Count III private nuisance all defendants, Count IV
trespass against all defendants, Count V negligence against all
defendants, Count VI wilful and wanton misconduct against VIM
defendants, Count VII successor liability against Soils defendants
Plaintiffs' settlement with the Soils defendants resolved Counts
II and VII, leaving Counts I, III, IV, V and VI pending against
the VIM defendants. Plaintiffs seek default judgment only for
damages recoverable on their nuisance claim in Count III and
attorney's fees and costs as available on their RCRA claim in
Count I.

Chief District Judge Simon granted plaintiffs' motion to correct
error and plaintiffs' motion for default judgment against the VIM
defendants is granted as to Counts I and III of the second amended
class action complaint.

The Court directed the clerk to enter default judgment in favor of
plaintiffs and class members and against defendants VIM Recycling,
Inc. and K.C. Industries, LLC, jointly and severally, in the
amount of $50,568,750.00 in the following manner:

     -- Class member award subtotal (Oct. 28, 2003-July 25, 2011)
        named plaintiffs (6) $15,000/year/plaintiff $ 697,500
        class members who $15,000/year/class $15,577,500
        initiated lawsuit (134) member remaining class
        $5,000/year/class $34,293,750 members (885) member
        TOTAL: $50,568,750.

     -- VIM Recycling and K.C. Industries are ordered to pay
        postjudgment interest on the damages award from the date
        of the judgment until it is paid in full.

A copy of Chief District Judge Simon's opinion and order dated
November 24, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/SG1x3efrom
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Kim E Ferraro, Esq.
     Amelia J Vohs, Esq.
     HOOSIER ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
     3951 N. Meridian Suite 100
     Indianapolis, IN 46208
     Telephone: 317-685-8800
     Facsimile: 317-686-4794

     - and -

     Dennis A Ferraro, Esq.
     CHUHAK & TECSON PC
     30 S Wacker Dr #2600
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: 312-444-9300

Kenneth R Will, Defendant, Pro Se.


VITESSE WORLDWIDE: Limousine Driver's Suit May Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Janet Bond Arterton of the District of Connecticut
denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case TOM SIKIOTIS,
Plaintiff, v. VITESSE WORLDWIDE CHAUFEEURED SERVICES, INC., &
SHAHIN ABASPOUR Defendants, Civil No. 3:15-cv316 (JBA) (D. Conn.)

Plaintiff Tom Sikiotis was employed by Vitesse Worldwide
Chauffeured Services, Inc. (Vitesse), a Connecticut corporation
with a principal place of business in Stamford, Connecticut.
Shahin Abaspour is the owner and President of Vitesse.

Plaintiff was responsible for picking up and driving defendants'
customers to various locations in Connecticut, New York, and New
Jersey. During job assignments, plaintiff was required to wait and
be on call, was not free to engage in personal activities, had to
perform various non-driving tasks including ensuring the vehicle
was cleaned and serviced, and was required to be in contact with
defendants at all times. Plaintiff was also required to be at
pickup locations at least fifteen minutes before scheduled pickup
times for each job assignment. He states that he customarily and
regularly worked more than forty-hours per week but was not paid
overtime compensation.

Plaintiff brought an action alleging willful and nonwillful1
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 29 U.S.C.
Section 201, et seq., by Defendants Vitesse and Abaspour arising
out of defendants' failure to pay plaintiff overtime compensation
at a rate of one-and-one-half times plaintiff's regular pay for
all hours worked over forty hours per week. Plaintiff made an
amended to his complaint, to which Defendants move to dismiss for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Judge Arterton denied defendants' motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Arterton's order dated November 24, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/bjzPdofrom Leagle.com.

Louis R. Pepe, Special Master, represented by Louis R. Pepe --
lpepe@mdmc-law.com -- at McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter,
LLP

Tom Sikiotis, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J.
Pantuso, III -- apantuso@hayberlawfirm.com -- Richard Eugene
Hayber -- rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com -- at Hayber Law Firm LLC

Defendants, represented by Michele F. Martin -- MMartin@psdlaw.net
-- Christopher E. Geotes -- cgeotes@psdlaw.net -- Joseph M.
Pastore -- jpastore@psdlaw.net -- at Pastore & Dailey LLC


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Buniatyan" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Armen Buniatyan, an individual, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., et al., Case No. BC603694 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
December 9, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' alleged
installation of illegal "defeat devices" in over 482,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi vehicles powered by a purported 2.0 Liter
"Clean Diesel" engine.

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hovanes Margarian, Esq.
      THE MARGARIANLAW FIRM
      801 N. Brand Blvd,, Suite 210
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818)553-1000
      Facsimile: (818) 553-1005
      E-mail: hovanes@margarianlaw.com


WESTLAKE SERVICES: Arbitration Ruling in "Ramos" Case Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Maria J. Miller of the Court of Appeals of California,
First District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court's order in
the case ALFREDO RAMOS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WESTLAKE
SERVICES LLC, Defendant and Appellant, NO. A141353 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Alfredo Ramos purchased an automobile from Pena's Motors, which he
alleged that the negotiations for the transaction were conducted
primarily in Spanish, his native tongue. Pena's Motors and its
employees had authority to sell and make representations on behalf
of Westlake with respect to the sale of its Guaranteed Auto
Protection (GAP) contracts covering automobiles. Westlake
eventually charged Ramos money for a GAP contract to cover the
vehicle he purchased. A copy of the GAP contract was not provided
to him in Spanish.

Ramos, together with Vasquez and Castillo sued Westlake and
asserted three causes of action based on Westlake's failure to
provide a translation of the GAP contract: (1) violation of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Civil Code section 1750, et
seq.; (2) violation of section 1632; and (3) violation of the
unfair competition law (UCL), Business and Professions Code
section 17200, et seq.

Westlake moved to compel arbitration of Ramos's and his co-
plaintiffs' claims, relying on the arbitration provisions
contained in the underlying sales contracts they each had signed.

The trial court issued an order granting Westlake's motion to
compel arbitration as to co-plaintiffs Castillo and Vasquez, but
denying the motion to compel arbitration as to Ramos.

Westlake filed a motion for clarification of the trial court's
order denying its motion to compel, inquiring whether the court's
section 1632 ruling meant the entire English Contract was void or
voidable, or only the arbitration agreement.

The trial court denied the motion for clarification, but at the
hearing stated that its ruling permitted Ramos to make an election
to declare the entire English Contract void as a result of the
section 1632 violation or to stand on the contract, but with the
unconscionable arbitration provision excised.

Westlake appealed.

Justice Miller affirmed the trial court's judgment in an opinion
dated November 24, 2015, available at http://goo.gl/zVKuS6from
Leagle.com.

Joshua A. Gratch -- jag@gratchlawgroup.com -- at Gratch Law Group,
Attorney for defendant and appellant

Parviz Darabi -- parviz@darabilaw.com -- Andrew G. Watters --
andrew@andrewwatters.com --  Dnaiel B. Swerdlin --
swerdlinlaw@gmail.com -- Attorneys for plaintiff and respondent

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two
panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice James A. Richman and
Justices Therese M. Stewart and Maria J. Miller.


WILLIAMS COS: Proposed Merger Results to Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Casey Smith, writing for Tulsa World, reports that Williams Cos.
has already been the subject of at least one shareholder lawsuit
following the company's Sept. 28 announcement of a proposed merger
with Energy Transfer Equity.

Tulsa-based Williams Cos. and ETE became the subject of one more.

John Bumgarner, represented by attorney Larry Pinkerton, filed a
class-action complaint in U.S. Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma against The Williams Cos. and Energy Transfer Equity.

The action, according to the document, "is to enjoin the
Defendants from further proceeding with a proposed merger,
including the dissemination of proxy materials, and the conduct of
a special shareholders' meeting of Williams."

In a phone interview, Bumgarner said he retired from Williams in
2001. During his 25 years with the company, Bumgarner said he
served as a senior vice president of planning and development for
the company; as president of Williams real estate; and as
president of Williams International.

"I'm a longtime stockholder," Bumgarner said. "I followed the
transaction and followed the presentations that have been put out
by both Williams and ETE. Like any other investor, I'm paying
attention to what they're saying and doing."

According to the lawsuit, communications from Williams and ETE --
such as the joint press release issued Sept. 28 announcing the
proposed acquisition -- include misrepresentations of the deal's
"purported benefits" to shareholders of Williams.

"Certain of the statements therein, as stated hereafter, are
material misrepresentations made by Williams and ETE, or by ETE
and the publication of the material misrepresentations was aided
and abetted by Williams," the lawsuit says.  The shareholders will
have to vote, Bumgarner said. "But the issue is that they have
correct information."

Williams and ETE both said it is company policy not to discuss
pending litigation.

Williams has had an eventful week in the news cycle.

Speculation that the merger will somehow fall through rose to a
cacophony as Williams' stock fell to a closing price of $13.61 on
Jan. 13.  Prices rallied Jan. 14 but had dropped again to $16.10
by market close.

In what Williams said was a response to market speculation, the
company released a statement announcing that its board of
directors is "unanimously committed" to completing the transaction
with Energy Transfer Equity as it was announced Sept. 28.


WYNN'S EXTENDED: Waiving of Attorney's Fees Violates "TCCWNA"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith of the United States Court of
Appeals, Third Circuit, partially reversed and remanded the
appealed case entitled TIJUANA JOHNSON, on behalf of herself and
other persons similarly situated, Appellant, v. WYNN'S EXTENDED
CARE, INC.; NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY, No. 15-1343, (3d Cir.)

Tijuana Johnson entered into a "Used Vehicle Service Contract"
with Wynn's Extended Care, Inc. (Wynn) in February 2011. In May of
that same year, Johnson's car needed repairs that she claims were
covered by the service contract. Wynn, however, refused to
authorize the repairs. After negotiations broke down, Johnson
filed a class action suit in state court alleging that the service
contract violated several state statutes. Wynn subsequently agreed
to pay for the necessary repairs.

Johnson made second amended complaint only pleading violations of
the New Jersey's Truth in Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice
Act (TCCWNA) and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The parties
then stipulated to the dismissal of all claims under the Consumer
Fraud Act with prejudice. In opposing Wynn's motion to dismiss,
Johnson argued that the service contract violated the TCCWNA
because it contained a provision waiving attorney's fees and
splitting costs.

Wynn filed a motion to dismiss, which the district court granted.
Johnson appealed.

Judge Smith held that Johnson's TCCWNA claim is sufficient to
survive a motion to dismiss. Judge Smith reversed the judgment of
the district court only with respect to the alleged violation of
the TCCWNA and remands the case to the district court for further
proceedings.

A copy of Circuit Judge Smith's opinion dated December 15, 2015,
is available at http://goo.gl/S2X71Ffrom Leagle.com.

The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit panel consists
of Judges Julio M. Fuentes, D. Brooks Smith and Maryanne Trump
Barry.



                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Partially Dismisses "Rhoton"
---------------------------------------------------
James Rhoton and Sarah Rhoton filed an action against 3M Company
and Arizant Healthcare Inc. seeking damages under several theories
for alleged injuries sustained when Mr. Rhoton developed a MRSA
infection after surgery in which a Bair Hugger Forced Air Warming
device manufactured by defendants was used. Defendants filed a
joint motion to dismiss the complaint.

Judge William M. Acker, Jr., of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, granted
the Defendants' motion as to Counts Four and Five and said counts
will be dismissed with prejudice.  The Defendants' motion is
denied as to all other counts.

The case is JAMES RHOTON, et al, Plaintiffs, v. 3M Company, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1306-WMA (N.D. Ala.).

A full-text copy of the Memorandum Opinion dated December 3, 2015
is available at http://is.gd/uMMHFrfrom Leagle.com.

James Rhoton, Plaintiff, is represented by Christopher T Hellums,
Esq. -- ChrisH@pittmandutton.com -- PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS PC &
Jonathan S Mann, Esq. -- JonM@pittmandutton.com -- PITTMAN DUTTON
& HELLUMS.

Sarah Rhoton, Plaintiff, is represented by Christopher T Hellums,
PITTMAN DUTTON & HELLUMS PC & Jonathan S Mann, PITTMAN DUTTON &
HELLUMS.

3M Company, Defendant, is represented by Jerry W Blackwell, Esq. -
- blackwell@blackwellburke.com -- BLACKWELL BURKE PA, T Michael
Brown, Esq. -- mbrown@babc.com  -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS
LLP & Jessica K Givens, Esq. -- jgivens@babc.com  -- BRADLEY ARANT
BOULT CUMMINGS LLP.

Arizant Healthcare, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Jerry W
Blackwell, BLACKWELL BURKE PA, T Michael Brown, BRADLEY ARANT
BOULT CUMMINGS LLP & Jessica K Givens, BRADLEY ARANT BOULT
CUMMINGS LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Feaster"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an action, Samuel R. Feaster alleges he contracted mesothelioma
while employed at New York Shipbuilding and Drydock Company in
Camden, New Jersey, and Sun Ship Yard in Chester, Pennsylvania.
Presently, before the Court are three separate Motions for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendants Owens-Illinois Inc., Brand
Insulations Inc., and Durametallic Corp.

Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, granted the Defendants'
Motions for Summary Judgment.

Owens-Illinois, Brand, and Durametallic, according to Magistrate
Williams, are entitled to summary judgment because the Plaintiff
has failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that the
Defendants manufactured, supplied or distributed the asbestos-
containing product which the Plaintiff was exposed to on a
frequent and regular basis.

The case is SAMUEL R. FEASTER, Plaintiff, v. A.W. CHESTERTON
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 14-3417 (KMW)(D.N.J.).

A full-text copy of the Opinion dated December 3, 2015, which is
available at http://is.gd/gSDWFcfrom Leagle.com

SAMUEL R. FEASTER, Plaintiff, represented by Michael B. Leh, Esq.
-- mleh@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, represented by Christopher J.
Keale, Esq. -- christopher.keale@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK LLP,
David Schuyler Blow, Esq. - david.blow@sedgwicklaw.com -- SEDGWICK
LLP, Joanne Hawkins, Speziali, Esq. -- GREENWALD & HAWKINS P.C. &
Michael A. Tanenbaum, Esq. - michael.tanenbaum@sedgwicklaw.com --
SEDGWICK LLP.

GOULDS PUMP INC, Defendant, represented by Steven Frederik Satz,
Esq. -- ssatz@hoaglandlongo.com -- HOAGLAND LONGO MORAN DUNST &
DOUKAS.

METROPOLITAN LIFE, Defendant, represented by Richard V. Jones,
Esq. -- LAW OFFICES OF ROGER V. JONES, LLP & Roger V. Jones, --
LAW OFFICES OF ROGER V. JONES, LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Syska Fails in Bid to Junk All Craft's Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
All Craft Fabricators, Inc. was hired by Skanska USA Buildings,
Inc., to do mill work for the refurbishment of the United Nations
Headquarters which included work on salvaged wood panels and doors
within the offices of the UNH.

All Craft shares offices with its affiliate, Donaldson Interiors,
Inc.  All Craft alleges that the doors and panels contained toxic
substances, specifically, asbestos, and that no notice of the
defective condition was given to them.  All Craft alleges that
during the refurbishment of the doors and panels, due to the
asbestos, they were forced to shut down their manufacturing
facilities resulting in property damage, business interruption,
loss of production, costs to remedy its facility, and costs to
dispose of the asbestos.

All Crafts commenced an action against Syska Hennessy Group, Inc.
alleging that the Defendant was hired to perform design,
architectural, and engineering, consulting and other services as
part of the Project, and that Syska performed inspection,
surveying, remediation and abatement of asbestos at the Project.
The Defendant hired ATC Associates, Inc., to perform asbestos
related services.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant sent crates containing
salvaged wood panels and doors from the UNH to perform millwork.
The wood panels and doors contained asbestos.

The Defendant now moves to dismiss the Complaint based on a
defense founded upon documentary evidence; that the action is
time-barred; and that the Complaint fails to state a cause of
action for negligence.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the defendant's motion
to dismiss the complaint, and directed the parties to appear for a
preliminary conference on Feb. 10, 2016.

The case is captioned ALL CRAFT FABRICATORS, INC. and DONALDSON
INTERIORS, INC., Plaintiffs, v. SYSKA HENNESSY GROUP, INC.,
Defendant, DOCKET NO. 155408/2015, MOTION SEQ. NO. 001, 2015 NY
Slip Op 32239(U).

A full-text copy of the Decision dated November 23, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/EM8jXbfrom Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Denies GM's Appeal in "Bryant"
-----------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation's Powertrain Division appeals a jury
verdict finding that Loretta Bryant is entitled to participate in
the Ohio Workers' Compensation Fund as a result of the
occupational exposure to asbestos sustained by her deceased
husband, Ivan Bryant, which contributed to his death from lung
cancer.

Loretta alleged that Ivan sustained an injurious exposure to
asbestos as a result of his job duties at GM and that his
asbestos-related lung cancer was the direct and proximate cause of
his death.  The complaint claimed that Ivan's employment with GM
created a risk of contracting asbestos-related diseases and
conditions in a greater degree and in a different manner than the
public generally.  GM denied that Ivan's lung cancer was asbestos-
related and denied that he contracted his lung cancer as a result
of his employment at GM's Defiance facility.  Further, GM
contended that Ivan's long-time habit of smoking one to two packs
of cigarettes a day was the sole cause of his lung cancer.

The jury entered its verdict in favor of Loretta's claim.  GM
filed this appeal.

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Defiance County,
finds no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision to
allow the trier of the fact to resolve the factual dispute as to
the issue of Ivan's occupational asbestos exposure.

The case is LORETTA S. BRYANT, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF IVAN BRYANT,
DECEASED, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., Defendant-
Appellant, and MARSHA P. RYAN, ADMR., OHIO BUREAU OF WORKERS COMP,
NO. 4-15-03 (Ohio App.).

A full text of the Decision dated November 30, 2015 is available
at http://is.gd/0wABg4from Leagle.com.

General Motors Corp. is represented by:

         Marc S. Barnes, Esq.
         BUGBEE & CONKLE, LLP
         PNC Bank Building
         405 Madison Avenue, Suite 1900
         Toledo, OH 43604
         Tel: (419) 244-6788
         Fax: (419) 244-7145
         Email: mbarnes@bugbeelawyers.com

Loretta S. Bryant, Appellee, is represented by:

         Shawn M. Acton, Esq.
         KELLEY & FERRARO, LLP
         2200 Key Tower
         127 Public Square
         Cleveland, OH 44114
         Tel: (216) 202-3450
         Toll Free: 800-398-1795
         Fax: (216) 575-0799

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 10th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Montello Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Montello, Inc., appeals from a final judgment in favor of various
insurers including Canal Insurance Co., Continental Casualty Co.,
Houston General Insurance Co., and Scottsdale Insurance Co.   The
district court divided the case into phases and through a series
of rulings, rejected Montello's various claims.

On appeal, Montello challenges the district court's holdings that
Canal and Houston General have no obligation to drop down and
defend or indemnify Montello.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirms
the district court's judgment dismissing the action for lack of
case or controversy.

The case is CANAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff Counter Defendant-
Appellee, v. MONTELLO, INC., Defendant Third-Party Plaintiff
Counterclaimant-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY;
HOUSTON GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, and HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES
GROUP, INC.; TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL INDEMNITY
COMPANY, Third-Party Defendants, NO. 14-5039 (10th Cir.).

A full-text copy of the Order and Judgment dated November 27, 2015
is available at http://is.gd/6Oqfblfrom Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Jan. 7 Testimony Deadline in "Covey-Hinzo"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, ordered
that the deadline for designation of expert testimony and
disclosure of full expert reports as to any issue on which a party
has the burden of proof will be continued to January 7, 2016.

The case is PATRICIA J. COVEY-HINZO, individually and as successor
in interest to GILBERT E. HINZO, Deceased, ALEX HINZO, an
individual, and FELICIA WATSON, an individual, Plaintiffs, v.
ASBESTOS DEFENDANTS et al., Defendants, CASE NO. C 15-00241 WHA
(N.D. Calif.).

A full-text copy of the Order dated November 30, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/1F0NVLfrom Leagle.com.

Defendant CRANE CO. is represented by Michele C. Barnes, Esq. --
michele.barnes@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP, Peter E. Soskin, Esq.
-- peter.soskin@klgates.com  -- K&L GATES LLP

Defendant General Dynamics Corporation is represented by Lisa
Rickenbacher, Esq. -- lrickenbacher@hugoparker.com -- HUGO PARKER
LLP

Defendant Crown Cork & Seal Company, Inc. and Crown Holdings, Inc.
are represented by William Armstrong, Esq. --
bill.armstrong@armstrongetal.com --ARMSTRONG & ASSOCIATES, LLP

Defendant Harsco Corporation is represented by Lauren Michals,
Esq. -- lmichals@nixonpeabody.com -- NIXON & PEABODY LLP

Defendant IMO Industries, Inc. is represented by Bobbie Rae
Bailey, Esq. -- bbailey@leaderberkon.com -- LEADER & BERKON LLP

Defendants Ingersoll Rand Company and Syd Carpenter, Marine
Contractor, Inc. are represented by Carla Lynn Crochet, Esq. --
ccrochet@prindlelaw.com --PRINDLE, AMARO, GOETZ, HILLYARD, BARNES
& REINHOLZ LLP

Defendant ITT Corporation is represented by Joseph Duffy, Esq. --
jduffy@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP

Defendant Metalclad Insulation LLC is represented by Lisa Oberg,
Esq.
MCKENNA, LONG & ALDRIDGE

Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is represented by
Lisa Marie Dowling, Esq. -- ldowling@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE AND
JOHNSON LLP

Defendant Viad Corporation is represented by Whitney Davis, Esq. -
-  THE DAVIS LAW FIRM

Defendant Warren Pumps, LLC is represented by James Cunningham,
Esq. -- james.cunningham@tuckerellis.com -- TUCKER ELLIS LLP

Defendants CBS Corporation is represented by Frank Pond, Esq. --
fpond@pondnorth.com -- POND NORTH LLP

Plaintiffs are represented by Sara Morton, Esq. -- HEARD ROBINS
CLOUD LLP

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fisher Wins Partial Summary Judgment in PI Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------

Gaspar Hernandez-Vega, in an action, contends that he developed
mesothelioma during his career as a pipe fitter in Puerto Rico,
Massachusetts, Virginia and New York as he was exposed to asbestos
from Fisher Controls International LLC's valves during his career,
which spanned from approximately 1964 through 1978.

Fisher moves for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's
complaint and all claims and cross-claims against it.  If its
motion is not granted, Fisher seeks dismissal of the following
Counts in the plaintiff's complaint: Count II (Breach of
Warranty), Count V (Conspiracy/Collective Liability/Concert of
Action), Count X (Market Share Liability/Joint and Several
Liability), and Count XI (Punitive Damages).

The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendant's motion
only to the extent that the court dismisses Count II (Breach of
Warranty) as unopposed, Count X to the extent of Market Share
Liability (but not Joint and Several Liability) and Count V
(Conspiracy/Collective Liability/Concert of Action;

The Supreme Court of New York denied the Defendant's motion with
leave to renew as to Count XI (Punitive Damages) as necessary;
otherwise the motion is denied.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
GASPAR HERNANDEZ-VEGA, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP.,
et al., Defendants, 2015 NY Slip Op 32242(U), DOCKET NO.
190367/2014, SEQ. NO. 005 (N.Y. Sup.).

A full text of the Decision dated November 23, 2015 is available
at http://is.gd/SPGhst from Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: DOC Directed to Produce Docs in Ex-Worker's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff David Abreu filed a motion to compel discovery.  In
dispute are a number of document requests propounded by the
Plaintiff on Defendants State of New Jersey and the New Jersey
Department of Corrections.  The Defendants have opposed the
motion.

The Defendants raise a blanket objection to the production of
materials related to internal investigations conducted by the
DOC's Equal Employment Division, which are responsive to Requests
Nos. 4, 8, 11, 16, 25, 28, 32, 41, 44, 45, 47, 49, and 51.  The
Defendants have refused to produce the materials, contending that
materials relating to EED complaints, investigations and
determinations are "confidential."

According to the Plaintiff, Defendants have withheld the EED
investigation materials responsive to his requests.

The Plaintiff was an employee of the DOC.  He alleges that he was
subject to unlawful discrimination and a hostile work environment,
and that he was retaliated against after he complained about this
and allegedly unsafe working conditions, including exposure to
asbestos.

In an Opinion dated December 29, 2015, which is available at
http://is.gd/6L1KPNfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Arpert of
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's motion.

The case is DAVID ABREU, Plaintiff, v. THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-716 (MAS)(DEA) (D.N.J.).

DAVID ABREU, Plaintiff, is represented by PATRICK J. WHALEN, Esq.
-- pwhalenlaw@aol.com

MEG YATAURO, individually and in her official capacity,
Defendant,  is represented by Leonard C. Leicht, Esq. --
lleicht@morganlawfirm.com --  MORGAN, MELHUISH & ABRUTYN

SERGEANT RICHARD NAPPA, individually and in his official
capacity, Defendant, is represented by Leonard C. Leicht,
Esq. -- lleicht@morganlawfirm.com --  MORGAN, MELHUISH & ABRUTYN

ERICK SELLNOW, Defendant, is represented by Leonard C.
Leicht, Esq. -- lleicht@morganlawfirm.com --  MORGAN, MELHUISH &
ABRUTYN


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Appeals Court Remands "Brezonick"
-------------------------------------------------------
Special Administrator Sandra Brezonick appeals the summary
judgment order dismissing her claims against Pabst Brewing
Company, Miller Brewing Company, Wisconsin Electric Power Company
("WEPCO"), and Sprinkmann Sons Corporation, as well as those
defendants' relevant insurers.

She claims the Defendants, in varying ways, are liable for
exposing her husband, John Brezonick, to asbestos, which she
asserts led to the development of John's mesothelioma and
eventually his death.  Following motions for summary judgment, the
circuit court dismissed Sandra's claims against the Defendants,
concluding that those claims were barred by the construction
statute of repose.

In a Decision dated December 22, 2015, which is available at
http://is.gd/26wLXFfrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of
Wisconsin, District I, reversed the circuit court's grant of
summary judgment as to all the Defendants, and remanded the case
back to the circuit court for further proceedings.

The case is SANDRA BREZONICK, INDIVIDUALLY AND SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN BREZONICK, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLANT, v. A. W. CHESTERON COMPANY, CRANE COMPANY, GEORGIA
PACIFIC, LLC, PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION,
OWENS ILLINOIS, INC., RAPID AMERICAN CORPORATION, TRANE US, INC.,
UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION, WEIL McLAIN COMPANY, A/K/A MARLEY
WYLAIN COMPANY AND LADISH COMPANY, DEFENDANTS, EMPLOYERS INSURANCE
COMPANY OF WAUSAU, MILLER BREWING COMPANY, PABST BREWING COMPANY,
SPRINKMANN SONS CORPORATION, TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY
AND WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS,
Appeal No. 2014AP2775.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Suit Dismissal Bid in "Phillips"
--------------------------------------------------------------
At issue is Robert L. Phillips' motion to dismiss, arguing three
things:

   (1) Subject matter jurisdiction does not exist because the
amount in controversy requirement is unsatisfied.

   (2) State and federal courts maintain concurrent jurisdiction
in cases filed pursuant to Federal Employers' Liability Act
("FELA").  Because the 2015 state court action was filed first and
asserts a claim under FELA, Phillips contends that this Court
should abstain from exercising jurisdiction. Instead, Phillips
asserts that the state court action should proceed.

   (3) The plain language of the settlement agreement from 2003
does not preclude his state court action. Phillips points out that
he did not have asbestos-related lung cancer at the time of the
2003 settlement. He claims that in 2013 he was diagnosed with such
cancer. Phillips believes that the 2003 settlement does not
address the damages that he is now seeking in the 2015 state court
action.

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 29, 2015, which
is available at http://is.gd/0BIEkofrom Leagle.com, Judge
Frederick P. Stamp of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia granted Phillips' motion to
dismiss and the civil action is dismissed.  The Court finds that
it does not have subject matter jurisdiction in the case.
Moreover, even if the Court had jurisdiction, the Court would
abstain.  Notwithstanding the lack of jurisdiction, the Court has
determined that CSX's claim is not ripe for review.

The case is CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. ROBERT L.
PHILLIPS, Civil Action No. 1:15CV192.

CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Plaintiff, is represented by Luke A
Lafferre, Esq. -- luke.lafferre@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.

Robert L. Phillips, Defendant, is represented by Victoria A.
Nelson, Esq. -- vantion@antionmcgee.com -- Antion McGee Law
Group.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: GE Wins Summary Judgment in "Feaster"
------------------------------------------------------
In an action, Plaintiff Samuel R. Feaster alleges he contracted
mesothelioma while employed at New York Shipbuilding and Drydock
Company in Camden, New Jersey, and Sun Ship Yard in Chester,
Pennsylvania.  Presently, before the Court is the Motion for
Summary Judgment filed by Defendant General Electric Company.
Plaintiff opposes this Motion.

In an Opinion dated December 22, 2015, which is available at
http://is.gd/YmisZvfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Karen M. Williams
of the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, Camden Vicinage, granted GE's motion for summary judgment.

Magistrate Williams held that GE is entitled to summary judgment
because maritime law is applicable to the Plaintiff's claims
regarding GE and the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence
that he was exposed to asbestos from a product manufactured or
otherwise supplied by GE.

The case is SAMUEL R. FEASTER, Plaintiff, v. A.W. CHESTERTON
COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Civil No. 14-3417 (KMW).

SAMUEL R. FEASTER, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael B.
Leh, Esq. -- mleh@lockslaw.com -- LOCKS LAW FIRM.

GOULDS PUMP INC, Defendant, is represented by Steven Frederik Satz,
Esq. -- ssatz@hoaglandlongo.com -- HOAGLAND LONGO MORAN DUNST &
DOUKAS.

METROPOLITAN LIFE, Defendant, is represented by Richard V. Jones,
Esq. --  LAW OFFICES OF ROGER V. JONES, LLP & Roger V.
Jones., Esq. -- LAW OFFICES OF ROGER V. JONES, LLP


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Court Flips PD Ruling in "Hernandezcueva"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel and Jovana Hernandezcueva asserted claims for negligence and
strict products liability, together with several related claims,
against E. F. Brady Company, Inc., alleging that asbestos-
containing products it distributed caused Joel Hernandezcueva's
mesothelioma.  At trial, following presentation of the
Hernandezcuevas' case-in-chief, the court granted E. F. Brady's
motion for non-suit on their claim for strict products liability
and some related claims.  After the jury returned special verdicts
against the Hernandezcuevas on their negligence claim, they filed
an unsuccessful motion for a new trial.  Appellant Jovana
Hernandezcueva challenges the rulings on the motions for nonsuit
and a new trial.

The Appellant challenges the grant of nonsuit with respect to the
claim for strict liability, and the denial of the motion for a new
trial.

In a Decision dated December 22, 2015, which is available at
http://is.gd/Nldpzefrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Four, concluded that the trial court
erred in granting a nonsuit, but not in denying a new trial
because the Hernandezcuevas' evidence sufficed to show that E. F.
Brady, while acting as a subcontractor in the construction of a
commercial building, was in the stream of commerce relating to the
asbestos-containing products, for purposes of the imposition of
strict liability.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment solely
with respect to the appellant's claim for strict products
liability against respondent, and affirmed in all other respects.
The matter is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with
the opinion.  The Appellant is awarded her costs on appeal.

The case is JOVANA HERNANDEZCUEVA, Individually and as Successor
in Interest, etc. Plaintiff and Appellant, v. E. F. BRADY COMPANY,
INC., Defendant and Respondent, No. B251933.

The Arkin Law Firm and Sharon J. Arkin, Esq.; Farrise Firm
and Simona A. Farrise , Esq. for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Sherman Breitman, Esq. -- Selman Breitman LLP, Jerry C.
Popovich , Esq. -- jpopovich@selmanlaw.com  -- Selman Breitman
LLP, and N. Asir Fiola , Esq. -- afiola@selmanlaw.com  -- Selman
Breitman LLP for Defendant and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Loses Prelim. Injunction Bid vs. NARCO
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a Memorandum Opinion dated December 16, 2015, available at
http://is.gd/nAZcb3from Leagle.com, Judge Thomas P. Agresti of the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania denied without prejudice the Motion for Preliminary
Injunction filed by Honeywell International, Inc., in IN RE: ALL
MATTERS RELATED TO NORTH AMERICAN REFRACTORIES COMPANY, et al.,
Case No. 02-20198, as affected by the May 24, 2013 Order Entering
Final Decree entered at Doc. No. 7940, Debtors.

The dispute in the case stems from the bankruptcy of North
American Refractories Company, or "NARCO," that was filed on
January 4, 2002, at Case No. 02-20198.  For many years, NARCO was
a manufacturer of refractory products such as bricks, mortars,
cements, etc., that were designed for use in high-temperature
industrial applications, primarily furnaces and boilers.  Some of
the products manufactured by NARCO included asbestos among their
ingredients.  In a corporate transaction whose details are not
significant for present purposes, Honeywell effectively became the
parent of NARCO in 1986.

Judge Agresti held that the Court relies primarily on the lack of
irreparable harm to Honeywell as its reason for denying
preliminary injunctive relief, and secondarily on Honeywell's
failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits because of
insufficient evidence going to the circumstances surrounding the
creation of the NARCO Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust.
The Court believes the current manner in which the Trust is
processing claims is at least minimally protective of Honeywell's
rights so as to permit a denial of the Motion, though this should
by no means be taken as indicating one way or the other whether
the Trust's procedures will be found to be in full compliance with
the NARCO Asbestos Trust Agreement and the NARCO Asbestos Trust
Distribution Procedures once a full evidentiary record has been
presented.

The case is HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff v. NORTH
AMERICAN REFRACTORIES ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT TRUST,
Defendant and FUTURE CLAIMANTS' REPRESENTATIVE AND NORTH AMERICAN
REFRACTORIES COMPANY ASBESTOS TRUST ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
Intervenors, Misc. Case No. 15-00204-TPA, Related to Doc. No. 63
(Bankr. W.D. Pa.).

Honeywell International Inc., Party to Miscellaneous
Proceeding, represented by Darren Azman, Esq. -- dazman@mwe.com -
- McDermott Will & Emery LLP, John J. Calandra, Esq. --
jcalandra@mwe.com -- McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Michael R.
Huttenlocher, Esq. -- mhuttenlocher@mwe.com -- McDermott Will &
Emery LLP, Roger W. Richards, Esq., Peter John Sacripanti,  Esq. --
psacripanti@mwe.com -- McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Sandra B. Saunders,
Esq. -- ssaunders@mwe.com -- McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Timothy
W. Walsh, Esq. -- twalsh@mwe.com -- McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

North American Refractories Company Asbestos Personal Injury
Settlement Trust, Party to Miscellaneous Proceeding,
represented by Sameer Nitanand Advani, Esq. -- sadvani@willkie.com --
Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Peter J. Ashcroft, Bernstein-Burkley,
P.C., Joseph Thompson Baio, Esq. -- jbaio@willkie.com -- Wilkie
Farr & Gallagher LLP, Erica L. Koehl, Esq. --
ekoehl@babstcalland.com  -- Babst, Calland, Clements &
Zomnir, Dan Cogan Kozusko, Esq. -- dkozusko@willkie.com  -- Wilkie
Farr & Gallagher LLP, Stephen Clark Mouritsen, Esq. --
smouritsen@willkie.com  -- Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, David W. Ross,
Esq. -- dross@babstcalland.com  -- Babst, Calland, Clements
& Zomnir, P.C., Rachel C. Strickland,  Esq. --
rstrickland@willkie.com  -- Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Md. Court Says Manufacturer Has Duty to Warn
-------------------------------------------------------------

In a products liability case, the Court of Appeals of Maryland is
asked to determine whether a manufacturer can be liable for
failing to warn about the risk of harm from exposure to asbestos-
containing replacement parts that it neither manufactured nor
placed into the stream of commerce, but which were integral to the
operation of its product.

In a Decision dated December 18, 2015, which is available at
http://is.gd/kXh7Nifrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of Maryland
concludes that a manufacturer will have a duty to warn under
negligence and strict liability when (1) its product contains
asbestos components, and no safer material is available; (2)
asbestos is a critical part of the pump sold by the manufacturer;
(3) periodic maintenance involving handling asbestos gaskets and
packing is required; and (4) the manufacturer knows or should know
the risks from exposure to asbestos.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the
judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and remanded the case to
the Circuit Court for further proceedings.

The case is RUTH BELCHE MAY, Individually and as Executrix of the
Estate of Philip Royce May, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., etc.,
et al, No. 5, September Term, 2015.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Trust Named Plaintiff in Suit v. Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an order dated December 21, 2015, available at http://is.gd/rOyRVO
from Leagle.com, Judge Susan Illston of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California grants The Flintkote
Company's motion to add The Flintkote Trust as a plaintiff in its
action against Aviva PLC and several other insurers.

The case involves several insurance policies, including an
agreement concerning asbestos-related claims, and a 1989 agreement
between Flintkote and The Commercial Union Assurance Company Ltd.
Despite the complexity of the insurance dispute, the first issue
here is whether Aviva may substitute The Ocean Marine Insurance
Company in its place as the sole defendant in the action, to which
Judge Illston answered in the negative.  The second issue is
whether Flintkote, now undergoing a bankruptcy plan of
reorganization, may add The Flintkote Trust as a plaintiff, to
which Judge Illston answered in the positive.

The court also orders the parties to file supplemental briefs on
the applicability and proposed amount of a bond by January 15,
2016.

The Court will conduct a further Case Management Conference on
January 22, 2016 at 3:00 p.m.  A joint Case Management Conference
statement, including the newly-added parties, must be filed by
January 15, 2016.

The case is THE FLINTKOTE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AVIVA PLC,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-01638-SI.

Flintkote Company, Plaintiff, is represented by Marc S. Maister,
Esq. -- mmaister@irell.com  -- Irell & Manella LLP, Michael
Collins Smith, Esq. -- msmith@mccarter.com --  McCarter & English,
LLP, Cathy Tran Moses, Esq. -- cmoses@irell.com  -- Irell and
Manella LLP, Gita F. Rothschild, Esq. -- grothschild@mccarter.com --
McCarter and English, Louis A. Chiafullo, Esq. -- lchiafullo@mccarter.com -
-  McCarter and English & Michael Richard Fehner, Esq. --
mfehner@irell.com  --  Irell & Manella LLP.

Aviva PLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew G. Wanger, Esq. --
andrew.wanger@clydeco.us  -- Clyde & Co US, LLP, Arthur J.
McColgan, II,  Esq. -- amccolgan@wwmlawyers.com  -- Walker,
Wilcox, Matousek LLP,  Fred L. Alvarez, Esq. --
falvarez@wwmlawyers.com --  Walker Wilcox Matousek LLP , Kevin Austin
Lahm, Esq. -- klahm@wwmlawyers.com  -- Walker Wilcox Matousek
LLP & Sarah Wells Orrick, Esq. -- sarah.orrick@clydeco.us -- Clyde and Co.
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Viera" Transferred to Fla. District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Viera filed an action alleging that BASF Catalysts LLC,
Superior Materials, Inc., and Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc.,
manufactured and distributed an asbestos-containing product that
caused her late husband's death.  The Defendants move to transfer
the case to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida.

Viera argues that a Florida court cannot exercise personal
jurisdiction over Superior, and thus, that the action could not
have been filed in the proposed transferee court.  Viera also
contends that venue in Florida is improper and that Section 1404
factors weigh in favor of litigation in this district.

In an Opinion and Order dated December 21, 2015, available at
http://is.gd/Gt2UI1 from Leagle.com, Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the Defendants' motion to transfer.  Accordingly, the
action is transferred to the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

The case is CARMEN VIERA, individually and as personal
representative of the estate of PEDRO ROSADO-RIVERA, deceased,
Plaintiff, v. BASF CATALYSTS LLC, SUPERIOR MATERIALS, INC., and
WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS, INC., Defendants, No. 15-CV-3952
(JPO).

Carmen Viera, Plaintiff, is represented by Michael Cohan, Esq. -
- Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik LLP.

BASF Catalysts LLC, Defendant, is represented by Christopher W.
Healy, Esq. -- chealy@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Peter Andrew
Bellacosa, Esq. -- peter.bellacosa@kirkland.com  -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP & Tia Trout Perez, Edq. -- tia.perez@kirkland.com  -- Kirkland
& Ellis LLP.

Superior Materials, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Kerryann
Marie Cook, Esq. -- kcook@mklaw.us.com  -- McGivney & Kluger.

Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc., Defendant, is represented
by Christopher Stephen Kozak, Esq. -- ckozak@lcbf.com  --
Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford, PC & Eric T. Vissichelli, Esq. --
evissichelli@lcbf.com -- Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford, PC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Affirms Summary Judgment in "Walton"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edward Walton appeals from a judgment following an order granting
summary judgment in favor of OneBeacon Insurance Company on its
claim for subrogation.  Walton contends that the respondent failed
to demonstrate that it was entitled to equitable or contractual
subrogation.

The Appellant contends the trial court erred in granting the
respondent's motion for summary judgment and contends that the
trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial.

In an Opinion dated December 21, 2015, which is available
http://is.gd/pboRUlfrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Four, affirmed the judgment, finding
that the respondent made an adequate showing that it was entitled
to subrogation, and that the appellant failed to raise triable
issues of material fact.  The Respondent is awarded its costs on
appeal.

The case is EDWARD WALTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ONEBEACON
INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent, No. B261863.
Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett and Brian P. Barrow, Esq.
-- bbarrow@sgpblaw.com  for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Musick, Peeler & Garrett and Susan J. Field, Esq. --
s.field@mpglaw.com -- for Plaintiff and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Grants Bid to Remand Case in ""Zeringue"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Howard Zeringue filed a motion to remand his asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit to state court arguing that
Defendant Crane Co. does not meet the requirements for federal
officer removal.  Crane Co. opposes the motion.

In an Order dated December 23, 2015, which is available at
http://is.gd/aUDFM6from Leagle.com, Judge Jay C. Zainey of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
granted the Motion to Remand.

According to Judge Zainey, all of Zeringue's claims arise under
state law and the parties are not completely diverse in
citizenship.  Thus, on the face of the Petition, the Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.  Defendant Crane nonetheless removed
the suit to this Court.  In its Notice of Removal, Crane alleges
that any product that it manufactured for or supplied to the Navy,
including accompanying labels or warnings, would be subject to the
Navy's specifications and requirements. Even more specifically,
Crane states that federal officers exercised their discretion
regarding whether (1) asbestos was used in the product, and (2)
whether a warning would accompany the product.

The case is HOWARD ZERINGUE v. ALLIS-CHAMBERS CORP., ET AL.
SECTION A(5), Civil Action No. 15-4516.

Howard Zeringue, Plaintiff, is represented by Damon R. Pourciau,
Esq. -- Ardoin Law Firm & Scott Michael Galante, Esq. -- Galante &
Bivalacqua LLC.

Crane Company, Defendant, is represented by Barry C. Campbell,
Esq. -- Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC & Aleta W. Barnes, Esq. --
abarnes@dwwattorneys.com -- Dogan & Wilkinson, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Sue CSX for Fibro-Caused Lung Cancer
------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for Penn Record, reported that a Kentucky
couple is suing CSX Transportation in connection with an allegedly
asbestos-related cancer diagnosis.

James S. Collier and Mary Elizabeth Collier filed a complaint Dec.
28 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against CSX Transportation Inc., alleging that the
company was negligent in protecting its employees.

James Collier worked as a carman and welder for CSX from 1961
until 1978, the complaint states. In 2014, Collier was informed
that he had contracted lung cancer.

The couple are alleging that the cancer was caused by James
Collier's exposure to asbestos at the majority of his work sites.

The couple is seeking compensation of more than $50,000 for
punitive damages. They are represented by Robert E. Paul of Paul,
Reich and Myers PC in Philadelphia.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case
number 2:15-CV-06823


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Daughter's Suit Alleges Familial Fibro Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that a
woman has filed an asbestos lawsuit against more than 50 companies
alleging she suffered familial asbestos exposure, causing her to
develop serious health problems. Familial asbestos exposure is
exposure experienced by people whose family members worked around
asbestos and brought asbestos home on their clothing, exposing
their family members to the fibers.

According to the Madison Record, Charity Johnson was diagnosed
with mesothelioma in 2013 and is likely to die a premature death
as a result of asbestos exposure. Although Johnson did not work
around asbestos, her father allegedly did during his time as a
welder, auto mechanic and construction worker. Johnson's lawsuit
alleges her father frequently brought home asbestos dust on his
clothing.

More than 50 companies are named in the lawsuit (case number 15-L-
693, St. Clair County Circuit Court), which alleges the defendants
were negligent and committed conspiracy and willful misconduct.

Meanwhile, Yellowstone County agreed to pay $650,000 to settle a
lawsuit brought by a former janitor who alleged he developed
mesothelioma as a result of his work. The Billings Gazette reports
that Lauren DuPuis was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2014 and
filed the lawsuit in 2015. From 1987 to 1999, he worked as a
janitor at a courthouse, where he believed he was exposed to
asbestos-containing products. In 2000, the courthouse reportedly
underwent asbestos abatement processes to remove most of the
asbestos in the building.

Although DuPuis died in July 2015, his attorneys continued with
mediation rather than going before a judge. Yellowstone County
agreed to pay $650,000 to DuPuis' estate.

Mesothelioma is a fatal condition linked to asbestos exposure.
Patients can develop symptoms of mesothelioma decades after being
exposed to asbestos fibers, although sometimes symptoms develop in
10 years or less. In 2015, NPR released a report on asbestos
warning of a "third wave" of asbestos exposure, those people who
are affected by asbestos that was dormant but has since been
disturbed, such as asbestos in cement.

A study published in PLOS One examined information from the SEER
database -- including more than 14,000 patients -- from 1973 to
2009 to examine various mesothelioma treatments. Researchers found
that although there have been developments in treatment
techniques, mesothelioma patients have not experienced improved
prognosis in four decades. But they did find that cancer-directed
surgery was associated with better survival.

Researchers also found that being female, younger and receiving
treatment at early stages were factors in longer survival.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro Removal Company Owner Jailed
---------------------------------------------------
Ian MacAlpine, writing for Kingston Whig-Standard, reported that
the owner of a local asbestos removal company has been sentenced
to 45 days in jail for failing to comply with a court order made
under the Environmental Protection Act to remove asbestos waste
from his property.

Christopher Norman Joyce was sentenced in Provincial Offences
court.

Joyce was sent to jail after ignoring two previous ministry orders
to clean up and remove the asbestos.

According to a news release from the Ministry of the Environment,
Joyce took over the management of Joyce Energy Savings Company in
April of 2007 and the company operated in the Kingston area
conducting asbestos-removal services. They removed asbestos from
buildings and homes and bagged and stored the asbestos in
trailers.

MOE said Joyce was personally responsible for putting the bags of
asbestos in the trailers on properties on Hwy. 15 and on Terry Fox
Drive.

The business was headquartered  at 374 Nelson Street, just north
of Concession Street until about 2008 but asbestos was never
stored there, said the MOE.

The company had financial problems, said the ministry, and
abandoned the trailers. Afterwards, the ministry followed up on a
complaint about the abandoned asbestos waste and identified two
locations where asbestos waste was illegally being stored.

The ministry said Joyce took full responsibility for the waste at
the two locations but was unable to clean it up and dispose of it
properly despite two orders from the ministry over the past 22
months.

In 2013, the ministry ordered Joyce to hire a qualified person to
prepare a report to clean up the sites by March 1, 2013. Joyce,
said the ministry, did not comply with the deadline and was still
in non-compliance with ministry requirements in the summer of
2014, as the asbestos waste remained at his residence at this
time.

In July 2014, Joyce pleaded guilty to failing to comply with the
ministry's order. He was fined and the court issued an order
requiring Joyce to remove the asbestos waste to an approved site
within 30 days. Joyce again failed to meet the court's deadline
and following an investigation by the ministry's Investigations
and Enforcement Branch, he was charged with non-compliance of a
court order.

On Nov. 24, 2015, Joyce was convicted of one offence under the
Environmental Protection Act for failing to comply with a court
order to remove the asbestos waste.

Kate Jordan of the communications branch of the Environment
Ministry said the business is no longer operational.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dale Farm Fined For Workers' Fibro Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Stewart, writing for Belfast Telegraph, reported that Dale
Farm Ltd says it has reviewed its health and safety procedures
after it was fined œ30,000 plus costs for asbestos-related
offences.

The dairy firm pleaded guilty to breaches of health and safety
legislation at court in Dungannon, according to the Health and
Safety Executive (HSENI), which brought the case.

In a statement HSENI said the prosecution related to an incident
on March 13, 2013, when two ventilation engineers were exposed to
asbestos fibres during extension work at Dunmanbridge Creamery in
Cookstown.

The engineers were not given information on the location of
asbestos-containing materials at the site prior to work
commencing.

An investigation by HSENI found that Dale Farm had an asbestos
management survey carried out 10 years before the incident but an
asbestos management plan had not been developed, nor had a
refurbishment or demolition survey been undertaken before the work
began.

Dale Farm Ltd had also failed to update its asbestos register to
take account of asbestos insulation board that was discovered in
2007 in the area where the incident took place.

Jonathan Knox, an inspector with HSENI's major investigation team,
said: "Asbestos exposure is the single greatest cause of work-
related deaths in Northern Ireland.

"Although the supply of asbestos-containing materials was
prohibited in 1999, many buildings in Northern Ireland still
contain such products.

"Those in charge of non-domestic premises have a duty to manage
the risks presented by asbestos-containing materials.

"A suitable assessment of the presence and condition of asbestos-
containing materials must be carried out and relevant information
passed to anyone liable to work on or disturb them."

Dale Farm said it acknowledged there was a breach of health and
safety at its Dunmanbridge site in March 2013, and accepted the
two charges brought by the HSENI.

"Dale Farm has reviewed its health and safety systems to ensure
that it complies with the highest standards and to mitigate the
risk of this happening in future," it added.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibro in Older Schools Still Poses Health Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dick Uliano, writing for WTOP.com, reported that construction on a
Montgomery County middle school was interrupted when asbestos
tiles were found buried at the site.

The tiles were the flooring surface of the long-demolished
Kensington Junior High. The job of removing the potentially
cancer-causing materials was scheduled.

State inspectors have been at the site and will continue to check
that the hazardous job of asbestos abatement is being done in
compliance with state laws and regulations, according to Jay
Apperson, a spokesman for the Maryland Department of the
Environment.

The year 2016 marks the 30th anniversary of the federal Asbestos
Hazard Emergency Response Act. Signed into law in 1986 by
President Ronald Reagan, the law aims to protect students,
teachers and school staff from the dangers of asbestos.

"Any school built before 1980 or 1981 almost certainly includes
asbestos materials," says Alex Formuzis, Vice President at the
Environmental Working Group Action Fund. The environmental group
says there are still asbestos risks and it charges that many
states are not adequately addressing it.

"States are required to regularly inspect schools for the presence
of asbestos," Formuzis says.

In 2015, Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA, ranking member of the Senate
committee on Environment, asked all states for information about
asbestos in their school buildings.

"30 states including Maryland and Virginia ignored that inquiry
entirely," Formuzis says.

The environmental group says parents with children in older school
buildings can find out about any risk of asbestos, because under
the terms of the 30 year old federal law every school is required
to keep records of how they inspect and manage asbestos.

"Parents can go an ask for the asbestos action plan at the schools
where their kids go and the schools are required to provide that,"
Formuzis says.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Allows Fibro Suit to Proceed to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honorable Peter Moulton ruled on December 14th, 2015 that a
plaintiffs' asbestos lung cancer case (Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Index No. 107016-08) can proceed to a jury against
defendant Aurora Pump Company.

The plaintiff in the action represented by Levy Konigsberg, LLP
provided less than one day of deposition testimony before his
failing health necessitated an adjournment. According to J.
Moulton's decision, the plaintiff testified that his asbestos-
related lung cancer was caused in part by his work with asbestos-
containing gaskets and packing located in and on Aurora pumps
during his time as a merchant marine. Unfortunately, the plaintiff
succumbed to his asbestos-related lung cancer approximately five
years later. J. Moulton explains that despite the testimony
against Aurora, at no time during the following five years did
Aurora make any attempt to protect their interests by cross-
examining the plaintiff.

Instead, Aurora filed a motion with the Supreme Court of New York,
New York County seeking dismissal of plaintiff's claims against
them. According to J. Moulton, in Aurora's motion, they argue the
plaintiff's deposition cannot be used against them because Aurora
did not cross-examine the plaintiff. Without the deposition,
Aurora argues, there is no evidence to support the plaintiff's
case. The plaintiff's case is part of the New York City Asbestos
Litigation, a large group of asbestos personal injury cases which
are coordinated in New York City. Levy Konigsberg represents this
plaintiff as well as many others in the New York City Asbestos
Litigation.

Judge Moulton, the presiding Judge for the New York City Asbestos
Litigation, rejected Aurora's arguments and denied their requests
for dismissal. Judge Moulton explained in his December 14, 2015
opinion that Aurora's unexplainable inaction during the five year
period following plaintiff's one day of testimony amounts to a
waiver of their right to cross-examine the plaintiff. As a result
of this waiver, the plaintiff represented by Levy Konigsberg, LLP
may use the incomplete deposition to support their claims Aurora.
Judge Moulton states in his opinion that "it was incumbent upon
Aurora to demand its right to depose plaintiff. . . [i]nstead,
defendant elected to do nothing."

Because of this ruling, the plaintiff's family will be able to
continue their fight against the defendants that caused their
loved one's disease and demise as the case pushes toward trial.
This is an important decision because in some cases plaintiffs
with asbestos lung cancer or mesothelioma are unable to complete
their depositions due to failing health. According to this
opinion, a defendant cannot game the system by doing nothing when
a deposition is not completed and then later trying to strike the
plaintiff's testimony. The plaintiff's family is represented by
Levy Konigsberg, LLP and the motion was briefed and argued by LK
asbestos attorney Nicholas Novack.

Levy Konigsberg LLP has been representing men and women suffering
from asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma for more than
30 years. The firm's deep team of asbestos trial attorneys
consists of three generations of lawyers who learn from each other
and pass on knowledge and expertise from generation to generation.
In 2013, Levy Konigsberg was named Plaintiff's Product Liability
Law Firm of the Year by U.S. News and World Report. The firm
regularly tries and settles asbestos cases throughout the Country.
For more information, please call 1-800-637-6529 or visit
http://www.levylaw.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Alexandria Workers Confront Town Over Fibro
------------------------------------------------------------
WNYF.com reported that some Alexandria highway workers confronted
town leaders about what they say were hazardous working conditions
at the Alexandria Chamber of Commerce building in December.

The workers claim they were denied gear like respirators after
finding what they believed was asbestos while working on the
second floor.

"To make matters worse, we are now left to believe that the town
board, the supervisor and the highway superintendent knowingly
sent us into this building containing hazardous materials," Mike
Tibbels, one of the workers, said.

In response, the town released a statement through an attorney.

The town says on December 22, environmental consulting firm
Adirondack Operations began investigating what was found on the
second floor. On the December 28, Adirondack Operations told the
town that what it found was bulk vermiculite insulation, which
usually doesn't contain asbestos.

Air samples from Adirondack Operations on both floors of the
building found asbestos levels were at a safe limit.

At the meeting, the town board approved a $24,000 contract for
Independent Commercial Contractors to clean-up the second floor
and a dumpster.

In the statement, the town says on January 4, it offered medical
tests to the employees who worked at the Chamber of Commerce.

That statement also says none of those employees have undergone
testing.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Lincoln Leisure Center Closed Due to Fibro
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Studzinski, writing for WJBC.com, reported that the City of
Bloomington has temporarily shut down the Lincoln Leisure Center
after finding asbestos in a boiler room.

Mayor Tari Renner explained the asbestos was discovered while
staff was performing maintenance in the room.

"The city acted quickly and decisively to address this situation
the moment that we became aware of it. We are now in the process
of gathering evidence to decide how to remediate the situation,"
said Renner. "Let me also make clear that there is no reason to
believe that this is serious."

Tim Kiefer with Farnsworth Group, which is consulting the city on
the issue, said considering the age of the building, this is not
an uncommon thing to happen.

"There is no evidence to support that there has been widespread
contamination throughout the facility, but there is additional
evaluation going on to confirm," Kiefer said.

The city will have crews in the building to begin the abatement of
the asbestos, but is not sure how long full removal will take. In
the meantime, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Eric Veal
said the city is working to find alternate locations for the
various programs normally held at the center.

"Anything where we can pick up the program supplies and take it to
another location, and have the space and have the ability, which I
do believe we will have, we will do that," Veal said.

Bloomington is also not yet sure what the cost of removing the
material will be.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: ND High Court Affirms Summary Judgment Award
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that the North Dakota Supreme
Court has affirmed an award of summary judgment in a take-home
asbestos exposure suit, finding that the plaintiff had failed to
raise a genuine issue of material fact, regardless of the court's
position on whether a duty of care can be imposed in such cases.

In the Jan. 14 opinion, the state high court ruled that there was
no evidence in the record that would establish that the defendant,
the decedent's father's former employer, knew of asbestos-related
dangers during the time period in question, or that a special
relationship existed between the company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Woman Pleads Guilty to Hiding Fibro
----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a San Francisco woman faces up
to two years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in
fines after pleading guilty to a federal charge that she didn't
tell Louisiana regulators about asbestos in the Mississippi Queen
steamboat before it was demolished.

Chiu's company, Cheery Way Inc., faces up to five years' probation
and large fines.

Chiu and Cheery Way agreed to plead guilty to Clean Air Act
violations after waiving indictment. Prosecutors filed evidence
showing Chiu and Cheery Way knew the board contained asbestos but
didn't tell a Pierre Part demolition contractor. Sentencing for
Chiu and Cheery Way is set for May 18.

Removal of asbestos is heavily regulated, in large part because
exposure to asbestos fibers can cause respiratory problems and
rare cancers.

The 376-foot Mississippi Queen began plying the Mississippi River
system in 1976. Once owned by the Delta Queen Steamboat Co. before
its parent company's bankruptcy in 2001, the ship was bought by
another company but taken out of service in 2007 with intentions
to renovate it. When that didn't work out, the ship was sold for
scrap to a California company owned by Chiu for $800,000 in
October 2010, according to evidence prosecutors introduced in
court.

But The New Orleans Advocate reports that plan resulted in a state
Department of Environmental Quality probe in May 2011 after an
anonymous tip about possible asbestos-related work on the
steamboat happening at Argosy Boat Co. in Pierre Part.

Cheery Way had a company conduct tests and found asbestos in the
ship's walls and ceiling, according to the court documents, but
didn't tell regulators or Argosy Boat.

Prosecutors said the contractor, who they did not name but DEQ
records show was Argosy Boat, had no prior asbestos abatement
experience and was not a certified asbestos abatement contractor.
Workers started demolition without being required to take safety
precautions.

Dave Reidt, owner of the now shuttered Argosy Boat, said the
incident was his company's first job and cost him everything he
had. He claimed prosecutors cleared him of criminal wrongdoing.

Anna Christman, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in
New Orleans, would not directly comment on Reidt's claim but noted
that only Chiu and Cheery Way were named in the bill of
information Dec. 4 bringing charges over the incident.

Tim Beckstrom, DEQ spokesman, said the Mississippi Queen was sold
for scrap. The company Chiu used to buy the steamboat paid
$245,248 to remediate the demolition site in Pierre Part,
prosecutors said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: NZ Fibro Sufferers Thrown Lifeline
---------------------------------------------------
Kirsty Wynn, writing for New Zealand Herald, reported that
asbestos sufferers claiming accident compensation may have been
thrown a lifeline when ACC Minister Nikki Kaye said she would
review entitlement legislation.

Ms Kaye had been following the story of Deanna Trevarthen who has
been declined ACC funding because she was not employed in an
asbestos-related industry. Instead specialists believe the 44-
year-old was exposed to the deadly fibres on regular extended
visits to her electrician father's workplace.

Ms Kaye said that as a minister she couldn't get involved in
individual cases but she wanted to assure Ms Trevarthen and others
she was going to look at the ACC law surrounding asbestos
exposure.

"This is heartbreaking for her and her family and I feel for her.
I feel very much for her and what she is going through," Ms Kaye
said.

"ACC have to implement the law and that is what it has done, but I
am going to have a look at the law around entitlement."

Ms Kaye said she was looking at ACC entitlement cases within the
next three to six months and would include asbestos exposure.

"I have had some advice and am aware of the legal issue and I am
going to look at this with regard to the law," Ms Kaye said.

"We know more and more because of medical research so this would
be a case of looking at medical advances and if the law is still
fit for purpose.

"Gradual process has been an area where there have been a range of
developments. We have to make sure we don't stand still and ensure
it fits the purpose.

"I'm definitely going to have a look at it."

When the law was written doctors believed only long-term exposure
to asbestos caused harm, explaining the link to work in asbestos-
exposed industry. Medical advances have revealed there is no safe
level of asbestos exposure.

Ms Trevarthen returned to work part time to help save for expected
medical bills of up to $200,000 for life-extending treatments
additional to six courses of government-funded chemotherapy.

Ms Trevarthen's partner, Greg Robertson, said ACC legislation
written in 2001 had let them down.

"The system has fallen down for us so essentially we are in a
position where family may be called upon and houses mortgaged," Mr
Robertson said.

"It is the first time Deanna has ever needed help, and it just
isn't there. I'm disappointed in this country."

Stephanie Melville from ACC said the decision to withhold cover
had been made in accordance with the legislation.

"We have contacted Deanna and Greg to fully explain the decision
so they have both context and disclosure of the decision-making
process," Ms Melville said.

"We've also given Deanna a full copy of her file to review."

Mr Robertson said Ms Trevarthen had returned to work three days a
week but "was struggling".

"She is exhausted all of the time and all of her energy is going
into maintaining weight, she has gone from 64kg to 48kg," Mr
Robertson said.

He said she was working despite a tightening pain "like wearing a
glove that is too small" in her chest.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Former Teacher Sues Over Fibro Cancer
------------------------------------------------------
Layth Yousif, writing for The Comet, reported that Paul Crabtree
was a religious education teacher at Bessemer School in Hitchin
between 1972 and the secondary school's clossure in 1982.

He worked in a postwar prefab classroom with asbestos in its
fabric for most of his time on the staff.

Mr Crabtree is now fighting a rare form of cancer called
mesothelioma that develops from cells of the mesothelium -- the
protective lining that covers many of the internal organs of the
body.

Many experts agree that this cancer is most commonly caused by
exposure to asbestos.

Victims may have inhaled or ingested asbestos fibres, or been
exposed to airborne asbestos dust in other ways.

Mr Crabtree, 68, who went on to teach at Royston's Roysia Middle
School between 1989 and 2004, said: "I retired early from teaching
when I was 57 because I had been diagnosed with multiple myeloma.

"I've had a melanoma removed from my arm. Nobody suggested those
other two cancers were connected with asbestos but now a third 'm'
-- mesothelioma -- is going to get me.

"I was in the same classroom at Bessemer for 16 years.

"Asbestos was removed from the school from 1983 onwards following
the accepted practice of the day.

"The wisdom at the time was that if you left the asbestos alone it
was all right -- but I have been affected by it."

With the help of lawyers at Irwin Mitchell, one of the UK's
biggest firms, Mr Crabtree is bringing a civil court case against
Herts County Council.

No financial settlement has yet been agreed with the council and
talks between the two parties are continuing. A spokesman for
Herts County Council said that as action is pending it would be
'inappropriate' to comment further.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Berkeley Farm Worker Dies of Fibro Disease
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josh Wright, writing for Gazette, reported that mystery surrounds
the death of a 63-year-old horse breeder from Purton who had never
been known to come into contact with asbestos but died from a
cancer caused by the deadly mineral.

Susan Nelson had worked on the same farm near Berkeley all her
life and experts could not find any trace of asbestos fibres in
her lungs after her death.

But an inquest at Gloucestershire Coroner's Court heard that she
had died from malignant mesothelioma, a lung cancer for which the
only known cause is asbestos exposure.

It usually affects people who worked with the substance many years
ago before its dangers were known.

Ms Nelson died at her home, the former Berkeley Hunt Inn at Purton
on August 13, 2015, and is survived by her 91-year-old mother.

Gloucestershire Coroner Katy Skerrett heard that 90 per cent of
malignant mesothelioma cases could be related to asbestos
exposure.

But Ms Nelson lived all her life on the farm, which she took over
from her parents and they had taken over from her grandparents.

The hearing was told that there could have been asbestos on the
farm, but this had not been confirmed.

A post mortem examination carried out by consultant pathologist Dr
John McCarthy found plural plaques in the lungs, which were
indicators of asbestos exposure.

But analysis of lung tissue found none of the deadly fibres
normally seen in such cases and the inquest heard this absence of
asbestos occurred in only 10 per cent of mesothelioma deaths.

Dr McCarthy gave the cause of death as mesothelioma, which had
caused bronchial pneumonia.

Mrs Skerrett had asked her officers to find out more about Ms
Nelson's occupation and possible exposure to asbestos but they
were unable to find any detailed work history.

Ms Nelson's GP Dr Peadar Walshe said she had suffered from
Parkinson's disease from 2010, but did not suffer from respiratory
problems until 2015.

She had suffered from a shortness of breath for three months and a
biopsy found that she had mesothelioma.

He said she had no known exposure to asbestos although she
believed there was some in the farm buildings.

Summing up, Mrs Skerrett said death could have been from natural
causes or from exposure to asbestos.

She said: "The vast majority of these types of tumour are caused
by exposure to asbestos, but against that, there were no fibres
present and no features of asbestosis.

"I am unable to look at the occupational history and see how the
cancer might have been caused, so I will record an open
conclusion."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Contractor Jailed for Fibro Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Miedema, Esq. -- adrian.miedema@dentons.com -- at Dentons,
in an article for JD Supra, wrote that every now and then a case
comes along to remind us that violators of occupational health and
safety legislation can be sent to jail.

Mind you, this case involved not only serious safety violations,
but also deceit and illegal dumping.

An Ontario contractor has been jailed for 30 days and fined
$45,000, after a successful prosecution by the Ontario Ministry of
Labour, for violating the asbestos regulation under the Ontario
Occupational Health and Safety Act.

According to the Ministry of Labour court bulletin, on two
separate dates in 2014, the contractor, along with at least one of
his workers, went to a residential home to remove asbestos-
containing insulation from the attic.

The contractor did not separate and seal off the work area; did
not have any decontamination facilities in place; did not identify
the work area with any signs warning of an asbestos dust hazard;
did not wear protective clothing; and he and his worker wore
respirators that were not fit-tested and on which they were not
trained. Further, the contractor did not notify the Ministry of
Labour of the asbestos removal work as required by the asbestos
regulation. The contractor had told the homeowner that the removal
work was being done in accordance with the asbestos regulation,
and that the contractor was certified to do the work, but neither
was true. The homeowner and two other people were in the home
while the work was being done.

The Ministry of Labour, Ministry of Environment and police got
involved when someone reported that vacuum bags with asbestos-
containing insulation had been illegally dumped on private
property.

After a trial, the contractor was found guilty on nine charges
under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulation 278/05
("Designated Substance -- Asbestos on Construction Projects and in
Buildings and Repair Operations") under the OHSA.  The court
stated that this was a case of clear deceit and misrepresentation
by the contractor and total disregard for the health and safety of
workers and the public.

The court then imposed the thirty-day jail sentence and $45,000
fine.

The Ministry of Labour's court bulletin may be accessed here.



                            *********

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 2016. 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  * * *